Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 July	18 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 delete. Unanimity that this company fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lame Mage Productions[edit]

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

Article on for-profit corporation is mentioned on a handful of non-RS fan sites (e.g. onlysp.com) but no RS are discovered during a standard BEFORE (newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google News, Google Books). One offline source ("Designers and Dragons" by the game company "Evil Hat Productions" [1] is included in the article itself. The company once raised $30,000 on Kickstarter. We don't even have enough info to source the company's physical location (which is unlisted on its website); based on the copyright notice on the website this appears to be a sole proprietorship run by a guy who has a full-time job elsewhere. Chetsford (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not notable.Forest90 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable and independent sources that are about this company. Fails WP:ORG as far as I can tell. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV, thus fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Masum Reza^📞 19:58, 24 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 Mitch Daniels. Clear consensus that the subject is not independently notable but that 'merge' is appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheri Daniels[edit]

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

First ladies of a state are not inherently notable. Nothing suggests that this particular individual meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All notability is derived from being married (twice) to Mitch Daniels, the article of whom could use a Personal life section. StonyBrook (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested and per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Spouses of state governors may be notable if they can be properly sourced as clearing WP:GNG — it's a no-brainer, frex, that Maria Shriver ain't getting deleted, given that she was already independently notable for her prior career before Arnie was even governator at all — but they aren't all handed an automatic "inherent" notability freebie just for existing, and one magazine profile is not enough coverage all by itself to get Cheri Daniels over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Mitch Daniels. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As above merge to Mitch Daniels.Forest90 (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As nominator suggested no one is inherently notable. It doesn't appear that she meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Should be merge and then redirect to Mitch Daniels. Masum Reza^📞 17:16, 24 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. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 16:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Pod 9[edit]

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

This article on a company that makes a WWII game has been sourced entirely to its own website for the last 14 years. Maintenance tags were placed on the article six years ago and have yet to be acted upon.

A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find any RS. The only sources uncovered in BEFORE are a press release [2], an incidental mention on a Finnish blog [3], and an incidental mention on something called vg247.com [4]. Per WP:GNG, notability must be demonstrated, not simply declared or asserted. In the absence of any reliable sources of any kind (let alone significant coverage) the article fails the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Snow Keep~~ Merge and Redirect to Heavy Gear - I am changing my mind, because now that we have improved sources and content, it would make sense to consolidate them to the best-known product until we have time to document the company itself more thoroughly using the dead tree sources. Plus, ideally, I would like to expand the author/game designer articles more than I would emphasize the publisher itself, though I know that's a personal choice and goes against some traditions in the field. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the original !vote text follows - in addition to the substantial discussion in Appelcline's Designers & Dragons (a parennial reliable source in this field), Dream Pod 9 is also cited in Chandler & Chandler's Fundamentals of Game Development (2011), Mogensen's "Dice-rolling systems in RPGs" (2007), Williams and Rooney's "From book to field" (2018), the company has also been discussed on gizmodo, guildcompanion.com, gamemonkeys.com and Pyramid, and that's without even looking for the print reviews that were dominant in the 1990s when the Pod came to prominence. Therefore, snow keep. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

-Morgensen's "Dice-rolling systems in RPGs" (2007) Can we get an OCLC number on this? Worldcat doesn't seem to think this book exists (see: [5]).

-Chandler & Chandler's Fundamentals of Game Development (2011) The only reference I can find to the company in this book is the following: "Heavy Gear is a trademark of Dream Pod 9". Proof of existence is not proof of notability.

-Williams and Rooney's "From book to field" (2018) ... according to the publisher it is "an online publishing imprint that makes books and games available as PDF ... as free downloads" [6] - this book (ebook?), according to Worldcat, is not currently held by any known library in the world. While I appreciate not every publisher is a Springer or Taylor & Francis, I question if a publisher with no office, no employees, and which creates PDFs it hands out for free (but no library will accept for cataloging) is a reliable source as we generally understand the term.

-"the company has also been discussed on ... http://www.gamemonkeys.com/reviews/g/gearkriegrpg.htm gamemonkeys.com" - "gamemonkeys.com" is an anonymously written site (see: [7])that doesn't show evidence of a gatekeeping process and has not been sourced by other RS, ergo, is not itself RS

-"the company has also been discussed on ... gizmodo, guildcompanion.com... Pyramid" - No, I believe that's incorrect. These are WP:PRODUCTREVs of specific products which already have WP pages and are not discussions of the company itself; per WP:COMPANY and WP:NOTINHERITED companies do not inherit notability from the products they manufacture

Thanks, Chetsford (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the Pyramid citation. For Mogensen, Chandler & Chandler, and Williams and Rooney, perhaps you would have more luck using Google Scholar?

As we have preciously discussed, Chet, NOTINHERITED does not apply to the relationship between creators and their works; in particular, creators do indeed inhetit notability from their works. In the case of Dream Pod 9, many of their creations, including their four most notable games, are creations of the studio as a whole and in some cases, such as the Silhouette system, these works have exclusively corporate ownership without being the product of one or more individual authors. The production of notable games and other intellectual properties does indeed grant notability, just as Disney would be notable for the IP it has created, bought or stolen (q.v. the birthday song) even if its corporate shenanigans did not occupy our business pages. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... perhaps you would have more luck using Google Scholar?" No, I'm afraid I didn't. Chetsford (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange to me, as it is how I found those sources. Have you had trouble searching using Google Scholar before? Newimpartial (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. So, what is the OCLC number to "Dice-rolling systems in RPGs"? Or a DOI number? Honestly, at this point, just anything to prove it exists. Second request. Chetsford (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't use Google Scholar for yourself, how does it become my responsibility to do it for you? Newimpartial (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it's unusual in an AfD to repeatedly refuse to provide an OCLC, LOC, or DOI number — or, indeed, any information by which one could verify that an offline source actually exists — I'll AGF it does. Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"creators do indeed inhetit notability" Can you demonstrate this is a WP policy by linking to it? Per WP:PRODUCT "a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable". Chetsford (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP specifically excludes "entertainment groups [and] co-authors ... covered by WP:Notability (people). The latter specifies that creators may demonstrate Notability by having created "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This precisely describes the case of Dream Pod 9. Newimpartial (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:NCORP specifically excludes "entertainment groups [and] co-authors covered by WP:Notability (people)" I regret to inform you that "Dream Pod 9" is not a person. Chetsford (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Pod 9 is the corporate form for a group of creatives ( designers and authors) to which NCREATIVE applies. If you were to read the entry in Designers & Dragons, this would be clear to you. Please try not to engage in Straw Man argumentation or to be facetious. Newimpartial (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Dream Pod 9 is the corporate form for" Yes, that's correct. Therefore, WP:NCORP applies. WP:NBIO applies to natural, not juristic, people. Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetford, the carveout from NCORP applies to groups of "natural" people, regardless of their "juristic" status, e.g. "groups of inventors". Please try to keep up. Newimpartial (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Keep? The way I see it, if Dream Pod 9#Properties truly are notable, then having made multiple notable games makes that game maker notable. However, none of those games are greatly sourced (Heavy Gear being an exception, that one clearly is notable), so they are possibly all deletable. It's also possible that everything, as standalone entries, aren't notable, but could be merged together and as a whole attain notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in the AfD. Just for full disclosure, I plan to sequentially nominate each of Dream Pod 9 Inc.'s products (except Heavy Gear, for reasons you noted) for deletion after this closes as they all seem to be advertisements that fail WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chet, you can do what you like, but as all of the Dream Pod games with articles were extensively reviewed, they will all pass the GNG, and so you will simply ending up wasting your own time. Would you not rather take up another hobby, like billiards? Newimpartial (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this time, I have heard of them, so suspect they may be notable. The problom is it was all in gaming mags I no longer own.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newimpartial, although I will see what I can do to improve this article this week given my limited time. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added one source that includes several pages of discussion on the company and its games; I will see if I can find anything else, but the coverage is likely to be print sources rather than online coverage. At minimum, if this does not go to "Keep" then I think it should be merged somewhere - perhaps to its most well-known game Heavy Gear, or to a list of game publishers, or something. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there is a product review from Dragon magazine which discusses the company's Silhouette game system; the system does not have its own article, so I believe it should be discussed in the company page, and I believe that the review does help since it discusses the system. BOZ (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Eh. Saw this mentioned at WP:RSN. WP:NOTINHERITED seems pretty straightforward here. We need significant coverage of this subject in reliable independent sources. So far every single source I've seen is a brief mention of the company in an article that's about one of it's properties. E.g. "published by Dream Pod 9". Even if we lump a pile of those together, we still don't have notability. A corporation isn't an artist or a band. Companies aren't "creative professionals" even if the people who work for it are creative professionals. None of the links above are to significant coverage of this subject, and "go Google Scholar it" with strange evasiveness about particulars is not reassuring. I went ahead and did so, finding e.g. Dice-Rolling Mechanisms in RPGs. The only mention it has of the subject is this line: "One of the simplest is to roll a number of dice equal to the ability and then pick the highest result, as is done in Dream Pod 9's 'Silhouette'." Again here there is nothing at all about this subject, and its product only given as a quick example. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the citation is that it is a scholarly author writing within their area of expertise, and the die-rolling system in question is referred to and cited as authored by "Dream Pod 9" as a collective author - it is an IP that cannot be attributed to an individual within the studio, and is therefore a perfect example of how the developers work. This is directly equivalent to the "groups of inventors" discussed explicitly in the carveout from NCORP (who may also operate legally as a partnership or LLC) to which NBIO also applies. If this is not clear, the chapter (!) on Dream Pod 9 in Designers & Dragons Vol. 3, an impeccable RS in this field, should be sufficient to explain. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on google searches the company does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and I am not finding any significant coverage, to show that the subject meets WP:NCORP. The subject isn't a White Wolf Publishing, or a TSR, at least at this point. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Pod 9 peaked in influence and commercial appeal in the 1990s, so these internet searches are not beside the point. Please remember that notability is not temporary, and the Pod was covered reasonably extensively in print publications in the 1990s. Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newimpartial. Also the addition of mention from Applecline strengthens the article. Guinness323 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on finding more sources, Guinness. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness - one of the sources you've added returns a dead link and the other doesn't appear to actually mention the name "Dream Pod 9" in it. Can you clarify if you meant to add these? Chetsford (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I've repaired the deadlink with a link to an archived copy. The first link does not mention Dream Pod 9 because is a citation for the claim that Protoculture Addicts is the oldest surviving mecha magazine in North America. I've also changed the exact wording of that statement from "the first" to "one of the first", since the source notes five older mecha magazines which have ceased publication.Guinness323 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Just to clarify, while these may or may not be fine sources to use in the article and you've used them appropriately in a "background" section to cite specific claims, they don't contribute to establishing WP:N if they don't even mention the thing about which the article is about. And "colonydrop.com" appears to be (or was, since it's offline) a blog (see WP:SELFPUBLISH) written by "Sean" (no last name) and "Todd" (no last name). Chetsford (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[8] is the source discussed above. Probably self-published, but the author is reasonably well published in the field of CS math. It's certainly independent and probably meets WP:SPS. I tend to favor keeping articles about companies with multiple notable products, and that appears (for now?) to be the case here. Call me a weak keep. Hobit (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, here is a RS review that dedicates several paragraphs to discussing the Silhouette core system, which is a Dream Pod 9 IP that could not be tied to any one individual author/creator. This review discusses Dream Pod 9 explicitly (rather than relying on NBOOK/NAUTHOR rules for Notability), and may prove helful for this relisted discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed, but backed out as WP:BADNAC. See also WP:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 16#Dream Pod 9.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after DRV and relisting: Note that the product review from Dragon was added after the first Delete response above, and although it was added before the second Delete response (which seemed to misunderstand that the company is still actively producing products the way it once was, although I am not sure if they are even active at all to be honest) and I do not think the user took that source into account. The relevance in my opinion of that source is not so much that it includes reviews of the games, but that it comments on the Silhouette system, which does not have its own article, and is the core element of the company's games, and I believe that an independent source such as that is necessary to include in the article so that we have more about the Silhouette system. I added the source Designers & Dragons after both delete votes, which contains several pages of information and commentary on the company. I will AGF from Hobit's response that the self-published "Dice Rolling Mechanisms in RPGs" comes from a reliable author in the field of CS math. I believe that the commentary from "Next Generation" magazine – an independent reliable source from the video game industry – is most useful in its contrasting the smaller DP9 with the much larger FASA, as the video game publisher at the time had gone from licensing FASA's BattleTech to DP9's Heavy Gear. I have not seen the "PC Gamer" source to know what it says about the company. I believe that the above is enough to meet the minimum for the WP:GNG, and thus I affirm my initial Keep, although if consensus ultimately disagrees with me, then I think we have enough to show that rather than deleting it should be merged somewhere. Meanwhile, I will see what else I can do to find more sources for this topic, which are likely not easily found online due to how long ago this company was at its peak. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly suggests adding something based on The Alexandrian piece I cited just above. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Came here from a closed DRV. Can a company be notable for having products which were reviewed given WP:NOTINHERITED? The only potentially significant coverage of the company I've seen are the two Lien Multimedia articles published within four days of each other, unfortunately require a subscription to view completely, and I'm not sure that's a reliable source, or whether the articles are PR. Many of the links provided above are links to reviews of the company's products and are not of the company themselves. Even if we're going to start accepting self-published academia, Dream Pod 9 is only mentioned once and as a throwaway, which may be a good source for the article but not to demonstrate notability. Even assuming Designers & Dragons is a good offline source for WP:GNG, there's still not enough here to pass WP:NORG. If anyone has offline sources which discuss the company and not the company's products, please let me know. I also don't mind if the game-specific prose gets merged into its respective game. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this is still not a policy-compliant reading of NOTINHERITED in relation to CREATIVE. Also, the reliability of 'Designers & Dragons' has been previously affirmed, and multi-paragraph discussions of Dream Pod 9's Silhouette Core system are not "trivial mentions" per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guinness323 apparently has access to Lien Multimedia as he just added it to the article; you may want to ask what is in there? BOZ (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le Lien Multimedia (The Multimedia Link) is a respected Quebec-based French-language on-line magazine that focusses on modern media, everything from movies and TV to video games, cellphone apps, animation, the music industry, etc. They are a news organization with independent reporters, not a PR firm. Recent articles include artificial intelligence in the creative industries; Minecraft as a social learning tool for kids; the LabLabLab Project about Game Studies at Concordia University; the Montreal band Off with Their Heads; headliners for the Aboriginal Presence Festival; etc. Their articles about Dream Pod 9 are not trivial.Guinness323 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Chetsford does not read French, so he is likely to remain from Missouri on this source, contra WP:V. Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget is presumably also a WP:RS, no? Good work, Guiness323. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICv2 as well, great work! BOZ (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget is certainly RS but the article is not about Dream Pod 9. It's about one of its products. ICV2 is RS but as a trade outlet should be treated like we do Business Journals ... fine for facts, not N. I know many people !voting here are almost exclusively involved in RPG articles, but speaking as someone who is not I hope you are able to empathize that the frustration some of the other delete !voters seem to express originates out of the unique situation we find ourselves in having to continuously reiterate these points throughout this thread since they're not ones that typically require explanation in most AFDs. It is most certainly not personal nor does it represent more stringent standards being applied to the topic of fantasy role play. It's wonderful we have so many editors here on both sides of the fence genuinely interested in improving WP. Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise hope that you are able to empathize with the frustration on the other side of the argument, that people are doing their best to find the best sources we can, while it seems like you put your best effort into striking down everything we do. If your current deletion campaign against RPGs continues, then understand you are going to be seeing the same people commenting about a lot of the same things, which is not going to change just because you feel we are being repetitive and frustrating your attempts to delete these articles. I'm going to disagree with your self-assessment that you are not applying more stringent standards than at least most other editors do; take for example this recent thread on your talk page about a draft you rejected by User:Zxcvbnm, a user whom I consider from past encounters to be more in favor of deleting articles that don't prove their notability than not. You rejected that AFC and poo-pooed most of the sources he provided, yet just as soon as you rejected it another user quickly moved the article into mainspace and more sources were added; would you reject those sources as well? The video game WikiProject is a huge and successful one, and I think if you saw some of the articles there which are in as bad shape if not worse than the average tabletop RPG your head would spin - and there are probably ten times as many VG articles as there are RPG articles! So if you want to experience less frustration in life, my advice would be to lighten up. Otherwise, if you prefer to fight it out with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality just because other editors disagree with you, or maybe you are trying to prove some kind of WP:POINT with this slew of deletions, watching people scurry around gleefully like ants running away from a kid with a magnifying glass, then we will continue as we have been. Yes, we are genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia, or we would not bother. I advised you sarcastically in the DRV on this article to go after the low-hanging fruit instead of articles that might actually have a chance like this one, although I really did mean it. I see every RPG AFD that you start; some I do not even respond to, and some I give a half-hearted response to because I am letting you have those. If you see me fighting instead, then know I really do believe in that topic's potential, and I do believe that this one deserves the Keep vote I gave it. Understand that I am probably not alone when I say I do not find it wonderful that you are pursuing deletion in this subject area so heavily, nor would I consider deletion or redirection of this article an improvement to Wikipedia, when I feel that the article has room for improvement. I don't think I have anything more to add to this AFD than I did before, and I think we should leave it to any new respondents to add their take on what has already been said and done. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

people are doing their best to find the best sources we can I think that's wonderful and do empathize. I have written hundreds of articles and understand it can be a challenge to find good sources. Sometimes I've even had to abandon a draft before moving it to Mainspace upon coming to realize I did not have the minimum threshold of quality sourcing. I assure you I'm not on any type of "campaign" with RPGs. I'm actively involved in WP and specifically seek out articles other editors have slapped refimprove tags on so as to either improve or, if not possible after my best efforts, AfD. It just happens a huge percentage of articles I come across are RPG stubs. The situation is so acute that it is almost impossible to avoid. Chetsford (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So... it's simply coincidence that you have sent about 10 RPG articles to AFD within the last month alone, when I had not seen any AFD activity from you in this area for several months? You are not specifically looking for RPG articles to see if they were something that should be deleted? It was just a coincidence that when you first declined the AFC draft for Xanathar's Guide to Everything (which was not written by me, but I requested the AFC review because the new editor was having trouble doing it so it was my name you saw on the AFC review request) and then saw that same new user improve it enough where you changed your mind and accepted the article, that it was only after that when you started sending RPG articles to AFD again? I'm perhaps misinterpreting the fact that when I look on [[9]] and see your name starting 36 AFDs between Aug 13 2018 to Nov 26 2018, and then absolutely nothing at all until June 24 of this year when it started up again; I am just imagining that long gap between two bursts of continual AFD nomination in the same area, just a coincidence instead of an actual pattern? Somehow when you were looking at articles to see whether they could be saved or should be deleted, you only saw RPG articles that you perceived as deletable in those two periods of time and you just happened to spot a lot of them all together like that? You didn't just forget about deleting after RPG articles towards the end of last year or get distracted with something else, only to be reminded of it when you saw my name a month ago on an AFC review for an RPG article? I'm just trying to understand your comments, and how I should interpret your suggestion that it is "almost impossible to avoid" this "huge percentage of articles" you come across all being from the same area for four months, then none at all for seven months, and here we are back again like nothing happened. Maybe it's not for me to understand. If you see all these RPG articles in your efforts to improve sources, can you come up with one single example where you have added any source at all to any RPG article? I can't recall one, but it would help ease my mind a bit if you could think of one. BOZ (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I have no power to delete articles on WP. When articles on fantasy role play are deleted, it's the WP community that has made that decision. Beyond that, I'd suggest the rest of your comment, which seems to address issues not directly related to this specific article, would be more appropriate for a Talk page and would be happy to continue it there. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reaffirming my delete !vote. The Dragon source is, like basically everything else, about the games and says practically nothing about the company. For those curious, though it's not yet linked from the article, it's available here. As far as I can tell the keep rationale rests entirely on Designers and Dragons, which I'm unable to find even a preview of. All I can find of it is that it's a Kickstarter project, which doesn't instill me with confidence. May be perfectly reliable, but since I'm still yet to see even one other source that provides more than a brief mention, I'm still on the side of delete. These sources about the games. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the RSN discussion of 'Designers & Dragons' is here. Also, I wouldn't see a multi-paragraph discussion of the Silhouette Core system, a major IP created by and consistently attributed to Dream Pod 9 in the RS, to be a trivial mention. Newimpartial (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Rhododendrites' !vote preceded the addition of French-language business press to the article, and should be weighed accordingly. Newimpartial (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we forgo the sneaky AfD tactics to undercut !votes of people who disagree? I left a comment literally a few hours before you posted this. If a source is added and you want people to update their !vote, ping them. Leaving a comment on the source below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on newly added sources and "creative carve-out" argument: In reaffirming my delete !vote I examined all the newly added sources (or those mentioned in the AfD, such as the personal Wordpress blog/online resume of an aspiring actor named Justin Alexander "TheAlexandrian.net" [10]) and found that, in each case, they amounted to single line mentions of the company or were in objectively non-RS outlets, therefore, did not meet WP:SIGCOV. I also found CThomas's and Masem's arguments here [11] to be compelling, in which they examined whether a "creative carve out" for companies of this type exists. Beyond that, I don't believe the interests of civil discussion are served by WP:DHCYCLEing every comment so will probably leave my input on this subject at that pending this AfD's eventual closure. I very much appreciate the time and valuable input both sides of the debate have put into this interesting discussion. Chetsford (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that those esteemed editors also held that game publishers with four or five Notable works to their credit should be treated with a more relaxed Notability standard than NCORP, and you agreed, so perhaps that should also be taken into account by the closer.

Also note that acting credits do undermine anyone's reliability as a game reviewer, as Wil Wheaton can attest. And Chetsford, your rather restrictive and FRINGE views about self-published RS have been repeatedly repudiated in the past and should (evidently) carry no WEIGHT here. Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean Whil Wheaton, do you? BOZ (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So this is the source being highlighted as a discussion-changer to the point that Newimpartial is trying to undercut other people's !votes for not factoring it in. It's a weird single-paragraph promotional bit that seems to exist only to say "here's a quote from this guy". Could it be reliable? Possible, I guess, but the website takes user submissions and seems to be by/for the industry. Regardless, the basis for it is a quote from someone who works with Dream Pod 9, so even if it's not promotional it doesn't do much for significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think you would have to log in to see more? BOZ (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, BOZ; those are teaser blurbs rather than the stories themselves (there are more than one). I don't have a subscription either. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Heavy Gear – Also here from the closed DRV. The article fails to meet NCORP/GNG per source analysis. Appelcline's chapter (if it's an WP:RS; I don't have confidence in that RSN thread) focuses on DP9's predecessor Ianus, and on DP9's product line, but not on the company DP9 itself. Moby Games is user-generated content. Liem Multimedia is a local trade publication interviewing the president of a local company in the trade. The Alexandrian (assuming it's a valid WP:SPS), ICv2 and Engadget are product announcements. Dragon is a product review. All the other links in this AfD are brief mentions, mostly in product reviews. Notable products don't make a company notable. We don't have even basic information about this company, such as it's incorporation date, ownership, management, number of employees, units sold, revenue, distribution, and so forth. The company's notable products already have articles, like Heavy Gear. The company's Silhouette game system a.k.a. SilCORE is already covered at Heavy Gear#Silhouette CORE RPG Rules. "Dream Pod 9" is probably a useful search term, though, so it should be kept as a redirect to the company's main product, Heavy Gear. What little is known about the publisher can all be included in a section at Heavy Gear. – Levivich 15:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a merge and redirect to Heavy Gear would be fine for now, and the company article could be rebuilt after the other game like articles have been fleshed out and the corporate info has been properly document. I have changed my !vote accordingly.

However, Leviv, the RSN thread on Applecline was started and canvassed by the source's most hostile skeptic, so the fact that it does find the source reliable should be considered a good baseline. And I don't know what version of the source you read, but the chapter in Volume 3 dedicates most of the page count to post-1995 Dream Pod, with only a couple of pages for pre-1995 Ianus. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first page or so of Appelcline's chapter focuses on Ianus for about the first page, and then the remaining pages do focus on DP9. It does give the founding of Ianus as 1985 by Claude Pelletier, and that DP9 split off from them in 1995. In my experience, smaller game publishers like this rarely if ever report things like number of employees, units sold, revenue, or distribution figures publicly; I don't even know if bigger companies like Wizards of the Coast do that. BOZ (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your comments. The version of Appelcline I'm reading is this one (pp. 116–124). Going through it page by page: 116–118 are about Ianus. DP9 discussion starts on page 119 with Meanwhile, the now fully independent Dream Pod 9 kept the majority of Ianus’ dozen employees, overseen by Pierre Ouellette. They kept the roleplaying titles too, of course, including the brand-new Project A-Ko. The newly independent Dream Pod 9 didn’t ever supplement Project A-Ko. Instead they created a second Silhouette game, Heavy Gear (1995). The rest of 119–120 is about Heavy Gear. Jovian Chronicles on 120, Tribe 8 on 121, some other games and Silhouette on 122. Granted, page 123 is mostly about DP9's transitions around 2004. Page 124 is half a page about DP9's future products. All in all, these nine pages mostly cover Ianus and DP9's games, with only about one page being spent on DP9 itself, cumulatively. Call that SIGCOV and it's still just one example, and we need multiple. We'd need at least another one like Appelcline, which we don't have. As for that RSN, I don't have confidence in it because of who closed it, and because it looked like it was closed based on a counting of votes (note the table of votes). I thought the 120 fact checkers point was rather persuasive, though, and there were good arguments both for and against independence, but I think that source would benefit from a new RfC with a better close (the result may be the same, I'd just have more confidence in it if it were "cleaner"). I think if you compare the information available about DP9 with what we have on TSR or Wizards of the Coast, the contrast is very strong; there is rich detail (about the companies' employees, layoff numbers, units sold, etc.), sourced to multiple independent RSes. I agree that this level of sourcing doesn't exist for smaller RPG publishers, and I think thats because they're not notable. :-) In fact, I think lack of sourcing proves that they're not notable. Heavy Gear is notable; Silhouette may be notable in its own right; but DP9 just isn't. Outside of very few examples (Appelcline and maybe Lien), all of which come from within the industry (as opposed to "pure", non-RPG-publishing media like Boingboing.net or Gizmodo), nobody has ever really paid attention to this company, as far as I can tell. If additional examples of SIGCOV are uncovered, the redirect could always be turned back into an article, as Newimpartial suggests. – Levivich 16:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the book--I don't think I'd ever seen a copy online. I'd say the chapter on DP9 is pretty solid. Yes, it starts on Ianus, but it would be more than reasonable to include that history in this article and redirect Ianus to here. While it was more than just a name change, it appears to have been the same company. And yes, how their products were designed and received is really coverage of the company. I mean the chapter is called "Dream Pod 9" after all. So the author clearly felt he was writing about the company.

I personally think the book chapter has great coverage. It appears to meet all the requirements of an RS. The sum of all the other sources, IMO, meets the requirement for "multiple". One good source (and it's rare to find this good of a source on a smaller company) and lots of weaker ones is certainly enough to write a solid article. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. I know Chetsford mentioned putting other DP9 properties (Jovian Chronicles, Tribe 8, and Gear Krieg, etc) up for deletion. Should those be merged with DP9? I don't think merging DP9 & all of its properties with Heavy Gear makes the most sense. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all of these games meet NBOOK and the GNG (even if the current articles may not) so in my view it would be better to make sure each of them holds two reviews plus Alpelcline citations, as a miminum, so that each article transparently meets GNG. Chetsford is going to continue with his "from Missouri" attitude and his incompetent BEFORE practices, so the solution is to produce a situation like the current Jovian Chronicles AfD, where the delete argument is laughable and IDONTLIKEIT is utterly obvious. Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 20 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Widow's Bane[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Rose[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gouripur Sporting Club[edit]

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

Quite simply doesn't pass our notability criteria. This football club plays in the 4th tier of the Bangladeshi league system and, currently, we don't even have a page about this 4th-tier league. (which would otherwise be a sensible redirect target) A Google search avoiding Wikipedia mirrors gets 70 hits consisting mostly on betting sites and no coverage with any sort of depth. Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable football club in Bangladesh, Fail WP:GNG. --Nahal^(T) 13:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article. It's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did bit of a search. This club doesn't have much coverage in reliable sources. So fails WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 17:22, 24 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. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 06:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hissom[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable singer. Claimed charting is not GOODCHARTS and is not verified by any of the three sources used. Has got a little tabloid attention because of who his step father is but Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but falls short of GNG. Blogs, PR, primary, him talking about himself, routine announcements, listings, indiscriminate local puff. Allmusic is only a small paragraph. Only reasonable one appears to be the upcoming one from iHeartRadio. Article is straight out PR complete with official promo shot. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:00, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a bloated piece of promotion to me. Notability is not established through what is present here, and who his stepfather is shouldn't matter because notability is not inherited. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Need to cut down on a lot of fluff but page belongs on Wiki as he is a creative professional WP:CREATIVE who has created a notable work. Seems to have sufficient sources WP:RS as well. Rocktober2018 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What notable work has he created? Which sources do you consider to be good? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator covers the problems with the sources fairly well, as well as WP:BADCHARTS. Additional RS are only tangentially about the subject, or trivial namechecks. iHeartRadio Artist of the week is not a significant achievement; there are many "artist of the week" designations assigned by a particular user's listening preferences, although this article--as pointed out by the nominator--is the only decent one. Overall promotional and evidently a vanity article by SPA editor. Just another artist who releases their own music and claims major label status merely by being a customer of a major label's distribution service. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly WP:G11-worthy. It's not a good sign when the lede talks about future albums with rumored collaborations. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 25 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 Kiss (UK radio station). ‑Scottywong | spout _ 06:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Kiss[edit]

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

Radio programmes on Kiss (UK Radio Station). Not worthy of its own article with the lack of reliable sources and links. Possiblemerge or re-direct to the radio station article? - Funky Snack (Talk) 17:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every Kiss-branded station worldwide (or even a lot of non-Kiss stations) invariably has a Friday or Saturday EDM/club show which plays as their listeners go clubbing; this isn't very unique, is filled with folks who won't get articles, and doesn't stand out in any way. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think all the Kiss-branded stations broadcast this show and this makes it notable enough for an article but it needs to be completely rewritten with references to be able to pass the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, as the article currently stands, I'd vote for it to be merged with the radio station article with reference to the show being contained within that article. Rillington (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Parent seems notable, this doesn't; unable to find substantial coverage on just this program specifically on a cursory GNews/Books/Search. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:35, 23 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. There seems to be a consensus that this is more than simply a run-of-the-mill news story, and that the copious sourcing in the current version of the article is sufficient to demonstrate notability. ‑Scottywong | express _ 06:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. No indication of lasting encyclopedic significance without people just speculating, and actual notability likely won't be established just by news sources reporting on it if at all until after the event. The title also doesn't seem like a useful redirect/merge. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. Kingofaces has stubified the article while the discussion is on-going and removed almost all of the content. I reverted him once on procedural grounds, he reverted me and accused me of edit warring (???) but for any newcomers, please see the article history. SnowFire (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was essentially a stub in either version even before I nominated, and there's very little functional difference in the before and after nomination. General article cleanup was going to happen regardless of AfD or not in terms of redundant or tangential content. WP:ONUS is still policy, and people need to actually gain consensus for new content being added in where problems have been pointed out as part of normal talk page discussion and consensus building. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the version of the article immediately before you reduced it to a 4-5 sentence stub. This is what I was referring to. See article talk page for further discussion. SnowFire (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I just pointed out it was a stub in both versions when the nom actually occurred. If you mean very recent edits, they wasn't gaining consensus, so it shouldn't be any surprise it was removed. I restored it back to as much of a status quo there can be for a newer article in terms of content that actually has made it through some scrutiny under WP:DUE (independent of saying it's actually notable). That's all after responding to requests to do general cleanup like that at WP:FTN in addition to considering if page deletions were needed. Saying I reduced it to a stub as a "procedural note" when that's how it originally was without new content gaining consensus isn't really appropriate here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another joke, when its pushing up the daises and has achieved the status of the Norwegian Blue then it might be a notable Joke.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect as a useful search term to Area 51. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Area 51 at least at this point. If it happens and gets major coverage, then maybe a separate article, but right now, this is a meme, a valid search term (hence the merge) but not needed a separate article. --Masem (t) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my rationale in my delete nom is that there's nothing really to merge that isn't already at the current area 51 article section Area_51#Facebook_event_to_storm_Area_51(it sounds like you're really just asking for a redirect instead). In that case though who's really going to search for "Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us"? It's fairly nonsensical search term, and at best, we're maybe going to get people searching for "Area 51 raid". Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nonsensical: It's the verbatim title of a Facebook event that has attracted the interest of millions of people, and there are definitely going to be people who search Wikipedia using the full title. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge because of the frankly massive attention it's received. Though a recent event that also happens to be an internet meme, I feel it should either be merged back into Area 51 or kept. I can't really think of a reason to delete this versus, say any other page about an internet meme. That being said, though, its status as a stub is likely not going away any time soon.WAUthethird (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not if people delete relevant material about the fact this is a piece of satire, no. At this time it fails NPOV, and possibly wp:fringe Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All the important info is already on the Area 51 page. If the event comes and passes and newsworthy events occur, then this page could be reinstated. Don't redirect as it isn't a particularly helpful search phrase. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It’s premature. Hasn’t happened yet (and May never happen). Promotional? Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Newsworthy joke, and if it does really happen in some capacity, then newsworthy event. - AceAlen (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the nom, WP:NOTNEWS is a policy that actively discourages this kind of thinking in notability discussions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This deserves a few sentences in List of Internet phenomena with all the other earth-shattering-at-the-time-but-later-forgotten memes. but not a stand alone article. It should also be removed from Area 51 since it has no lasting significance or impact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or merge~~ per above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to relevant section of Area 51. Highway 89 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. This isn't notable on its own, but it has garnered a lot of media coverage. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on 2nd thought, delete, as a nonsensical search term. I would keep the information that is on the Area 51 page for now. But not notable on its own for a standalone article. Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Brief mention on the Area 51 article and/or List of Internet phenomena but not its own article. JamesG5 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has received much media attention. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Area_51#Facebook_event_to_storm_Area_51. That's as much coverage as this joke warrants at the moment. Anything more is UNDUE. Article also fails NOTNEWS and the WP:10YT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event may generate substantial media coverage on and around the date of the event, as some individuals have already made legitimate plans to travel to Area 51. Delete if the "meme" fizzles out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Joshua (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - into Area 51, not only per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS but also because there's not much to write about it so it doesn't need an article. This may change if incidents occur in relation to the joke. —Paleo Neonate – 03:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page SPECIFICALLY, but a mention on the Area 51 page suffices for now. As said if it blows up, this page can always be recreated. Draconiator (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep it mentioned on the main Area 51 page. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough attention for 3m people to 'join in' and News coverage by many stations. Parafron-trodaí (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Parafron-trodaí[reply]
Keep. Definitely enough coverage. I just read a lengthy Time article, and there are plenty of other sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also think this is important. --Vlad|-> 15:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and appropriately sourced. Starting to have tangible implications (e.g. on local economy surrounding Area 51) LittleT889 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as newsworthy joke, Meets GNG, Will be even more newsworthy if people go there!, Anyway keep. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. I don't see any PAG-based reason to delete it. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The nom and others explicitly mentioned WP:NOTNEWS policy as well as recentism, specifically WP:10YT, giving pretty solid PAG grounding for deletion aside from the search term discussion, so that can't really be ignored. There hasn't really been anything much from keeps in terms of WP:!VOTE (moreso WP:ATA) even addressing those policies between directly contradicting NOTNEWS policy and relevant guidance on what is actually notable under GNG. The guidance for these kinds of things is to mention them briefly at a relevant article (Area 51 as events unfold as is currently done. One can discuss redirects, but there is no justification in policy for saying to keep it outright at this time unless we want to scuttle policies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, I agree that the keep comments that exclusively evaluate the article against GNG should not be accorded much weight. However, I disagree that there is "no justification in policy" for keeping the article—do you have a response to my !vote below that is based on WP:EVENTCRITERIA? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EVENTCRITERIA hadn't really been discussed yet, but it fails bullet 1 (a form of 10YT mentioned above). Right now, it's just an internet joke without any indication of any real-world lasting significance. Bullet two is more focused on reanalysis afterwards, as WP:CRYSTALBALL is policy here. Three and four basically wrap into being routine coverage being more in the realm of an and finally story coupled with NOTNEWS policy again in terms of just simply being widely covered not indicating GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingofaces43: I'm not understanding which criterion in NOTNEWS would disqualify this article from inclusion; the subject does not fall under "routine news reporting". WP:GNG explicitly states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. What part of that is not clear? The nom made a notability-based argument, and I responded by referring to GNG. I don't find the nom's NOTNEWS argument to be persuasive. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The combination is NOTNEWS policy when you look in the lens of something like WP:10YT. When this did make the news, it was really more of an "and finally" type of item. Those usually fall under oddities, heartwarming stories, etc. that get news coverage, but aren't really significant news coverage. That context is in the 10YT guidance about recentism. NOTNEWS policy also specifically says, While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. with more guidance on that. So far, this has only been a relative blip in news reporting and hasn't established real GNG. The question isn't is it's covered, but to what degree and depth it is. There's some other good guidance out there like WP:FART that has some parallels here. Tl;dr, my NOTNEWS comments are based in lasting encyclopedic significance and how it's covered by news that's lacking. The Area 51 article handles it just fine though when it comes to WP:DUE treatment of sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I believe the subject passes WP:EVENTCRITERIA. I understand the calls for deletion/redirection based on WP:NOTNEWS. However, I think the broad range of coverage in American, British, and Australian media—not to mention the sheer number of people who have responded to the event—is enough that it meets WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. There's still a part of me that thinks the article might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, since it's not really possible to evaluate the event's lasting significance before it has taken place, and I'm willing to reconsider my !vote after later discussion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an event, it was a joke that some people took seriously enough to actually want to attend (and in fact the originator has all but said that no one should turn up), nor how many of those were serious and will actually bother to turn up. It like me saying now I am organizing A "Keep The Grand duchy of Fenmwick British" event, and people deciding to take it as a serious event.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now The main event hasn't occurred yet and the coverage could be contained in the Area 51 article's history section until the September. – XYZt (talk | contribs) – 01:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This could be worthy of keeping, but as of now, there isn't enough information in the article to keep. For now, it could be merged into Area 51 until enough pertinent information and references can be included to make a stand-alone page. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: As per above, article is noteworthy and has media coverage. 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and wait and see what happens on the date. Then keep or merge according to the specificity of the subject. Wikyvema (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Wait and see" violates WP:CRYSTAL policy. Either it is notable now, or it is not. Articles should never be created in the hopes they may be notable someday in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Redirect to Area 51. Revisit after Sep 20.--Auric talk 12:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In case nobody notices, there have been this many pageviews since the article was created. I would suggest keeping it in view of the amount of attention the article been's receiving (and will receive later on). JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page views are not a keep justification, but that said, it's all likely spillover traffic from the Area 51 article that had over 500,000 daily page views recently compared to the 15-20k this article got in the last two days when readers realize the same information was already present at the Area 51 page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event is spawning others such as the woodchip pile in Tasmania (!?). Anyway, this sort of thing has been done before and it made a lasting impact – see mass trespass of Kinder Scout, for example. Time will tell what happens in this case so we might as well just wait and see. Andrew D. (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that happened (this may not) and was not a joke. In addition it may already be dead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a meme which is only relevant to the Area 51 article, where it is already covered. There is no indication this has lasting newsworthiness, it's just a fad. We also cannot anticipate it becoming newsworthy. (At best, it will become newsworthy when some folks do show up and discover trying to cross the desert is itself a bad idea. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect This event is just as well-covered in the Area 51 article. Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use image on the page should also be deleted if this page gets deleted. Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per sourcing NPR New York Times. We do not make subjects notable. But we allow them to have an article when they are. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It would be premature to delete the article now when the event has yet to occur. Whether or not it will be newsworthy can only be determined after the aftermath. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the exact opposite of the principle of WP:NOTCRYSTAL, which exists specifically because of this. Wikipedia covers things that happen, not things that might with removal if they fizzle. JamesG5 (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not wholly sure it has not already fissled out now the initial "LOOK LOONIES, LOLS!!!" media reaction is over.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JamesG5 WP covers things that are notable. And once the thing is notable it is always notable...even if it fizzles WP:NTEMP . See Noah Raby for example. If a subject gets RS coverage the subject is notable. We also cover similar meme phenomena like this: Dressgate Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst you're not wrong & that might be a valid argument here. I was responding to Sir Trenzalore's spcific point above because what he said is NOT valid. Doesn't mean all the other arguments here are, some of them DO meet the criteria at the guideline I cited. JamesG5 (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widespread coverage and has led to a significant response socially, so as a cultural phenomena meets significant coverage criteria, Sadads (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable event do to the massive amount of reliable sources covering this thing. Dream Focus 01:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its a repetition of the comments above, but I agree that overwhelming coverage in the media allows for the article to meet WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the article but do not mention in Area 51 as this violates WP:RECENT. The Facebook joke does not form a substantial part of the conspiracies around Area 51—rather, the joke is built upon the premise that millions of people are already familiar with much more significant conspiracy theories about the site. It is therefore undue weight to have a section on it there. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 11:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's been suggested that it might pass WP:EVENTCRIT, but I believe that is the incorrect standard to use, as the sources all make it clear that no actual event is being planned. It's just a joke. As a joke, it's already faded out. Keeping the article would just be recentism and it would certainly be deleted six months from now when somebody brings it back to AFD. ApLundell (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL but preserve page history. The article does not meet notability requirements at present. While there has been a lot of media coverage, this coverage has been regurgitating the same limited information ad nauseum. There is nothing to say that isn’t already summarized in the Area 51 article. The WP:RAPID exception is most appropriate for rapidly evolving events that will almost certainly meet notability requirements within the near future (often before the AfD is scheduled to close). Here, the Area 51 coverage is not evolving and its far from certain that it will meet notability requirements. Honestly, this article is just too threadbare to keep hanging around for two-months on the chance that it will meet notability requirements after September 20. If it meets notability requirements then, the article can be recreated from its page history. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or redirect Since I made the above post, the news coverage has both continued and diversified. At this precise moment in time, there is a lot that can be said about this topic. I think lasting significance may still be an issue, but I'm more comfortable invoking WP:RAPID given that this topic continues to develop. Regardless, I still believe that this article should be preserved in some form (even if it is just in the page history or as a draft). It is plausible that this article will have lasting significance; there is absolutely no benefit to striking every trace of this article off the face of Wikipedia and risk having to rewrite it from scratch. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ITSSTUPID is not a reason for deletion. Like it or not (and I don't like it), this is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most popular Internet memes of the year, which has had an effect on the local economy outside of the base as all the businesses in the area are preparing for upcoming visitors. I'll do my best to expand the article. Battle Salmon (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an event considered notable by many primary news sources as well as the USAF. Also notable for crossover between "Internet culture" and "real life", and mainstreaming "Naruto" who is apparently a fast runner. vsync (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have an article for Dat Boi, there is no reason to not have an article for something which is getting significantly more media coverage, even if that coverage is somewhat repetitive as of yet. Daemok (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's yuge!!! ----Երևանցի ^talk 09:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be enough media coverage. Ss112 11:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this may be just a meme right now, I expect a lot of serious people to come to Area 51 and demand “to see them aliens”. I suggest we wait until September 21 to see if we should delete the article and leave it as a footnote in Area 51 KingSkyLord (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KingSkyLord: as has been pointed out several times above,this event is either notable and deserves an article now, in which case it should stay, it's not notable enough for an article on its own in which case it should have a mention, or it might be notable in the future in which case an article should be written then... but there is no "wait and see" on Wikipedia. See WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. IMO that's why the best argument is "a note on the Area 51 page THEN if something happens you make a new article." Logical and in compliance with standard practices. JamesG5 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There are a lot of keep comments the closer will have to outright dismiss here in terms of WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS policy much less GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For all of the arguments about foresight, the article *is* written to make clear both that the event hasn't happen yet and that its eventuality is uncertain. Can't help but think of article on 2020 United States presidential election—if the article is mostly about the media coverage and response, I think it's fine for now. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wingedserif: IMO you make exactly the argument for why we shouldn't keep it. Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme or similar sites, it's not supposed to be a repository of every whacky internet fad. Part of the reason it's not taken seriously or given credence as legitimate is because of too much attention given to trivial things. You literally just compared a joke internet event to a presidential election. We KNOW the latter is going to happen, and it will have an effect on a lot of lives. This doesn't compare at all, and treating equally makes this whole site look like a joke. JamesG5 (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page not the official article, and my reference was for example—it was intended just to demonstrate that yes sometimes anticipated events do get articles. I made no claims about significance or actual equivalence, merely that the article is written appropriately for its tentative status. Replace with whatever other example you find less offensive and the argument still stands, humor aside. —Wingedserif (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may be controversial, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the 2020 Presidential Election is probably a real event that will actually happen. I don't think it's a short-lived joke. ApLundell (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Personally I don't think it will happen because it's just a stupid way to get their fifteen minutes of fame. If this is kept, can we at least rename it to "Raiding Area 51 meme" or something shorter than this. HawkAussie (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. De Guerre (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait 6 months / keep for now. See Wikipedia:RAPID. This is a classic issue Wikipedia has: some breaking piece of news happens, and it's not clear whether it's a 15 minutes of fame deal that should be justly deleted as WP:NOTNEWS or an actual event. The solution is easy: just give it a little time. If this event blows over, then merge it to Area 51, no big deal. If this event actually happens, there'll already be an existing article to build off of. Weirder, seemingly more trivial stuff has become real events worthy of articles before. SnowFire (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Some !delete voters have brought up WP:CRYSTAL, both here and on the talk page. But CRYSTAL really is about sourcing, and there's actually been an expansion of sourcing with articles in the likes of the NY Times and the like. It's okay to have sourced commentary about potentially future events, and to the extent this is about a meme, it's something that's happening right now. (Also, in reply to ILIKEIT accusations, at risk of pointing out the obvious, there's sourced content that meets WP:GNG that is stupid as hell. Not "i like it", more like "it's stupid but sourced.") SnowFire (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's pages on Wikipedia for memes that have garnered much less popularity and media attention. So far, this has proved to be the meme of 2019, with plenty of reliable sources describing the phenomenon and also starting somewhat of a craze, inspiring similar events around the globe. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh we do essentially non-existing things all the time, so why not here. There's a bunch of votes here, in either direction, that comment on whether or not this will happen, how stupid it is, etc.--sounds LIKE A BUNCH OF BOOMERS BEFORE NAP TIME. These things don't matter--what matters is coverage, and our bar is generally so low that this passes in flying colors: the coverage is there. So keep, and I'm not just saying that cause I'm going. With Cullen328, if he can stop being all wise and mature for a day. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above arguments. Jezebelle 19:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the event hasn't happened and isn't itself notable (GNG doesn't reach that low). All the keep arguments I've seen are variations of OTHERCRAPEXISTS and ILIKEIT, neither of which are valid. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above comments. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I've so far counted (may be wrong), I see 31 keep / weak keep with 5 for keep or merge, opposed to 18 for delete / merge / redirect (three categories combined). Other comments such as "neutral" omitted. I'm aware of WP:NOTDEM, just wanted to point out a consensus seems to be building. Please let me know if my numbers are off. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those keeps will be essentially tossed out in terms of Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_without_arguments. It's not uncommon at all for hot topics to get a bunch of votes like that which amount to strawpolling. In the end, the policy-based discussion mostly revolves around outright deletion or just having the redirect to Area 51, which unfortunately the closer has to take a bit more effort than normal to sort through. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nice4What: Just because their is a majority for keep so far does not mean that it will be kept. There is some comments which is just adding no new info into this discussion which isn't something that we would want to pursuit. HawkAussie (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie: I'm just going to have to believe you somehow missed the part where I wrote I'm aware of WP:NOTDEM. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It should be on Wikipedia.Sadsadas (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete it should be mentioned on the area 51 article, this is just a fad.
Keep: Why deletion? Notable event, people talk about that. --Foghe (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nom, it was put up here due to WP:NOTNEWS, which a lot of keep votes are ignoring the spirit of and directly contradicts many of the comments here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand the not news argument, but this is being covered a little more than a typical news story or meme. It's incredibly well-sourced thus far whether people actually like it or not. I'm not really against a merge either. Handoto (talk) 21:36, 24 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. Overwhelming consensus that this boxer does not meet notability guidelines. This follows on from the previous AfD that though, more marginal, also closed as 'delete'. Just Chilling (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Concepcion[edit]

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

Essentially the same article that resulted in a deletion decision at the previous AfD discussion. The same concerns about WP:NBOX and general notability of a local sportsperson prevail. There has been a voice that NBOX itself may be contested, though the guidelines stand to date. Also, the author is a likely sockpuppet of the original autor who may be editing in circumvention of a block. An SPI case has been raised. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's word-for-word identical, and has no new references or even external links. Should be speedied. —Cryptic 17:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Speedy was declined. The original AfD is also in review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Martin_Concepcion Paisarepa (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creator was blocked as a suspected sock of Qualitee123. See case in nom. Paisarepa (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure here has gotten interesting with the original AfD at DRV and now multiple speedy deletion criteria met (G4, G5) - I noted at the DRV it's probably best to speedy delete this again, if the DRV comes back with an overturn we can deal with that as it happens. (As an aside, I did just remove a copy-pasted paragraph from the article.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wasn't in favour of deletion in the original AfD, but this is a clear case for G4 speedy delete as it's identical to the deleted version. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sock is confirmed, blocked and tagged which also puts this in reach of G5 speedy now. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5. So tagged. Reyk _YO! 10:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, I declined your CSD nomination. The blocked user only created this article, and since then there have been enough edits by other users to say that G5 does not apply. Please read WP:CSD#G5. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 12:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which edit was substantial? Was it the one that removed a copyvio, or the one that unlinked the reposted and now redeleted image from Commons? —Cryptic 12:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, that's a bit condescending to insist I didn't read WP:G5. There had been no substantial edits to the article after it was created; the only edits were deletion nominations and a copyvio removal. These do not disqualify it from G5. Neither does the idea that the banned user didn't create any other articles. That's not in G5 anywhere, and in any case it is wrong because they also re-created Kevin_Concepcion and Tony Concepcion, which were also deleted. Reyk _YO! 12:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no substantial edits by anyone but the banned user. That's now two correct speedy deletion tags that should not have been removed. --Michig (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- well, since WP:G4 and WP:G5 speedies have been declined on frivolous grounds we'll have to do this the long way. The first AfD found that there was not enough substantial, reliable sourcing to sustain this article. The new incarnation, started by a sockpuppet of a banned editor, is largely identical to the deleted version except for the removal of a copyright violation. Obviously the situation regarding notability hasn't changed since last time, and looking at the state of the sourcing I think the previous AfD got it right. Reyk _YO! 12:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first AfD wasn't great, but it was only a few months ago and is still good law. The re-created article is substantially similar to the first one, and was re-created by a sockpuppet. Either G4 or G5 would have been appropriate here, but a second strong AfD will settle the matter. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Delete. I have no particular opinion on WP:N, but the objections to WP:G4 and WP:G5 are just plain silly. This clearly meets both of those, so adding my !vote to delete as a protest against excessive wikilawyering. I would delete this myself under those grounds, but letting this AfD run to its obvious conclusion will leave a more clear consensus for the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
cluster The G4 and G5 appear to be valid. That said, the sources in the article appear to easily clear the GNG bar. Policy says delete for the G4 and G5. Which means the right thing to do, IMO, is for someone else to write an article which is substantially different. Which is dumb as the current article is actually quite good. G4 and G5 exist for good reasons. But in this case, it deletes an article which meets the GNG and is actually pretty well written. Hobit (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, change that to redirect to [12]. At least it provides some coverage. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A redirect there would violate WP:ASTONISH. Most of that section should be removed per WP:NOTPLOT besides, and certainly on neutrality grounds - "the courageous Concepcion" indeed. —Cryptic 20:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Might, but if it's what he is best known for, maybe not. And I'd disagree on NOTPLOT, we have much more detailed plot summaries in featured articles. Those are quite short summaries and short plot summaries are exactly what is desired. Hobit (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete procedurally as this should have been a WP:G4/WP:G5 and Delete on WP:GNG grounds - I agree with the delete !voters in the first AfD, specifically Papaursa's vote, on the quality of the sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 & G5. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4 and G5. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 and G5. Doesn't meet NBOX or GNG, this is a waste of time. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G4 and G5. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if you choose to not use G4 or G5, he still doesn't meet any notability criteria. This was pointed out at the previous AfD discussion. He wasn't notable then and, as a retired fighter, he's not going to become more notable. Papaursa (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment. Masum Reza^📞 20:38, 23 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) 01:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alis Rowe[edit]

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

Nominating at request of User:Essayist1 at WP:BLPN. Their reasoning: 1. subject has requested the article be deleted on privacy grounds, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. 2. subject is not a public figure. 3. subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards, due to only being an author of some books of niche interest only. 4. subject has appeared as an expert for e.g. the BBC but was not the topic of that coverage. 5. most coverage is self-published primary sources MPS1992 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Just for some background, the subject of this page contacted me through my website asking for assistance getting the page deleted, please see my userpage for the full COI disclosure.Essayist1 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I !voted keep at the first, aborted AFD). I think in cases like this we should respect the wishes of the subject. Wikipedia itself would not be noticeably diminished by deletion. Thincat (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and request at BLPN. Utopes (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline notable, and the subject has requested deletion. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIODEL. There is no compelling public interest for the continued existence of this article, and the subject is only just over the bar regarding notability (see past AfD discussions). With that said: while I have no reason to believe that the subject did not make this request I would feel more comfortable if this request were verified to have come from the subject herself. Theoretically anyone could make a deletion request for a BLP and claim they are making the request on behalf of the subject. Paisarepa (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thegirlwiththecurlyhair has posted this to Alis Rowe: "*delete I would like the page deleted to maintain privacy of my life." SarahSV ^(talk) 18:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem notable enough per WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others. Barely notable and subject requested deletion Taewangkorea (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this will probably be a "delete" ("duh, coola, anyone for snowies?"), however ("here goes contrarian coola again!"), (1) I note that the previous afd was closed as an uncontroversal "keep" (well no protests on closer's talkpage)). (2) Has there been an actual request from Rowe (as is noted above, anyone can claim they are the person or represent the person concerned. (3) some of the above "deleters" state that Rowe is relatively unknown, may i suggest that amongst British autism groups/people with autism this is not the case. (4) To allay concerns about privacy the article could be pared back to a stub of a few sentence, ie. removal of everything from "Early life and education", "Bibliography" (as these books are mostly self-published), and "Personal life" sections, and some of the "Careers" section. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ps. and remove their photo, that looks like a selfie. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pps. someone may need to get onto the French WP, Rowe article here? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just wondering if the nominator or any of the "deleters" above carried out any searches for sources (although it could be argued that the article already has enough)? "Thats a bit harsh coola!" well, a quick search with the goog brings up the following: from The Independent - "8 Best Books About Autism .. Asperger’s Syndrome And Communication by Alis Rowe .. It has simple pictures, is written concisely, and is also useful for people not on the spectrum.", National Autistic Society - "Revealed: Finalists of our Autism Professionals Awards (23 January 2019).. One of the most important categories is Achievement by an Individual on the Autism Spectrum. This year’s finalists are: Alis Rowe, founder of the Curly Hair Project; ..", and National Diversity Awards - "With such a strong impact being made by Alis in such a short time, there is absolutely no surprise as to why she has been shortlisted for the Entrepreneur of Excellence award at the National Diversity Awards 2014." (this source is cited in the article not sure why this award is not mentioned), so with these i reckon its even more of a keep as meeting no. 2 of WP:ANYBIO in the field of autism. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have spoken to Alis via email and again via her Linkedin to confirm. I am 99.9% positive I am speaking to the real Alis Rowe and the page removal request is genuine. Is there an official way for BLP subjects to verify their identity?Essayist1 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Coolabahapple: I think you may be scraping the notability barrel a bit there, the English Wikipedia specifically asks for extensive coverage in independent sources, a book review, a couple of niche awards and a few mentions in niche publications don't make a person notable, only borderline notable. I think most of us agree that the quality of this encyclopaedia won't be significantly negated for losing the article. Plus the subject of this article has requested that the article be removed so she can regain a bit of privacy, therefore WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies.Essayist1 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ANYBIO This person has made a major contribution in the field of autism (authoring books, and articles in magazines) and the subject has won awards for the work. Called out as an expert in the field of autism. A person becomes a public figure of interest and notoriety through public appearances in magazines, on the BBC and through, authoring books. Appears in major media by photo and lengthy non-trivial coverage. Also winning awards and self promotion. The page has existed for four years and passed two AfDs. A notable public person does not have a right to delete their WP article. It does not serve our readers to delete this article. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The last AFD mentioned the Huffington Post article that gives significant coverage of her [13]. I see South West Londoner covering her [14] but not entirely sure about that as a reliable source. Google news search shows them, and 20 Wikipedia articles reference them already, and they have editor oversight and seem legitimate. The Marie Claire article without doubt is significant coverage in a reliable source, I reading the copy she has on her website where she list that and some of the other places she's been mentioned [15]. Able Magazine counts towards meeting the WP:GNG as well. So does Healthy Magazine [16], it a subscription publication. Her official website shows the article, you not able to find it on their official website without paying to subscribe. Dream Focus 04:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Came here because of the ARS posting.) The claim that someone who has written a certain amount about their personal experience with AS is a "public figure" and therefore forfeits all right to prevent Wikipedia editors from digging up obscure details of her life from sources that, for example, briefly namedropped her, and posting them on a very public forum like Wikipedia, is highly questionable. The fact that one of the above links supposedly "calling her out" actually provides photos of 16 other experts (none of whom, I would hazard a guess, have standalone Wikipedia articles) and doesn't give a photo of her seems significant. Having your name appear in this or that publication doesn't make you a "public figure", and given the legal implications of that phrase I would encourage any editors using it in cases like this to refrain from doing so in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 24 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 copyright violation, numerous times over, by Apoorvmehta9 (talk · contribs) of copyrighted (″Copyright © 2012–2013 Udaipur Chamber of Commerce & Industry All rights reserved″) non-free text. I checked the UCCI's WWW site with the Wayback Machine, and the text was already there in 2014. All of the way back to the first edit this was a copyright violation; all of the text was someone else's.

Xe instigated one Hell of a mess doing it, too, with the copyright violations spread across the edit histories of two pages, UCCI and Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the consequences of bogus copy-and-paste ″moves″ of the original disambiguation article, after the original had been simply overwritten with this, meaning that the edit history of the work on the disambiguation by other people was spread across UCCI (disambiguation) and Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry, with ironically none of it in the edit history of UCCI where the disambiguation was at the time of AFD closure.

I have done a somewhat complex dance to sort this all out, with a history merger to get a single edit history back. The only edit history to retain is that of the disambiguation, which I have restored to UCCI where it originally was.

Some of the people who put in and took out in redirects and stuff and argued in edit summaries will find those edits deleted; I did not consider them worth restoring.

Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry[edit]

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

Non notable organization (not owned by government, but authorized by government), lacks RS, it has become a major place for advertising local residents. Meeanaya (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The name itself suggests notability to me. But all the concerns of the nom are legitimate. I hope someone finds a few RS before this is closed so we can at least keep a stub, by which I mean I expect it to be a stub if it survives, we need to cut all the BS either way. I got a few hits on google books and local news but have no perspective to judge their acceptability. It seems User:Apoorvmehta9 changed the content toward the current version and some other user moved it, while the original version was a disambiguation page. It seems of little value to notify User:Aymatth2 who created the original disambiguation page about this. Is this like a rule? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is unsourced and reads like an advertisement for the organization, probably much of it copy-and-paste, so a copyright violation. But the subject is I think notable, as indicated by a Google Books search, so technically should be left to be fixed rather than deleted. Deleting it and letting someone start a new version based on independent sources would also be an option, perhaps simpler. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google news gives only 8 results, which are local webblog and not reliable RS. Looking at the book search, all of them only mentions and does not seems to be covering them in detail, I am not sure what is the criteria, but it seems to be failing notability criteria. 14.98.207.62 (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: As other editors have commented, notability is inherent in the nature of the org and is validated by a visit to its website. Fully agree that the article is being used for advertising and promotion but the correct remedy is to edit or attach fix tags, not deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no rule saying all chambers of commerce are inherently notable, or all organizations with nice websites. Notability comes from being noted and discussed in some depth by reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here worth saving, and some of the article, possibly all of it, is a copyright violation. Compare the six points in Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry#Objectives to the almost identical six points in https://ucciudaipur.com/vision-and-mission/ . Language in the article like "We are proud to claim that the VTC has been able to provide 100% placement support to its graduates. Skill development is a specific area where we seek partnership and support." is surely copied directly from a publicity blurb. After deletion an editor may start a new article on this subject based on reliable independent sources, if that is possible. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~WP:CV is not a criteria for deletion.~~I realized WP:CV can indeed be a criterion for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON.Deccantrap (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming the whole article consists of copies or close paraphrases of copyright-protected material published by the subject of the article, as seems likely, all the content should be deleted and the revision history should be wiped out. The simplest way to do that is to delete the whole article, which is anyway just puff. That would not prevent an editor from starting a new version from a clean slate based on what reliable independent sources have to say about the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am convinced now, that, as likely as it is that the subject is inherently notable, there is no RS to base content on at this point, having not found it myself and it having not shown up in the past week. The article as it stands deserves TNT, since there is no RS to start over at this point with, deletion is best. This would also allay all concerns of possibilities of COPYVIO past and present, without wasting community resources on a useless article. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:29, 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. Consensus that there are sufficient sources to show notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Siddique[edit]

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

Being on the list is not enough for notability. Störm (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I lean towards keep due to [17] which constitutes in-depth coverage by a reliable sources. While articles like [18] and [19] don’t go into depth they strongly suggest notability. Agreed that inclusion on a list is not grounds for notability, but they seem to meet much of the criteria after a quick google (cant believe how many people are named Amir Siddique...) which suggests that an exhaustive search would find more than enough for inclusion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered for his activities at Lal Masjid beyond just the UK designation. e.g. - is in depth. Other coverage: [20][21][22][23]Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep above comments prove that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Masum Reza^📞 18:56, 24 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) 01:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alis Rowe[edit]

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

Nominating at request of User:Essayist1 at WP:BLPN. Their reasoning: 1. subject has requested the article be deleted on privacy grounds, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. 2. subject is not a public figure. 3. subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards, due to only being an author of some books of niche interest only. 4. subject has appeared as an expert for e.g. the BBC but was not the topic of that coverage. 5. most coverage is self-published primary sources MPS1992 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Just for some background, the subject of this page contacted me through my website asking for assistance getting the page deleted, please see my userpage for the full COI disclosure.Essayist1 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I !voted keep at the first, aborted AFD). I think in cases like this we should respect the wishes of the subject. Wikipedia itself would not be noticeably diminished by deletion. Thincat (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and request at BLPN. Utopes (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline notable, and the subject has requested deletion. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIODEL. There is no compelling public interest for the continued existence of this article, and the subject is only just over the bar regarding notability (see past AfD discussions). With that said: while I have no reason to believe that the subject did not make this request I would feel more comfortable if this request were verified to have come from the subject herself. Theoretically anyone could make a deletion request for a BLP and claim they are making the request on behalf of the subject. Paisarepa (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thegirlwiththecurlyhair has posted this to Alis Rowe: "*delete I would like the page deleted to maintain privacy of my life." SarahSV ^(talk) 18:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem notable enough per WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others. Barely notable and subject requested deletion Taewangkorea (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this will probably be a "delete" ("duh, coola, anyone for snowies?"), however ("here goes contrarian coola again!"), (1) I note that the previous afd was closed as an uncontroversal "keep" (well no protests on closer's talkpage)). (2) Has there been an actual request from Rowe (as is noted above, anyone can claim they are the person or represent the person concerned. (3) some of the above "deleters" state that Rowe is relatively unknown, may i suggest that amongst British autism groups/people with autism this is not the case. (4) To allay concerns about privacy the article could be pared back to a stub of a few sentence, ie. removal of everything from "Early life and education", "Bibliography" (as these books are mostly self-published), and "Personal life" sections, and some of the "Careers" section. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ps. and remove their photo, that looks like a selfie. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pps. someone may need to get onto the French WP, Rowe article here? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just wondering if the nominator or any of the "deleters" above carried out any searches for sources (although it could be argued that the article already has enough)? "Thats a bit harsh coola!" well, a quick search with the goog brings up the following: from The Independent - "8 Best Books About Autism .. Asperger’s Syndrome And Communication by Alis Rowe .. It has simple pictures, is written concisely, and is also useful for people not on the spectrum.", National Autistic Society - "Revealed: Finalists of our Autism Professionals Awards (23 January 2019).. One of the most important categories is Achievement by an Individual on the Autism Spectrum. This year’s finalists are: Alis Rowe, founder of the Curly Hair Project; ..", and National Diversity Awards - "With such a strong impact being made by Alis in such a short time, there is absolutely no surprise as to why she has been shortlisted for the Entrepreneur of Excellence award at the National Diversity Awards 2014." (this source is cited in the article not sure why this award is not mentioned), so with these i reckon its even more of a keep as meeting no. 2 of WP:ANYBIO in the field of autism. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have spoken to Alis via email and again via her Linkedin to confirm. I am 99.9% positive I am speaking to the real Alis Rowe and the page removal request is genuine. Is there an official way for BLP subjects to verify their identity?Essayist1 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Coolabahapple: I think you may be scraping the notability barrel a bit there, the English Wikipedia specifically asks for extensive coverage in independent sources, a book review, a couple of niche awards and a few mentions in niche publications don't make a person notable, only borderline notable. I think most of us agree that the quality of this encyclopaedia won't be significantly negated for losing the article. Plus the subject of this article has requested that the article be removed so she can regain a bit of privacy, therefore WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies.Essayist1 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ANYBIO This person has made a major contribution in the field of autism (authoring books, and articles in magazines) and the subject has won awards for the work. Called out as an expert in the field of autism. A person becomes a public figure of interest and notoriety through public appearances in magazines, on the BBC and through, authoring books. Appears in major media by photo and lengthy non-trivial coverage. Also winning awards and self promotion. The page has existed for four years and passed two AfDs. A notable public person does not have a right to delete their WP article. It does not serve our readers to delete this article. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The last AFD mentioned the Huffington Post article that gives significant coverage of her [24]. I see South West Londoner covering her [25] but not entirely sure about that as a reliable source. Google news search shows them, and 20 Wikipedia articles reference them already, and they have editor oversight and seem legitimate. The Marie Claire article without doubt is significant coverage in a reliable source, I reading the copy she has on her website where she list that and some of the other places she's been mentioned [26]. Able Magazine counts towards meeting the WP:GNG as well. So does Healthy Magazine [27], it a subscription publication. Her official website shows the article, you not able to find it on their official website without paying to subscribe. Dream Focus 04:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Came here because of the ARS posting.) The claim that someone who has written a certain amount about their personal experience with AS is a "public figure" and therefore forfeits all right to prevent Wikipedia editors from digging up obscure details of her life from sources that, for example, briefly namedropped her, and posting them on a very public forum like Wikipedia, is highly questionable. The fact that one of the above links supposedly "calling her out" actually provides photos of 16 other experts (none of whom, I would hazard a guess, have standalone Wikipedia articles) and doesn't give a photo of her seems significant. Having your name appear in this or that publication doesn't make you a "public figure", and given the legal implications of that phrase I would encourage any editors using it in cases like this to refrain from doing so in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 24 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 Christmas (Jaci Velasquez album). Very clear consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navidad (Jaci Velasquez album)[edit]

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

Appears to simply be a Spanish version of her album Christmas, released that same year. Both albums could probably be merged to a single page. Toa Nidhiki05 14:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christmas. This is indeed a Spanish-language version of Christmas, right down to the same tracks in the same running order (some have their Spanish titles, but they are the same songs). It does appear to have had its own separate chart position on Billboard's Latin Pop Albums chart [28], but there's no reason why that can't be included in the same chart table as for Christmas with a note that it's the chart position for Navidad instead, particularly as there don't seem to be any other sources online for Navidad itself. It's unlikely that the two albums would have been reviewed separately, so the best thing to do would be to merge the Spanish track listing into a new section in Christmas and add a chart table for both albums combined. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Christmas per Richard3120. Nate • (chatter) 20:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. It would be more useful for the reader to have information about both on the same page, and there wouldn't be any concern that the resultant article would be too long. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christmas per above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Richard3120 and mention the charts for the Spanish-language version as done on My Christmas (Andrea Bocelli album) which also has a Spanish-language version. Erick (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as has been repeatedly suggested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect per rationale above. Royal broil 11:15, 20 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 sources are simply not there to meet our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Guide Dog Foundation[edit]

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

I'm sorry to do this, the subject looks like a good cause, but it appears to fail WP:NORG. Current sourcing is affiliated sites, fundraising sites, and entries in directories or databases. I've looked for independent sourcing, but only found material on Forbes.com from 'contributors' (WP:Perennial sources, unreliable) and some passing mentions in 'look at these cute guide dog puppies' type stories on news sites - nothing that rises to WP:CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if only WP had a WP:CUTE or WP:ADORABLE notability policy/guideline than this article would be okay as it involves labrador/retriever puppies, unfortunately there isn't so this is a delete, and before an editor suggests a "redirect" to List of guide dog schools that is for notable schools only (that article probably needs a bit of a clean-up of the non-notable schools that are listed there). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 21 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) 01:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sijo Vadakkan[edit]

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

Complete lack of independent sourcing, so fails WP:GNG. I considered CSD A7, but I guess the unsourced assertions of having won some awards might pass the credible claim of significance bar, so thought better to bring here. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Sources are all created by the person the article is about, and one of the sources is a broken link. Does not meet WP:GNG. Article is also very poorly written. ---GingeBro (talk • contribs) 14:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with GingeBro but only because of one of the cited grounds for deletion - that the article does not meet WP:GNG. The other two reasons cited - self-creation and poor writing - are both serious problems, but article deletion is not stated to be the appropriate remedy for either under WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY,WP:EP,or WP:DEL-REASON.Deccantrap (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable businessman. No refs from independent sources. Fails WP:N. Jupitus Smart 02:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletereads like a cut and paste from his business website. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 03:56, 22 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 that this list fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed by Yugoslav Partisans after World War II in Zagreb[edit]

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

List is poorly referenced and grossly factually inaccurate (see talk page for illustration). The author has refused to address or even discuss the issues. Cleaning up this list would require the same effort as writing it from the scratch, so WP:TNT applies. GregorB (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the concerns raised by GregorB. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, list criteria is too defined and as well the list suffers from WP:OR issues. Ajf773 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on GregorB and what Wikipedia is not. This article serves as a cemetery without any actual bodies, and it's just the list of names. There can never be enough sources to satisfy what the intention of the article was. (That was a weird way of getting my point across, but I hope that it makes some sense. WP:OR here.)Utopes (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also appears to be at least partially WP:OR as others have stated. Highway 89 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT as too specific. The one-eyed horse thieves from Montana now have company. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, thanks, I'll be sure to use the "one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" example some day soon... GregorB (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. The inclusion criteria for this list is far too broad. No doubt dozens or even hundreds of people were killed in Zagreb after the Partisans captured the city, including soldiers trying to defend the place. The list includes notorious Ustashas executed for war crimes, as well as various others who were not even killed in Zagreb, but who fled across the border into Austria and were killed extra-judiciously in what is now Slovenia following the Bleiburg repatriations. The fact that the list doesn't mention who the Ustashas were, and only says they were politicians, indicates a very strong POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 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) 00:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petropoulos[edit]

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

Refs dubious. Smells like advertising. Remagoxer (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Remagoxer (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Remagoxer (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand how an article about a major company is not meeting the criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is covering virtually every existing company, let alone historic companies like Petropoulos. I have corrected some expressions so that its does not "sound like advertising", so that there is no issue regarding this aspect. Skartsis (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know why the nominator considers the references to be dubious. ²Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I should think that that is obvious. The 2008 text is being after the fact sourced to a 2012 book, written by the same person who is writing the wikipedia article, explaining why it is word-for-word identical to the book. The actual source is direct interviews with people by the Wikipedia editor who is doing primary research, writing it up here first in 2008, publishing the same in a book in 2012, and then citing the book as the source in the article in 2014. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That actually is not a problem in and of itself - Wikipedia editors may publish in reliable venues, and said publications can be used as sources on Wikipedia. Furthermore, if the author of the source is also the Wikipedia editor, then copyright is not an issue either (though it should be properly paperworked). The problem, in this instance, is that the book in question - Greek Vehicle & Machine Manufacturers 1800 to Present: A Pictorial History seems to be an e-book lacking a publisher - or a WP:SPS - which is not a reliable source. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your assertion that this is unproblematic fails to account for the necessity of a time machine in order for it to apply to this case, ☺ as well as the fact that the first publication venue, by years, is here in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would've been a problem back in 2008-2012 (but we're not discussing an AfD back in 2011, are we?). Has this been published by a reputable publisher - it wouldn't be a problem now (assuming we had copyright all squared away). The problem now is that the 2012 source seems to be a WP:SELFPUBLISHed e-book. Icewhiz (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a problem now, and you keep looking at something that clearly is not the source. Read the edit summary in the aforegiven diff again. Uncle G (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~, not seeing any evidance of any real notability outside of a "book" written by the article creator.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the caviat that I agree specifically with Icewhiz's rationale. P:SPS applies to the source, and as such it's not a reliable source to base notability off of. I did some research and the only other independent sources I could find were blogs. However the fact that the author of the book previously drafted content here isn't so much an AfD matter as possibly a WP:NOT one. Regardless, it's not the relevant deciding factor. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K.: - any chance you could do a BEFORE here in Greek? I do see some sources in Greek (and I suspect an automative assembler / manufacturer will possibly be notable on local-language sources)? Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is "Πέτρος Πετρόπουλος ΑΕΒΕ" in Greek, though per article often Πετρόπουλος.Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ now a Keep, ~~lacks any notability that I could find, but I may be looking in the wrong places. Somebody ping me if they find anything that's considered reliable on the topic.~~ Utopes (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: Please check below for the list of 15 new sources that I found. Thank you. Dr. K. 21:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dr. K, this was very appreciated. I am now willing to change my opinion on the topic, and my above vote is now correct based on the newfound information you presented. Utopes (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After Icewhiz pinged me I made a quick search and I found a myriad of specialist Greek trade websites RS referring to various aspects of the conglomerate that is Petropoulos. From bilateral deals with Isuzu Motors to agricultural, banking, and insurance news, including news of the importation of electric buses in Greece by Petropoulos. This is the problem with editors putting up for deletion Greek companies when they have no idea about Greek RS. Here are some of the many RS I found: [29], [30], [31], [32]. [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. And no, these are not blogs. They are Greek specialist trade websites and news orgs. Dr. K. 20:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per some of Dr.K.'s sources (some aren't great, but the Greek Fortune and others seem OK) + assessment. A 100 year old company, with a history of local vehicle production (private market as well as military - all be it limited in scope and in the past) - is the sort of company that tends to be notable. @Simonm223: in case you want to reconsider (I stand behind the SPS issue, but there are Greek sources available here).Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on new sources, with thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Here are the sources I found but in a nicer package:

Dr. K. 21:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW Sources found. Thumbs up. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, as it is an existing, well known company Skartsis (talk) 19:02, 22 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 Jersey Football Combination#Clubs. Fenix down (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Brelade F.C.[edit]

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

No specific criteria for association football clubs so per WP:NTEAM, must meet WP:GNG. I can find very few references to the club in reliable sources, just a couple of brief mentions of match results, and certainly not the kind of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources need to meet the WP:GNGs. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the consensus criterion used by WP:FOOTY for many years for UK teams is that they are notable if they play at a level which makes them eligible to enter their national cup (FA Cup, Scottish Cup, etc). Pretty much no Channel Islands teams have ever entered the FA Cup for geographical reasons, which would make them non-notable unless they could pass the GNG. As you note, there's no indication that this one does..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jersey Football Combination as possible search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 14:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nom - I have no objection to the proposed redirect. Makes sense to me. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me - delete !vote struck -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - non-notable team. Incidentally Jersey does now have a team playing against UK sides but the local clubs like St Brelade don't warrant an article unless they meet WP:GNG. There are other clubs listed at Jersey Football Combination#Clubs that should also be redirected. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:18, 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. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 06:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Little[edit]

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

Article previously deleted as G11. Current article sourced almost entirely to the subject's website, plus a blog; there is one mention in the Irish Sun (can't use a tabloid to establish notability), and a short CNN interview in an article about a campaign the was involved in. I find a couple of other brief mentions in news media online, but don't see anything that would demonstrate she passes WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit_(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete per nom. Also reads like an advertisement. Highway 89 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Art is full of OR based mostly on the subject's website. Agree it seems to be essentially an advert. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created for promotional purposes only. This is a comissioned work created by an undisclised paid editor [42]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

For consideration: her profile in huffington post personal more than qualifies as person of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/legal-sex-worker-couples-communication_n_5ca78600e4b0a00f6d3f2a14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC) BBC news documentary of subject[reply]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06ktbgc?ocid=socialflow_facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/sex-worker-freedom-nevada-holds-steady Cato Institute podcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilysmith/sex-workers-sesta-censorship-free-speech Buzzfeed article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/alice-little/

Independent news article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.81.102 (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing the significant, in-depth, independent coverage to attest the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:ENT. The lack of indepedant coverage is the pressing issue; the subject is mentioned in several sources, but almost all of the information is WP:PRIMARY (much of which stems from Little's self-written bio in the Huffington Post) and thus does not confer notability on the subject. The article is also overly promotional, which contradicts WP:NOTADVOCACY. More independent sources—especially those which actually make a case for Little having a claim to encyclopedic notability—would be required.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs in the article are no sufficient to assure me that she is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:AUTHOR based on the cultural impact of the article she wrote. Page should not be deleted. Clean up promotion and add more citations. Rocktober2018 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR is a redirect to WP:CREATIVE, a notability category that has fairly solid notability requirements. The question is, can it credibly be said that any non-primary source cited in the article (or that could potential be added to the article) directly indicates the subject meets the points below WP:CREATIVE without inference.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about meets notability guidelines. I have added some more references. --John B123 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I took a look at those. You added her YouTube channel, and her 'Guest Writer' profile on HuffPost - neither of those help with notability. You also added a soft-soap puffy interview with Refinery 29 (primary, doesn't help establish notability). The best was probably the Irish Central piece - but to be honest, it's hard to see that as anything but a piece of churnalism - it's just rehashing details from her own website, and her HuffPost piece about herself. I can't see anything of this contributing to notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or to look at it another way, the fact that Irish Central, which as far as I'm aware is accepted as a RS, churnalises(?) an article about her, then they must think her notable enough for inclusion.--John B123 (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that IrishCentral would stand up to any scrutiny as an RS - writing an article based entirely on quotes from her own website, and from an article she wrote about herself, does not chime well with the 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' that WP:RS calls for. Maybe it does proper journalism as well, but literally just copying a few quotes from her own self-publicity does not strike me as the sort of reliable coverage we're looking for. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the page originally, and have tried to cut back some of the fluff. I might suggest reposting, and getting rid of some of the clutter on this page for a better discussion. One thing I've noticed is the general lack of sex worker coverage in mainstream GNG sources, which probably leads to a bigger discussion. Baguettelover (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree about the press coverage, the same applies to porn stars. There is of course also a moralistic attitude of some editors who target articles related to the sex industry. Whilst we argue about the quality of references, the unreferenced tag is used on 225,283 articles, some of which have had the tag for years, yet no nomination for deletion. 56K followers on Twitter shows notability to a lot of people, but unfortunately WP doesn't work that way. --John B123 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John B123 I don't know whether you were including me in your 'some editors' above? FWIW, I don't believe I've ever nominated any article connected to the sex industry or to pornography to AfD before (feel free to check), and I certainly don't target such pages, I just volunteer at WP:NPP. Working my way through the back end of the queue, I came across this article and reviewed it according to standard NPP guidelines. I found that it did not contain sufficient independent sources to establish notability per GNG, and I couldn't find sufficient sourcing upon searching - so, I nominated to AfD. That's standard procedure with new articles. As for the 225,283 articles you refer to - other stuff exists. The fact that there are unreferenced articles out there is not a reason to deviate from our notability standards on this article. If you want to establish a new notability guideline that applies to people who have a lot of Twitter followers but aren't covered in independent reliable sources, you will need to establish consensus for that. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: My comments were certainly not directed at you, but was a general comment. I have been involved in other AfD discussions where there were comments along the lines of "Delete - Nobody wants to read about prostitution on Wikipedia". The same editors tend join in all the AfDs for a given subject. Most discussions have 10 or less editors so half a dozen regulars with a similar outlook skew the decision. Effectively, out of millions of members, or even thousands of active members, only the views of a handful count. "Consensus" isn't really that when it's only the "consensus" of a small fraction of 1% of editors. I find a lot of WP policies, guidelines and processes fundamentally flawed. Taking notability for example; a scientist in a very specialist micro-field of study may have published significant papers in that field, those works cited by many etc, so far exceeds the notability requirements. We end up with an article, no matter how good, that very few people will read because it is such a specialised area. On the other hand, we have articles on popular people that are of interest to a far greater audience that are deleted for notability. In pre-internet day, the only way of verifying facts was by printed matter. WP hasn't moved on that far from those days. Whilst it accepts online sources for verification, generally that is only the online version of printed matter (or previously printed sources that are now online only). Social media has changed the way "news" is reported, sometimes going to social media only. Although this can be problematic, in that I can post "fake news" if I wanted, taking a stance that all social media is unreliable is to shut off to a lot of information.

Again, not directed at anybody in this discussion, whilst obviously WP needs to be policed, the policing is very subjective at times and policies and guidelines are used to further personal views of what WP should or should not include, and a blind eye turned at other times to the same end. WP comes across at times as having too high a proportion of "school teachers" telling people what they are doing wrong, often in a less than friendly way, compared to the number who are trying contribute to the knowledge base. --John B123 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Blatant advert. None of the sources supports notability per WP:GNG and no evidence the subject meets WP:BIO or WP:ENT. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides the links above (from those pretty much only the BBC link is relevant and a quality link, the rest is irrelevant, the Huffington Post one even says Alice Little Guest Writer which makes it a self-published source) I took the pains of clicking on the "news" (search) link in the AfD template. Here are a couple (at least slightly interesting) results I found: The Irish Sun: Sexy 4ft 8 Irish lass reckons she’s the highest paid hooker in America – raking in $1MILLION a year, XBIZ: Veteran shutterbug Frank Thomas to Guest on 'CannaPornia' Tonight (XBIZ is "the adult industry's leading publisher of business news and information"), Mirror: America's 'highest paid sex worker' on $1m a year 'wants to help people connect', ProSieben/Taff: Alice Little: Die bestbezahlteste Prostituierte der USA (geoblocked, Taff is a "lifestyle" i.e. tabloid magazine of German commercial TV channel ProSieben), Nový Čas: Najdrahšie platená prostitútka: Jej cieľom je spájať sa zmyslupným spôsobom, neuveríte koľko si zarobí! (Novy Cas is the most popular Slovak tabloid newspaper), The Sun: America’s ‘highest-earning’ legal prostitute reveals what life is really like working in a brothel plus some other tabloid newspapers from additional countries (e.g. Poland and Belgium) and tons of local US newspapers (who only mentioned her name in a single sentence). No, this is NOT a notable person, rather someone who's working overtime to become famous. It's also a pity that the ghostwriters she has hired don't know how to google properly even. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple articles confirm notability. She was profiled extensively by ABCs nightline for her work with hookers for healthcare https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/hookers-health-care-fighting-trumpcare-48716509 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiCo702 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:SIGCOV - she was mentioned and briefly interviewed in that news piece, which is about a political pressure group she's involved with - it's not about her, and does not give significant coverage about her. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate information — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristineBriannaMaggio (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm afraid that's rather missing the point - we're not discussing whether it's accurate or not. Please actually read the nomination, and the notability guidelines, then feel free to make an argument based on them. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, two fresh & brand new accounts created today with only a single edit each that happens to be on this (fairly obscure) page. Just a note for the puppet master (you know who you are!): the WP:SPI process has been created exactly for cases like these. -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I think that it needs to be rewritten entirely. Not written in a encyclopedic tone. Otherwise delete. The page author clearly has COI and most likely they were paid. Masum Reza^📞 20:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regarding article status, an editor seeming to have substantial real-world connection to the subject has stated several times, e.g. here and here, that the subject did indeed pay to have the article created. If this is true, it seems NUKEIT is in order. Agricola44 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, Agricola44, that editor has said stuff along those lines a few times in different venues. I've actually been considering whether I should ask an admin to revdel those comments though, they are probably a BLP violation since we don't have any evidence that what they are saying is true. I do think the article should be ditched for the lack of notability, and the likelihood that it was WP:UPE strengthens my opinion on that, but still I'm not comfortable with these accusations remaining visible. @Kudpung: - since you voted on this and have communicated with Cyber69surfer about the paid editing stuff, your thoughts on this would be appreciated - do their comments (particularly their more recent ones here, now self-deleted but still visible in the page history) need to be removed? GirthSummit _(blether) 21:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article and its history have all the hallmarks of a comissioned work. UPE is definitely against policy. With nearly 6mio articles, en.Wiki does not need to keep every possibly keepable article just because it can be kept. Deleting this article will also send a message to its subject that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a vanity platform. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Agree the comments should be removed from the page history. We have know way of knowing if the comments were accurate or even genuine. --John B123 (talk) 21:22, 24 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uparika Sharma[edit]

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

A dentist who likely fails WP:N. Her claim to fame is "best dentist" awards from something called the "National Consumer Advisory Board" and "425 Magazine", neither of which seems to be notable, if they even exist. The press coverage cited seem to be repackaged promotional content; the "chicagotribune.com" article, for example is labeled as "This item was posted by a community contributor". This all looks like an attempt at self-promotion. Sandstein 11:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deccantrap (talk • contribs)

In the medical field, notability is a bit different. An Indian born dentist going to USA & then winning Best Dentist award in Seattle with 1000s of dentists is a pretty big thing. Especially when we think about barriers being broken for a woman. Quick look shows that 425 Magazine seems to have a significant traffic in Seattle area. The article does not seem to have any links to personal page, so it does not look like self-promotion. I had TMJ problem myself, so I appreciate Dentist with TMJ expertise & Chiropractor recognition. I am trending towards keeping it and reviewing future coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayrice5 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC) — Jayrice5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: 425 Magazine appears to be an advertorial, not a reliable source. See [43]. The other press coverage reads like ad copy. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sharma definitely doesn't pass GNG, and also doesn't seem to be covered by even Wikipedia:Notability (doctors). I appreciate that notability standards for medical professionals may be different, but I can't find much on her that is from independent, non-advertisey sources. Gilded Snail (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, delete and close AFD. Meeanaya (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability criteria. --Harshil169 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From a glance article is WP:NOTNOTABLE with no verifiable peer reviewed articles or journals available. Mrbuskin (talk) 07:39, 23 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bracell[edit]

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

Recreation of Bracell Limited. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bracell Limited). The current version which turn the redirect back to article, fail multiple guideline such as WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and may be WP:PAID and WP:CSD#G11. Bracell Limited is a pausable alt name of Sateri Holdings, which by this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sateri, Sateri Holdings is notable. Thus, the bold recreation/split should be reverted, the page history that under this article namespace Bracell should be deleted. A new redirect should recreate with page protection to prevent recreation. Matthew hk (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel obliged to congratulate the nominator for the most reasons for deletion I've ever seen snuck in. I'd appreciate a passing admin taking a glance to see if the recreation-related criteria are, indeed, failed. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:18, 24 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. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 06:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Sidewalk[edit]

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

Comes nowhere near meeting WP:TVSHOW. Page for a series...that isn't a series. There was only a pilot episode made and despite the wellknown cast members this series does not seem to have been picked up and get past the pilot stage. The 2 "awards" it won come from small pay to enter festivals and 1 doesn't exist any more (catskill). Page created by a WP:COI editor. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dolph is the only 'known' name here; otherwise this is an article about an unsold pilot that violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Nate • (chatter) 20:21, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Fakri[edit]

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

The mentions here only cover him in passing (and ref. #3 locks a visitor into an infinite loop of "click cancel to OK" which does nothing). Certainly not enough here to warrant keeping this article. I do not speak Bengali, so if others can find sufficient discussion of this subject in Bengali sources, I will rescind my nomination for deletion. A loose necktie (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. There are several references in the corresponding Bangla article at bn:হাসান ফকরী and a Google News search for the Bangla name "হাসান ফকরী" generates several more possible references. The content of this article is based on its Bangla equivalent on Bangla Wikipedia.--Nahal^(T) 10:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very poor nomination, national award wining person with huge media coverage. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 12:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is funny, because the only reference mentioning the national award he won mentions neither his name nor the film for which he supposedly won it. If he did indeed win such an award, and the award is indeed competitive and national, then finding a reference that says this shouldn't be so very difficult. Including a reference that supposedly supports this claim but does nothing of the kind, now.... How do you account for this? And while there is indeed an article at the Bangla Wikipedia with its own references, this is only of limited use since each language Wikipedia has its own set of standards for what counts as a valid reference. The references that appear here don't seem to qualify him on the English Wikipedia; I would like to see the references from the Bangla one which meet the standards of the English Wikipedia and which support claims made in this article. The last reference, at least, seems to fall rather short

I am also noting that the English article on the film makes no mention of him winning this award, which is surprising. That article also has no references supporting any claims made in it. A loose necktie (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See here award list 1993-1995 line no. 14 ১৪. সেরা গীতিকার- হাসান ফকরী (চাঁদাবাজ ও বাংলার বধূ), follow 2nd para পুরস্কার ও সম্মাননা পেয়েছেন জাতীয় চলচিত্র পুরস্কার ১৯৯৩ (শ্রেষ্ঠ গীতিকার), জাতীয় চলচ্চিত্র পুরস্কার ঘোষিত হলে এই গানটির জন্য শ্রেষ্ঠ গীতিকারের পুরস্কার লাভ করেন হাসান ফকরী — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 03:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sea also BFDC 11 pages serial no. 10 — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 10:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hasan Fakri is a Lyricist who won Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Lyrics in 1993. So must keep the article.--Anup Sadi (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably will be a significant person because he received the National Award in Bangladesh. According to this source 1 2 he is a writer, national awardee for best songwriter. WP:GNG for passing a significant poet, songwriter and should not be deleted.--Nahal^(T) 07:15, 23 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FitNesse[edit]

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Passes WP:NSOFT. A search of Google Scholar [44] and Google Books results in plenty of sources and manuals about the subject. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nom's No reliable sources seems disproved by the article's book reference 978-0-321-26934-8 by Laplante which appears WP:RS. Gojko Adzic's book is self published but in mitigation he is recognized by a wikipedia article and he has other published works and awards in the field so he is not to be discounted. I'd notice IBM developer works has tutorials on it. [[45]]. I don't really need to dig further.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AmericanAir's findings. Utopes (talk) 19:37, 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 16:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Jarvis (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable author, couple of works, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello. I would argue for notability for two reasons. First, originality of approach, technique, and subject (in the spirit of item 2. of WP:AUTHOR as I read it - apologies, I am a novice), and the author's participation in a notable collective body of work (in the spirit of item 3. of WP:AUTHOR - this point I will seek to clarify, with refs, promptly).

The three works listed are recognised as 'firsts' on the subjects, which would not be notable in itself except that those subjects are significant (an indication of this may be the significant attention / discussion that the corresponding Wikipedia articles generate) - Carlos Duarte Costa, Ngo Dinh Thuc, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. It could be considered remarkable that there has been no previous monograph ever written on these topics, and therefore these first scholarly publications on the subjects are notable.

I will aim to add more references and sources as they appear (the works are fairly recent).

Another aspect of notability, I would argue, is the subject's significant founding role in the UK branch of a significant international movement, the Catholic Worker Movement.

I would argue that it is in keeping with the overall goal to properly identify the significant individuals of a) a notable but comparatively little-researched area of academic and social interest, and b) a notable and comparatively little-researched international social movement.

I hope these comments help - as I say, a mere beginner! Apollinari (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that source does not state that he helped found the Catholic Workers Movment - which was founded in 1933, by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin - but only that he was part of a group that established some sort fo a "house" for a London branch of that movement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:AUTHOR. Much/most of the sourcing is PRIMARY. The claims to notability are co-founding a Catholic Worker's house, sourced to Catholic Worker. Writing 2 books, but no book reviews are given. If, someone manages to find INDEPENDENT reviews of the books in WP:RS publications, please ping me to revisit. I am always willing to change an iVote when shown solid sources. This, however, appears to be PROMO for a non-notable author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ To clarify, three book reviews are given, one from a journal (an established print periodical) and two from a serious blog. May I ask whether the subjective comment about the article being a PROMO (above) is intended to cast doubt on the good faith of the submitter? Apollinari (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with "RENEW" magazine, but the like given on the page is [46], which did not look like an edited periodical, and may not be INDEPENDENT. A wrodpress blog by an non-notable person is not useful in establishing notability. The forward to the book is not INDEPENDENT of the book. Is there a review that I am missing?

Nor does PROMO posted on the publisher's page. And the fact that he had written articles does not contribute unless those articles are discussed in reliable publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that you are new here, and, therefore, probably unaware that it is customary when comment at AfD about a page you created to identify yourself as the page creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking good faith duplicate iVote made by new user presumably unaware that although we can comment repeatedly, only one bolded iVote per customer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance, it is truly appreciated. Sorry to insist but I see this accusation of doing promotion as unwarranted conjecture and speculation. I am new, yes, but Wikipedia guidelines enjoin us to presume good faith, and I am doing my best! And what does "And the fact that he had written articles does not contribute (etc.)" mean? Who had written articles? Me?Apollinari (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to Jarvis. Publishing a book or an article does not show that a writer is notable. Books only support the notability of the author by Wikipedia standards if multiple WP:RS publications review or engage with the book. Such material must be WP:INDEPENDENT. And if Jarvis publishes an essay in a the New Statesman or The Guardian, that does not establish notability. But if he publishes such ab article, and The Nation and The Times write articles about the article Jarvis wrote, the discussion about his writing contributes ot establishing his notability by Wikipedia standards. for a dramatic instance of this, see Michael Anton. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Indeed. I believe I never contested that. Apollinari (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with caution? Could there be an appropriate alternative to deletion? The article has issues but also potential. The Sources problem looks like a quantity issue rather than a quality issue. The Notability question does not look cut-and-dried, but difficult to assert. Edits are being made. Vintage-vintner (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)— Vintage-vintner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep sources may be Catholic-related, but that has not necessarily stopped us from using them to establish notability in the past.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. As my editing record will show, I am happy to cite small faith publications. Even happier when they are WP:RS. If you are familiar with the editing process at RENEW, please share what you know. Or, if you can access the article cited to 2019, please let us know whether it is by or about Jarvis.19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)

The 2019 article is a book review by a Paul Dean, as indicated in the reference. Apollinari (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the sources, one by one:

Soources # 2 & 3 are a blog VagrantVicar are NOT WP:RS.
source # 4 : Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism: a political commentary on the gospel,]] (Imprint Academic, Exeter, 2011, pp 355-356, p 408ff) is a WP:RS, althogh I cannot access the relevant page online. The page, however, uses this source only to claim that Jarvis was part of a group that established a residential house in London as part of the Catholic Worker Movement. A worthy activity, but not a notable one. The fact that a newsletter of the Catholic Worker movement mentions him does not contribute to notability.
to understand how inadequate the sourcing here is, look at citation #5: [47]. It is an announcement for a Catholic Worker panel discussion, but Jarvis isn't one of the panelists, he's the contact person. Ditto for source # 6, 7, 8 & 9. \
Source # 1, #11 not INDEPENDENT; it is the preface of a book by Jarvis.
Source # 12 is a blog
1. 13 is Jarvis' publisher
Sources # 10, 15 [48] are to a Catholic magazine called RENEW. The 2018 reference is to an article Jarvis wrote; the 2019 reference is behind the subscribers-only paywall. ~~it is very likely to be an article Jarvis wrote,~~ as the 2018 citation was. This would leave us with the mention in a book of the fact that he was part of a group or committed that opened a Catholic Worker residence in London as our sole SECONDARY, WP:RS source. It ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2019 article is a book review by a Paul Dean, as indicated in the reference. I wonder why it appeared "very likely to be an article Jarvis wrote" when the reference is clear and we are Assuming Good Faith Apollinari (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying this citation (Paul Dean, 'Book Reviews', RENEW, No. 189, March 2019, p 17 ), the nature of which was not at all clear to me. I guessed that it was "very likely" to be an article Jarvis wrote because the first citation was to an article Jarvis wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renew - small publication backed by Hans Küng, Mary Grey, Elizabeth Stuart, Tony Flannery and others, among the most influential (and controversial) figures in the field. Leaning is progressive, feminist, LGBT theology. No question it is WP:RS. So the total is two WP:RS references? As I commented, the issue seems quantity of quality sources, not quality itself. Could use more voices, insights and sources on this but I imagine that would require some time to pass (WP:POTENTIAL). I don't think deletion would be a travesty but this is not clear outright fail of WP:AUTHOR WP:GNG either, as I'm sure many cases are. Borderline case.Vintage-vintner (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
summing up We have 2 WP:RS items for Jarvis' career. 1 review of a book he wrote. 1 book (page view not available when I searched) that discusses or mentions the fact that he was part of a group that established a Catholic Worker Movement something in London. Not clear what it was that the participated in crating. a newsletter? a residence? a London chapter of the movement? It is not clear what the claim is. One book review in a WP:RS does not pass WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the claims clear from the article, which is where the claims should presumably be found. Catholic Worker is described as an international network of branches, co-founding London Catholic Worker would mean co-founding the London branch. It's amazing what can seem clear to one person and not to another, I agree that it's terribly confusing sometimes. I don't think it can be a decisive argument that an editor cannot access one of the WP:RS book references and therefore discards it. It is not a criterion of WP:RS that it be free online access, how would that work? But I get it, the more you contribute the more rules you get to invent.Vintage-vintner (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We still have only 2 sources on this person.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- That is much more a discussion of verifiability of sources, not of notability. He has clearly undertaken research on dissident Catholics. I note that he is now in his mid-40s, and has recently published three books, all with the same publisher. The article says nothing of what he has done before. I suspect that his doctorate is a recent one and the three books are a spin-off from his thesis. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His books may have impact going someday, in the form of scholarly discussion, citation - but they don't have it yet. I have searched - I presume some of the editors arguing keep have also searched - and I just can't find sources. Plus the fact that User:Vintage-vintner is a WP:SPA account created the day after this discussion began, and has edited only on a narrow range of closely connected topics edited by the page creator, User:Apollinari. (The arrival of this 2nd editor, so similar to page creator, makes me suspect WP:PROMO & WP:COI.) The only other editror arguing to keep this newly created page, User:Epiphyllumlover, argues that Catholic-related sources are WP:RS. I do not dispute that . I only argue that we need more than a book review in a single, very minor publication and a book that names subject as one of a group of founders of the London branch of an organization. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something to keep in mind is that this is a niche topic area, additionally Wikipedia articles on Independent Catholicism are currently often challenged by lack of notable sources/authors. I understand deleting a fringe non-notable church, but in general leaving the author/scholar articles undefeated will help people find reliable sources in the future. BTW, I have not searched for sources for him, at least not yet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately for the article I agree with the source analysis done by E.M. Gregory - this is a borderline AfD on a niche subject so don't terribly mind if it's kept, but he just doesn't quite pass WP:AUTHOR IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 05:25, 22 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) 00:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaria Venturini Fendi[edit]

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

No RS, most of them are interviews, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More reliable sources (books) have been added to references and bibliography, thanks for checking --Laviniastampa (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why would interviews not be valid for establishing notability? She also has non-interview sources covering her, anyway, such as [49][50] and she has enough mention in GBooks hits for me to think she's an easy pass. — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are usually seen as invalid for establishing notability because most of the time the only substantive content comes directly from the subject of the interview without any fact-checking. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of Italian language sources such as this, this, this and this to demonstrate that she meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amakuru, as well as an additional search to confirm that the findings are true, and that this article does indeed met WP:GNG. Utopes (talk) 19:40, 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. Analysis of the sources by multiple editors lead to a consensus that, despite a superficially large number of sources, there is not enough actual, in-depth independent coverage to demonstrate notability by Wikipedia's standards. A reliable article cannot be produced from promotional material, and the vast majority of the offered sources are nothing more than that; a consensus of all editors in this discussion other than the article creator and primary contributor supports its deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 15:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B-Nasty[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable rapper. No good charting. No gold. No national rotation. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Looking closely at some of the sources used.

21. Reviewindie. Who? "We want to give Indie artists a new promotion vehicle that will get fans talking." [51]. So not an independent reliable source. The article itself reads like pure PR. "In addition to her vocal gifts, the song showcases her exceptional lyrical phrasing, stylistic uniqueness and a truly catchy melody and rhythmic undertones." [52], Posted April 18, 2016 by Peter Burns. Same article also appears at Soundlooks, BY JEENA JOHNSON ON APRIL 17, 2016. Even has the same formatting error at the start. Also appears at Tunedloud, by Staff April 20, 2016.

22. Jamsphere. The article itself reads like pure PR. "I doubt anybody else raps like this in Australia and if anybody else ever will." [53] , Posted By: Rick Jamm Posted date: December 30, 2015. Same article also appears at Soundlooks, BY JEENA JOHNSON ON DECEMBER 31, 2015 and Reviewindie, Posted December 31, 2015 by Peter Burns. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

23. Soundlooks. The article itself reads like pure PR. "His lyricism, flow, wordplay and meter is on point. At the same time, he is a master of delivery, groaning his braggadocio tropes in a charismatic and powerfully layered rasp with a practiced blend of bravado, world-weariness and posturing idiosyncrasies." [54], BY JEENA JOHNSON ON DECEMBER 10, 2016. Same article also appears at Jamsphere, Posted By: Rick JammPosted date: December 10, 2016 and Reviewindie, Posted December 10, 2016 by Peter Burns and Tunedloud, by Staff December 10, 2016. Pattern continues. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

18. Tunedloud. The article itself reads like pure PR. "Arguably the face of Australian Hip Hop’s present indie momentum, B-Nasty’s command of musical time is apparent; he can flow over anything. Depending on the mood, he can almost always adapt to the music, even if the final product isn’t the most remarkable. Just capturing the vibe is sufficient for him to kill it." [55], by Staff June 9, 2016. Same article also appears at Jamsphere Posted By: Rick JammPosted date: June 09, 2016 and Soundlooks BY JEENA JOHNSON ON JUNE 9, 2016 and Reviewindie Posted June 10, 2016 by Peter Burns. Pattern continues. Same problems as above, PR, not independent coverage.

24. Amnplify. by the Australian Musician Network. they say they are "one of Australia’s leading music content websites that provides promotional services to musicians, bands, events, and music festivals around the country and artists worldwide.". They offer multiple services, such as Albumn reviews for $100. [56]. So this is a paid for review, not independent coverage.

Other coverage is the artist talking about himself, press releases, listings, primary, blog and shops. Sources that don't back up claims made. There is a lack of anything that is good for GNG or NMUSIC. Pure PR backed by PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, out of the 24 references that you chose to raise this debate you have missed the notable press about this artist The Music, X-Press Magazine and scenestr all three are recognised national magazines within Australia. Also on a seperate note those other citations where used to be able to show the artists singles and album that he released. Obvious bias but i'm for a strong keep. The artist has also worked with multple international and national acts, and also is Wu-Tang clan affiliate. if it is determined to delete, I would like it go back to a draft/stub. as this article was already "reviewed" from a draft state and was then made a start article. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Passportgang (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't miss all of them. The Music does many things. One of those things is to publish press releases as they have done here. You can also find the same article here. And it's not exactly significant coverage. Xpress (not national) is just B-Nasty talking about himself, not independent coverage. So that leaves one local street press article and they are largely PR services for local scenes containing a lot of indiscriminate coverage. Not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you, in my option The Music is independent and a reliable source. it seems to me that oztix just mirrors the site for news. and now that we are talking about oztix? is that not notable? Let's be honest that is notable in its own right?! Passportgang (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article is deleted, sub-articles and misc to be deleted include B-Nasty videography, B-Nasty discography, Category:B-Nasty, and Template:B-Nasty. To say I am concerned about COI and the promotional nature of these articles would be an understatement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – paucity of independent reliable sources, indicate subject does not qualify at NMUSIC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Stub This article was reviewed already from a draft state, i'm more then happy to come to a "resolution" of a stub article, but I do believe the artist to be notable. " multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." also "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" Passportgang (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He Has NOT become one of the most prominent representatives ... And that false claim is not supported. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete nothing on Soundcloud or Spotify. Fails WP:BAND and WP:NMUSIC and WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO. Both the category and discography needs to go a well. Completely non notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Debate I don't want to be rude but did you even google the artist? There is a knowledge box on google that links all of the streaming link, such as YouTube, Spotify, Google Music, Deezer, Soundcloud and a Verified Facebook account. And as I've stated it does not fail WP:NMUSIC in my opinion, maybe yours. but since you didn't even google the artist, I think the administrator that reads this should Nil your vote. on a seperate note on the original post "No national rotation" The artists latest single was also distributed through Amrap's Airlt, so in my opinion that would classify as national rotation. Passportgang (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Passportgang:, there is some social media links, streaming links, but insufficient to establish WP:NMUSIC. There needs to be sustained coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, a significant number of plays on music sites like Spotify. 250k listeners is a typical figure for signed bands. For social media 250k fans a typical number that seems to be the standard on Wikipedia. The subject satisfies none of that. He is completely non-notable. So the disco, the cats and the article has to go. I know it is difficult when your article gets deleted. My first article was deleted. I know how it feels. scope_creep^Talk 20:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: "there is some social media links, streaming links" That is wrong, if you see the references that are on the article that might help. now if regards to the 250k listeners/fans. we are talking about an Australian artist here not an American. I would make a point to see the other australian artists within the category of hip hop / rappers. as i've stated before I am happy for the article to become a STUB removing the disc and the cat but I believe it still hits notability with WP:SIGCOV, especially since the artist has worked with prominent artists within hip hip, and has the press/articles to back it up! Yes, I will admit its a sting that my debut article is up for deletion, however I believe my debate is firm especially after the points I have made further up. Passportgang (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Passportgang: Ok. Post three good references here per WP:THREE and let the good folks of Wikipedia have a look. Working with other prominent music artist has no meaning. The person must have stand-alone notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: No problem, I appreciate you engaging with me! The Music National Magazine also has a Wikipedia Article [57], National Magazine [58], National Magazine [59]. These are the best articles on the artist. What will be great about this discussion is to find out for "Australian" artists what is classified as notable?! Because if we look at the category of Australian rappers these magazines have been used as references. And yes your latter point I do agree with, and I understand. Passportgang (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not anywhere enough for a BLP article that must satisfy WP:ANYBIO. One is name drop and other one is a mention of a mix tape. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And one is an album review? I guess the question is what will satisfy WP:ANYBIO for an Australian artist, and what are acceptable? Just ARIA articles? WAM Articles? I need to know this information before even trying to create another article. Passportgang (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above that album review is paid for, not an independent source. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme:I have gone through archive.org since I do believe Amnplify did not provide those services back when the review was published, tbh that's why I used it for the article, I have provided the link here. [60]. It seems to be a recent addition, possibly to raise funds. Passportgang (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've gone through all the cited references and unfortunately I can't find anything that sufficiently addresses any of the criteria under WP:NMUSICIAN. The majority of the references provided are either from questionable sources (such as Setlist.fm, iTunes, Musicbrainz, Discogs etc) or primary sources (such as Doughboyproductions) or reproductions of press releases (such as Unearthed, RTRFM). Even the Triple J unearthed chart doesn't indicate that he received any airplay on Triple J or Triple J unearthed. I think that it may be best moved to draft and when more reliable sources can be found then be re-assessed. Dan arndt (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Please refer to the above, I do believe the article is stub worthy, however, more then happy to concede for the article to go back to a draft. I would like your opinion on the matter. Passportgang (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with it going back to draft. There is insufficient sources to support such a move. The articles subject started his career in 2007 and still not notable, 12 years later, so putting it to draft will just waste more time for other editors. @Passportgang: If you need a hand to determine what constitutes article for a musician, I can give you a hand. scope_creep^Talk 18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about it not going back to draft. Years ago when I first started editing I created an article on a little known rapper from Perth and had to argue and fight with editors, who had much more experience than I did, to have the article retained. That article was Drapht and I'm glad that I stuck to my guns. It took Drapht eight years before he received national recognition. Now I'm not saying that B-Nasty will receive the same level of notability as Drapht. However in this case allowing the article to revert back to a draft is not going to hurt anyone and in the fullness of time Passportgang may be able to demonstrate B-Nasty is notable (or possibly not). Dan arndt (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Oh wow, that is actually really dope! I might actually be able to pick your brain about a few things! Yeah, Drapht did start off quite small but then blew up nationally! Dare I say Internationally! I remember articles of Drapht in TheMusic Amplify & X-Press Magazine. I guess what I'm really trying to say, what is notable press for an Australian hip hop artist?! I mean he has worked with Wu-Tang and also a few other notable artists. I know that it does not transfer however in the scope of Australian artists how do we confirm?! Is it only Aria charted artists? but I appreciate the Draft vote. Passportgang (talk) 14:08, 24 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 that the subject is notable with significant coverage. No copyvio concerns because an interlanguage link was provided immediately after the article's creation. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Fielmann[edit]

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

no notability of his own--inheritor of a family business. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is one of the CEOs of one of the largest European eyewear companies. He is just succeeding his father. An he is CEO in day-to-day business - [61] - Blinky11 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim of being Germany's youngest CEO is specifically about the subject and there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with the article about the company – see WP:PRESERVE. Note also that there's an equivalent article in the German wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CEO of company worth 5 billion, son of a billionare. The notability question here isn't the merits of the subject, but coverage of the subject. Considering we have a full length profile by Bloomberg - [62] (covering the business, finance, wealth side) as well as coverage on topics such as the subject's marriage - [63][64] - we have WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being the son of a notable person is one of the provisions excluded by WP:NOTIHERITED as implying notability. Having an article in deWP does not necessarily imply having one in enWP, though, as I said, what meets their standards ususall meets ours also. Youngest CEO does not imply notability. CEO of a large company oftern does, if there are sources supporting the article, but there are not:

Sources--ref 1 is his own website profile and not a RS--ref 2 is a bloomberg profile, which is always subject-provided information and therefore not independent --Ref 3 is about his marriage, which is not coverage of anything distinctive about hte person ref 4 is from his company and therefore not independent --ref 5 is more about his company than it is about him. So the only even possible independent RSs are the marriage and the Bloomberg news article. I do not think that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing in enwiki is not good. The Bloomberg profile is significant([65]), the marriage coverage is on top of that (and shows coverage of a different aspect). dewiki is usually more strict than us. And there is more profile coverage in German - [66], [67], [68]. And there quite a bit of more coverage with him (which of course requires sifting through - some of it is routine company reports). CEOs (and in this case - with a future ownership stake) of 5 billion dollar companies tend to be notable - WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (Fielmann is listed in the MDAX index - the 60 companies beneath the 30 top companies in DAX (so - companies 31-90) - which in converting to the UK (which has an entry in NBUSINESSPEOPLE) is approx. the same tier as a FTSE 100 Index (100 companies)). Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of large multinational company. Via Google News you will easily retrieve dozens of articles published by independent news outlets. German-speaking media has published >100 articles alone last year. Note that most of the article has initially been a copy of the German Wikipedia article. Klaus 22:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:SIGCOV. policy that applies: WP:NEXIST. Sources in German coverage as cited above. I see how a WP:BEFORE could miss the sources. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article created in German WP since 24 April, with more edits on 22/23 June (see here), now looks like this, article here created on 27 June (see here), not quite word for word but very close, are there copyright issues here? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Good sleuth work. I see no issue with going to the German Wiki to find sources that were hard to locate, but not sure about the other than refs. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, 1st statements of most "keepers" above revolve around Fielmann being CEO of a large multinational company/youngest CEO/being rich. This is irrelevant (although may indicate that sources will be available) to notability, what is needed are sources that discuss the person, thanks to Icewhiz for providing these above so it is a keep as meeting WP:GNG. ps. even if there were not sources available, at the very least this could have been a "merge/redirect" to the company, not an outright "delete". Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC) note: this comment/keep was accidently deleted i am reinstating it. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 21 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 Instacart with no prejudice against any relevant sourced material being merged from the history, which will remain. This might seem a close call, but only one of the keep voters offered any analysis of the sources, while on the other side I see a consensus that such sources do not establish independent notability. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva Mehta[edit]

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

Apoorva Mehta is non-notable, most of the news revolves around Instacart. Merge or Redirect to Instacart. Created by a new user, made only 12 edits to get the auto-confirmed account, high possibilities of vandalism. Meeanaya (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added some cnn articles on him. Seems like a useful article regardless of the publisher.Ayepaolo (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Ayepaolo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Does not have the kind of significant coverage to establish independent notability. There are sources for things like interiews and inclusions on lists but these don't help establish notability. Instacart is an obvious redirect target as an AtD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - the subject seems to be a run-of-the-mill CEO. Given that topics do not inherit notability from eachother, I doubt that Mehta is notable when removed from his company; indeed, much of the content in the article as it is seems to be related to Instacart than to Mehta himself. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found specific articles on him from CNBC, LA Times, and India Times Catladyz6 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Catladyz6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Catladyz6, are they about him or are they about Instacart? Are they reported articles or are they interviews? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage of Mehta in the mainstream press shows he is notable. These articles are about him as founder, not about the company. Interviews are perfectly good evidence of notability, quoting from Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability: "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability". There is nothing in Wikipedia:Notability (people) to suggest that interviews are not evidence of notability. Railfan23 (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC

WP:Interviews is an essay not a policy or guideline. WP:GNG, which is a guideline, suggests that notability should be established by secondary sources "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Interviews, as established at WP:PRIMARY are not secondary sources. What are the WP:THREE that establish notability in your mind? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going dismiss WP:Interviews because it is an essay, then don't make WP:THREE a requirement - it is also an essay. The LATimes one is secondary because it is reporting on a discussion with Mehta, not merely reproducing his words. This CNBC article is about Mehta, not an interview with him. This Entrepreneur article is about Mehta. Railfan23 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Entrepreneur article is by a 'Guest Writer', with a byline explaining that the opinions of 'contributors' are their own. See the discussion at WP:Perennial sources concerning Forbes.com contributors - it's the same kind of thing, it's not an RS. I don't agree that the short, soft soap interviews in LA Times and CNBC one establish notability.GirthSummit _(blether) 16:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I bring up three not as policy but as a method to have a useful discussion. The LA Times is more substantial than I gave it credit for the first time I looked at it. The CNBC article doesn't hit enough notes to strike me as notability inducing and Girth hits my concerns about The Entrepeneur. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Instacart. The interviews being used here to argue for notability are exactly the type described at Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability as being broadly unhelpful in establishing notability - they're just there to keep him talking. There isn't anything significant in reliable source about Mehta (rather than the company) apart from these puffy interviews. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:11, 19 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. It already seems apparent that the nomination will not be successful. See WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natural-language programming[edit]

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

"Natural-language programming" is not in the Oxford English Dictionary or other dictionaries. It is difficult to establish notability because "natural language" and programming are high frequency combinations. Google ngram shows that "Natural language programming" has very low frequency [69]. Notgain (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Not being in a dictionary (DICTDEF anyone?) or nominator finding it difficult to search for the them is not an indication of a lack of in-depth, secondary, reliable sources. Besides the sources in the article, which probably establish notability in and of themselves, a cursory search comes up with the following well cited journal articles: Miller, Lance A. "Natural language programming: Styles, strategies, and contrasts." IBM Systems Journal 20.2 (1981): 184-215., Biermann, Alan W., Bruce W. Ballard, and Anne H. Sigmon. "An experimental study of natural language programming." International journal of man-machine studies 18.1 (1983): 71-87., Mihalcea, Rada, Hugo Liu, and Henry Lieberman. "NLP (natural language processing) for NLP (natural language programming)." International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006., Dijkstra, Edsger W. "On the foolishness of" natural language programming"." Program construction. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1979. 51-53..... Which would easily satisfy notability by themselves. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also speedy keep. It's a poor article, but did the nominator make any effort at WP:BEFORE? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:36, 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 redirect to Batman. Seems like a good consensus here that the nickname itself isn't notable enough for an article, none of the keeps has presented a counterargument except for Erik but it doesn't seem like anyone else was convinced. The principal objection to merge is that Batman itself is already too large, thus the proposals here to either split or trim that article or to create a Nicknames of Batman page need to be given serious consideration during the merge process but it does not really address the concerns about this topic. I'll thus go for a redirect so that the page size issue can be addressed concomitantly with the merge one as part of a talk page discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Knight (nickname)[edit]

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

I'm not sure why the nickname of Batman is independently notable of Batman himself. There seems to be no reason why this cannot simply be mentioned in the main Batman article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Batman. I agree the term doesn't seem to be independently notable, but a merge with a redirect to the relevant section seems like a good WP:ATD. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Batman is already too long with so many details about the fictional character. It is over 143 KB, and WP:SIZESPLIT says to divide up content if the article is over 100 KB. Considering the scale of the character, it should be completely appropriate to have a variety of sub-articles related to different aspects of him. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My first inclination was to vote for a merge to Batman, per Zxcvbnm, though I will say I am impressed how the content of this article is focused not on the Batman character, but on the nickname itself – its origins, meanings, applications to the character, explanations/analyses, etc. It did get me wondering, though, whether Wikipedia might be better served not by an article on this one nickname, but by a Nicknames of Batman article that discusses all of his nicknames in this fashion. It could focus on the major ones (Dark Knight, The World's Greatest Detective, Caped Crusader), antiquated ones no longer in regular use (Masked Manhunter, Dark Avenger), and what specific characters call him ("B-Man" from Harley Quinn; various names from Joker like "Bats," "Batsy," "Dork Knight"; etc.). Perhaps there could even be a section about the differences in use between "Batman" vs "The Batman", which I know is something that's been debated and discussed a lot. I guess you could even discuss the term "Dynamic Duo" about Batman and Robin in such an article. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but it's just a thought... — Hunter Ka hn 14:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support a broader nicknames sub-article idea. I don't support bloating Batman more than it is already bloated at this time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Batman, per stated concerns about the nickname not being independently notable from the character. The concerns about the length of the target article isn't really an issue when you consider that the bulk of this article's length consists of copious amounts of direct quotes copied straight from the sources, which really would not need to be transcribed over. I do, however, like Hunter Kahn's idea about a "Nicknames of Batman" article, and I would have no problem at all with this article's content being merged into an article like that if one is ever created in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIZESPLIT, the article Batman is already too big for any more content at 143 KB. It is at 100 KB that we need to start splitting out content. This will only bloat the main article further where it is perfectly framed here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, that doesn't mean this article should stay just because of that. The size of the Batman article has absolutely nothing to do with whether this article is or isn't notable. The Batman article should be dealt with in other ways, possibly by paring down non-essential WP:PLOTSUM information, which would be mentioned in the comic book article anyway._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is notable. There is significant coverage about the nickname, and I literally just found yet another source talking about it in detail that does not exist in this article at this time. See screenshot. And the Batman article has a lot of good information already. It is false to claim that it is in any form too much of a plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into relevant areas—Batman and The Dark Knight Returns seem to be the obvious ones. Of all the content to fork from the article, I'd say this is one of the least sensical ones (and I'd argue the parent article should first be trimmed because it could stand to be.) I don't really see enough evidence of its notability independent of the parent subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Fuchs Do you have any thoughts on the Nicknames of Batman option, or would you be opposed to that as well? — Hunter Ka hn 23:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Batman. I like the idea of a Nicknames of Batman, but remain skeptical that it could pass WP:GNG. If enough can be done to meet that threshold, then merge there. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Erik and Hunter. Batman article is very big. I like the idea of merging all nicknames to Nicknames of Batman. Masum Reza^📞 07:37, 25 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. There is a clear consensus that this singer fails our notability guidelines, at present, but may cross the threshold in the future as her career develops. Just Chilling (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teddi Gold[edit]

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

Lacks RS, WP:TOOSOON Meeanaya (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:TOOSOON with debut album schedules to release August 16, 2019. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SPA / OR / bad refs suggest possible vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Amended Career and Discography to reflect only past releases. Re: RS, there are pages of Google Search results articles about this subject and many indexed in Google News. "LA Weekly" for example is a print and online pub. Dzz134435 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify move to draftspace because if the album is reviewed in multiple reliable sources or charts then she may well be notable and a move back to mainspace via WP:AFC can be a valid option, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A start out singer with only one album released would take many years to be notable and she is and meet WP:MUSICBIO then the page can be recreated. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:SINGER. Masum Reza^📞 20:26, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siarhiej Stasievich[edit]

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

Non-notable priest. Doesn't pass GNG or WP:NCATHOLIC. Madg2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. St Anselm (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- merely a NN priest. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of significance or notability Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Railfan23 (talk) 03:18, 23 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) William2001^(talk) 00:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiro Martín Lago[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. William2001^(talk) 02:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree. Doesn't satisfy WP:NFOOTY MaskedSinger (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was Tiro Federal not in the Primera B when he played for them? Will look for sources later. SportingFlyer T·C 05:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tiro Federal did play in Primera B Nacional in 2007-2008 as per this and this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the above passes WP:NFOOTBALL (@MaskedSinger:) but struggling to find online sources, just transfer stuff like this and this. However I'm willing to assume he meets GNG given the length and nature of his career. Giant Snowman 08:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY and has had a long career and has played in the Europa League and is currently playing.Through did not search in depth in Spanish and Italian could find this this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to withdraw Thanks everyone for letting me know that Tiro Federal was in Primera B Nacional during Lago's time. Since Primera B Nacional is in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, I agree that this article meets NFOOTY. I want to withdraw this nomination and close it, but there is a "delete" !vote, so @MaskedSinger: what do you think about this? William2001^(talk) 01:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who am I to argue with you all? Especially the wise William2001 Also withdraw my delete vote. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the response. I will withdraw this AfD. William2001^(talk) 00:02, 21 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) William2001^(talk) 01:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cream Box[edit]

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

No indication of notability, not to mention that it is unsourced (probably because it is not notable). William2001^(talk) 01:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- there are a *lot* of sources on the Japanese page. I'm not on a particularly good position to evaluate them, but at least a few of them seem at face value to be legitimate. Did the nominator look at interwiki before nominating? matt91486 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: Wow, how did I not see that? I can read Japanese, and some of those websites seem to be independent news websites, so I will withdraw. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 01:23, 20 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. Redirecting was also proposed, but there was little indication that either content or history are needed and no consensus as to the redirect target. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of known languages[edit]

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

How is this page different from List of languages? William2001^(talk) 01:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recently created (17 July), un-referenced, un-complete (gets to b), and plausibly also a WP:A10. A qualification of "known" is indeed unnecessary as we don't, as of yet, have a list of unknown languages - for if we do, the language would become known. This indeed duplicates content linked to from Lists of languages, and specifically List of language names, List of languages by total number of speakers, Index of language articles, .... Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, completely useless article that already has another article that suitably covers the topic. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I created this article because I couldn't find a complete list of languages on wikipedia. The difference between this article, and other similar articles, is this article will become a complete list of all the languages. I'm using Ethnologue as a reference of what languages we know of: https://www.ethnologue.com/browse/names, I am going to work on adding the complete list, and will add a reference to ethnologue. I hope that's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CcfUk2018 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a better name for this article would be "List of languages according to Ethnologue"? CcfUk2018 (talk) 12:52, 17th July 2019 (UTC)

That's already available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/List of ISO 639-3 language codes (2019) (there's a one-to-one relation between ISO 639 codes and ethnologue language entries). A glance at the links there should reveal why such long lists are difficult to maintain. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for the link. At the same time, I think this list is useful as it provides a clear list of languages in their English name, in alphabetical order, and will be able to be linked for easy use to all language. It can then be further expanded to include where the languages are spoken, if they are living or extinct, and how many people speak that language. I hope that makes sense. I'll do my best to create the full list. It can also be used as a reference to quickly see how many languages there are in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CcfUk2018 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is viable as a list article. There are over 7,000 languages listed in ethnologue, simply enumerating those languages, without providing any additional details, will already get you well over the recommended maximum article size. More generally, lists of this type (even if more circumscribed in scope, as in "Languages in Country X") tend to quickly deteriorate over time as they can't easily keep pace with all the changes (ISO codes created or retired, wikipedia articles renamed, merged or split...) and as they're difficult to police against well-meaning editors introducing inconsistencies. Looking after such an article will be a tremendous job and in my opinion there's not enough encyclopedic benefit to justify it. Maybe there could be a way to dynamically generate a list of all language articles? – Uanfala (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Uanfala for explaining that. I see what you mean. I wonder if it will one day be possible to have a list on wikipedia of all the languages, the number of speakers, and where it is spoken. I see now that this article can't, in its current state do all that. I would like to see this article be kept, but for the time being, it might be better to delete it. I apologise for the issue this article created. I wanted to be able to find a complete list of languages with the number of speakers, and where it is spoken, but can see that isn't viable at the moment. Thanks again for explaining this to me. (CcfUk2018 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe redirect to List of ISO 639-3 codes is the simplest option. Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or possibly merge if necessary) to List of ISO 639-3 codes. A more complete lead section or at least a note on that page might be in order, since the current lead is just a one-sentence definition and an index. But that discussion is beyond AfD. Cnilep (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of languages. Incomplete list, no need to keep it. Masum Reza^📞 20:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of languages. Although, the optimist in me would prefer to rename this to List of languages Wikipedia is written in. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 25 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 List of named trains in Victoria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The West Coaster (Victorian train)[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV apparently available under the current title or the alternative spelling "Westcoaster". Unusally for a named train, there is no reference to it in Trove newspapers or more recent news archives. The mentions in offline sources I have are in passing only, such as lists of named trains - no indication of independent notability. The unsourced statement in the article that it appeared on modern-era V/Line timetables is accurate - 2006 for example - but again, there is no indication that this confers notability. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Victorian Railways or Port Fairy railway line (the train company that ran the service, or the line that it ran on - the second one probably makes more sense, but either are fine)~~ List of named trains in Victoria (as per WP:ATD) Bookscale (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, it is mentioned in this article, out of interest (where it is spelled in one word "Westcoaster"). You're probably better off looking at a book on Victorian railway history which will probably deal with the subject and show how notable it actually is. Bookscale (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found that picture caption – and that's all it is. And I should have been clearer that the offline sources I inspected were Victorian railway histories, but I freely admit I don't have much to hand and there may be something I've missed. I do wonder if the name was something of an attempt to emulate the popularity of The Gippslander, which is far more well-reported despite being a very similar service. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Triptothecottage - I agree with your point. The Wiki article presently has no sources so merging to the relevant organisation or line will enable an article to be recreated if sources are found in future. No reason to keep at the moment. Bookscale (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. The current content doesn't justify a stand-alone article. Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I was inclined to say delete. We had this issue some time ago over named trains in India, where they all have names. If merged the merge target should be a list of named trains within the target article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The remaining named trains in Victoria either have their own article (and lots of sources) or are merged into a larger article about the line or train type. Bookscale (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and ping @Bookscale, Peterkingiron, and Mackensen:: there's now List of named trains in Victoria, which is probably a better/alternative merge target. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Triptothecottage - happy for a merge to that page (agree it makes more sense than my suggestions). Bookscale (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That'll do nicely--though it seems more a summary article than a list, so Named trains in Victoria might be a more appropriate title. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 23 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 Denys Desjardins. Deletion or merging have also been proposed, but there is no clear preference for deletion over redirecting and so WP:ATD applies, and for merging editors have stated the content is already at the merge target. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Dame aux poupées[edit]

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

Short film of questionable notability, it apparently won a award, but don't know how notable it is, to make it even more strange-film does not even appear on the IMDb. Wgolf (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect to the filmmaker given RebeccaGreen's improvements to his article which left room for a short plot summary. NFILM does not automatically extend instant permanent notability to every winner of every film award that exists — the AQCC has some potential to be a valid notability claim if the article were actually citing reliable sources, but it's not an instant notability freebie that would exempt a film from actually having to have any proper sources at all. Based on the creator's username I also suspect a direct conflict of interest even if I can't prove it outright. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Denys Desjardins, though in fact with no sources, there is not much to merge. I found a source which verifies that he won this award for this film, but that's all. I have reorganised the filmography section of Denys Desjardins, and added columns for others involved in creating the films and for the theme, with info for this film from this article. I suspect that some of his other films may not be notable either, but information about them can certainly be included in an article about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a really nice job on that table. Thanks for that. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Glad it's useful. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am happy with Delete for this article - as I said above, I have incorporated most of the info into the filmmaker's article. I don't know that either the French or English title of this film would be a likely search term, so I don't think a redirect would be necessary - but regardless of that, a complete article is not needed, and as far as the history of this article is concerned, it has the same creator as the article about the filmmaker, so little information would be lost by deleting rather than merging. (I know I should strike my vote above, but I still haven't figured out how to do that without striking everything that follows, so I have just unbolded it!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wrap <s> </s> tags around the specific pieces of text you want to strikeout. If you're have problems striking text, it's probably just a matter of forgetting to close the strike tags. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Denys Desjardins, per RebeccaGreen. Since the article content has been effectively integrated into there, I don't see a need to keep this stub any longer. JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:25, 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 Real estate investing. Low traffic AfD but there is no support for a 'keep' and 'merge' looks as close to a consensus as we are likely to get. Just Chilling (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BRRR (real estate)[edit]

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

Not sure about the article's notability, so inviting debate on whether it is notable enough or not for Wikipedia. There seem to be some references on the internet about this 'method' (just googled "brrr real estate"), but not sure whether they are enough to merit an article, as many seem to be self-help-styley websites. Therefore I am inviting debate on whether it is notable enough or not. Seagull123 Φ 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 22:13, 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 00:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Real estate investing. The term definitely seems widely used, but most of the sources I can find are 'how-to' type websites, discussion forums, books etc. What I can't find is enough decent secondary coverage of the term/approach from an independent perspective (i.e. not from people trying to show you how to invest). Tbh it's borderline for me, I think you could just about make a decent article out of this and prop it up with some 'nearly good enough' referencing, but it's not quite there, and the merge is an obvious solution. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:27, 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.