Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 August	19 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. This malformed AfD, which was never added to a logpage, sat in obscurity for three years without being commented on. It seems to have run its course naturally (the draft now redirects to an article about the album). If anyone thinks that article ought to be deleted, there is no prejudice against nominating it independently. (non-admin closure) jp×g 03:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come On In

Unreleased album that lacks significant coverage from third party, reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUM. Might be notable after it is released. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The proposal to delete the article has no support and this seems unlikely to change. And there seem to be good reasons to close the discussion quickly as this is a BLP. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Flood (organist)

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

Man who plays an organ at a Cathedral. Lacks widespread reliable coverage, fails WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This might be a reasonable description of an organist at a cathedral in a city of 30,000 people. However, this is the director of music and master of the cathedral choristers at the cathedral which is the seat of the head of the Church of England. He has led the choir for 30 years, and the choir, with him as director, has released at least 17 albums. They have also been on international tours. He certainly meets WP:MUSICBIO. I will search for and add more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’ve added one more ref. There are plenty of refs for his playing and leading the choir around the UK and in the USA but there doesn’t seem much point in cluttering the article up with them just to make a point. Mccapra (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable eg per [1]. —Mkativerata (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep- revenge nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shabana_Latif. Reyk _YO! 07:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep petty tit-for-tat, this reflects poorly on the Cricket WikiProject of which I am a member. A basic WP:BEFORE check would have made it obvious that Flood sails through GNG requirements. I would close it as such, but feel that as part of CRIC, I can not call myself uninvolved. Harrias ^talk 09:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G11; copyvio of material provided by the article subject to the article creator (via Upwork) but with no evidence of transfer of copyright. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MyTrendyPhone

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

Possibly notable but sources provided do not show notability Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that this company belongs on Wikipedia. It now operates in multiple countries worldwide, and I think it should be here. --Genericname23 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for many sources, but there's not really any relevant sources that would actually write about a company. --Genericname23 (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)I[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Run-of-the-mill phone accessory store. Have found two mentions in Danish media: They were late on returning a woman's phone, Interview with owner who lost business due to Google's algorithm pushing him down in search results. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 12:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Variable cycle three-stroke engine

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

patent spam Graywalls (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original article made no mention of patents. That came about as a consequence of someone nominating the article for deletion in 2012. The person contesting deletion sourced the article to a patent. This was not the best of choices. I cannot find any good sources addressing this. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- so, is that a delete or keep or neither? I just searched and there's no credible third party reference to three stroke/variable stroke. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should have done such a search first, note. And checked the edit history. That's the correct order to do this. Per Project:deletion policy we don't delete things for being patented, but we do delete them if no-one can turn up any good sources documenting the subject in depth. Rationales not based upon putting the necessary work in, do not help towards making that determination. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read WP:BEFORE. Trackinfo (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It describes a patent and has little encyclopedic value. Szzuk (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Belsher

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

Not signs of notability, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly corporate spam. All signs of WP:UPE. Meeanaya (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Barca (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 03:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi Dharmalingam

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

Appears to be non-notable, none of the sources provided actually make any reference to him Dexxtrall (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pangaj Productions

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

Article about a film production company that fails WP:GNG. Claim of award with no reliable references to support the claim. Fails WP:RS Lapablo (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several news papers are linked. If not should this be listed under Hennry (producer)? Papa Captcha (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not a single reference about this company that meets the criteria for establishing notability and a number of the references in the article don't even mention the company. There might be a case for creating an article on "Henry" or "Hennry", the producer, but the starting point for such an article wouldn't necessarily be this one. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Fails WP:NORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tam Sheang Tsung

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a professional league. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, still non-notable six years after last AFD! Giant Snowman 07:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject played for Melaka United under Malaysia Super League which qualified under Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues guideline. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He signed to Melaka United but he didn't play which is also part of the guidelines. HawkAussie (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article indicates that player did not play for Melaka in the MSL so fails NFOOTY unless evidence can be found to prove that he did play at top level. Doesn't qualify for GNG, either. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep – These are kind of significant coverage: NST and The Star (created history when he became the first Malaysian to be recruited into Japan’s J-League ... made a name for himself as the youngest footballer in Japanese professional league history). These aren't sigcov but nevertheless suggest notability to me: Goal.com (highly rated Malaysian winger ... Malaysian wonderkid) and Yahoo Sports (Arguably the biggest move in this round-up as MUFC penned a deal with Tam Sheang Tsung.) These are admittedly pretty weak, but I can't help but wonder if we'd find better GNG sources in Japanese, Chinese or Malay. – Levivich 18:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references and rationale in the above less than weak keep does not add up to crossing a threshold of minimum notability for WP:ANYBIO, as this is a BLP, and subject apparently fails NFOOTY. More than a little career content entailing seven years (2012 to current), or nine references, are needed to present actual notability and provide more than a pseudo biography. A lack of additional references because they possibly just weren't found might be a concern (are they out there and we missed them) if a low minimum threshold of notability was even approachable. A source can be fantastic for content, while not providing anything towards notability, so WP:CBALL or WP:PROVEIT doesn't even need to be considered. While trivia is interesting, being a member of the "youngest in the history of class" would be relevant as an add-on to notability not a determining criterion and "he came on the 88th minute in a 1-0 loss.", doesn't do it either. A want or need to list every sports person in the world needs to be held to every "notable" sports person and if we have to grasp at straws...? --- "kind of significant coverage" or "aren't sigcov" is too minimum of even a lowered bar. Otr500 (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palibhasa Sikat

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

Pilot for an apparently unreleased tv comedy. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable media, fails WP:GNG. 1989 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Barca (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Aicher

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

Article about a guitarist that fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Currently they're no WP:RS to support notability. Lapablo (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable guitarist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Bad Company (band). Not independently notable. WP:NOTINHERITED. Wm335td (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Philosophical Review

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable journal Alex-h (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ag Apolloni

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

Sourcing issues, awards may not be enough to pass GNG ] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to know that this article does not have enough references, but it will be completed in a near future. What is GNG? Berishasinan (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG, is the notability guideline. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually enough awards.Berishasinan (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the award. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are four (4) national awards Apolloni was awarded. Isn't that enough? Berishasinan (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The national awards have to be notable ( I am not sure they are but you can educate me), example a good conduct medal won't qualify a soldier for an article alone, medal of honor on the other hand different story. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Book of the Year" is an annual award, which is given to the best book of the year from Ministry of Culture of Kosovo. I think it's considered as an award.

Let me ask for permission to erase the template for deletion in my article Ag Apolloni, because it doesn't break any of Wikipedia's rules for an article. It has references and multimedia with copyrights. Berishasinan (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will last a week and then a determination will be made to the ultimate suitability of keeping or not. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berishasinan (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passes GNG. The award is genuine and he is a real professor. Szzuk (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The awards appear to be national and are referenced, and so he meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Island Statues (band)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Probably WP:TOOSOON, but there aren't enough reliable sources about this band – the usual "watch the video for their latest song here" on Louder Than War [2] (no byline on the article, which suggests that the article is a press release supplied to the website), a band page on the NME website [3], which I can't load up and read, but seems to be a host page for the band to publicise itself, and everything else is non-RS blogs and websites. The "Musical styles" paragraph is copyvio from the band's website [4]. Richard3120 (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, the band's two EPs so far, because they are equally non-notable:

Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough impact or coverage yet to justify an article. Coverage is sparse and apart from the one Louder Than War article appears to be limited to the usual handful of amateur music sites masquerading as magazines. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Re: the nomination, yes, NME.com, like MTV.com, is a source that allows artists to create their own promotional content, per [5]. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: thanks for the confirmation – as I said, I couldn't load the page up properly to confirm it myself, but the fact that the web address was "artists.nme.com" set alarm bells ringing. Richard3120 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage for an article. Fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Forbes (music producer)

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

Notability concerns, none of the references substantiate content in the article. BigDwiki (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BigDwiki (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BigDwiki (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danshi Kōkōsei de Urekko Light Novel Sakka o Shiteiru Keredo, Toshishita no Classmate de Seiyū no Onnanoko ni Kubi o Shimerareteiru.

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

The article does not satisfy WP:GNG or the more specific WP:BK to justify why it is notable. The novels haven't won any awards, been licensed internationally, or adapted into anything, and although the author Keiichi Sigsawa is notable in his own right, notability is not inherited. 十八 19:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lack of any reliable sourcing or awards leads to a failure of the WP:GNG. On a lighter note, the article name is giving me a headache. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Multiple national-level sources are a highly convincing argument for GNG. Consensus is "keep" based on strength of arguments. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Griffin

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

There are not enough reliable sources out there. Trillfendi (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She clearly passes GNG on a Hebrew WP:BEFORE - but you need to search for "בקי גריפין" (no רבקה - no one uses that). She has been an Israeli celebrity for the past 20 years or so, and is regularly covered. e.g. recently - [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add, this is a fanpage from the early days of WP by a short-lived account that created many "... is an Israeli model". Agricola44 (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Icewhiz has demonstrated GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor Icewhiz has located sources, however they are nearly all from the same web site, and nearly all trivial and specific to Israel. Perhaps she is famous in Israel - if so we should see wider coverage in more news outlets. There is no in depth coverage and the page should be deleted per the nominator and Jack lambert. Wm335td (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear - sources I provided are in depth and from YNET (Yediot - Israel's largest newspaper), Maariv-TMI (another newspaper), and channel2 (the leading TV channel). This is not a "website". And this just a smattering of what is available - the subject here has been the subject of national level coverage for almost 20 years - which amply suffices for GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And for good measure - Haaretz - [13][14], Channel 10 - [15], [16], globes - [17][18], TheMarker - [19], Walla - [20]. Icewhiz (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wm335td, WP:GNG does not require that sources come from multiple countries. Is she is famous in Israel, then she's notable. Bondegezou (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources noted by Icewhiz. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those who posit that there is "lots of news" and "meets GNG" need to demonstrate that there are indeed independent, reliable sources available. Those arguing for "delete" detail their reasoning in a clear manner, therefore the consensus is "delete" by strength of argument. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambika Jk

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

Simply fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Because She is a well known writer,Social media activist and serial actress in Kerala,There is a lot of news about Ambika. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 11:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You can check the IMDB link along with it 
* https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9776137/
* https://keralabookstore.com/book/nizhalikalillathaval/13861/

Keep Notable. Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A pseudo - (false or deceiving) BLP. The first source I checked (An affair to remember [2009]) presented me with "Ambika Soni", currently Union minister, to New Delhi" married to globetrotting diplomatic husband Uday. I read the entire source and have no idea who the hell Ambika Soni or Uday is? The stage is now set that I would have to explore if there is a mistake (wrong person) or a deception, and this defeats the entire concept of an encyclopedia. The author of this article and those presenting that the subject is "well known" and "notable" would be advised that the proof of these assertions would be evidenced by reliable, accurate sources. This becomes far more important when another editor's search is hindered by a language obstacle when having to dig and poke around to find such proof. Alright, even though confused I looked at Vishnu Puran ("Television" subsection) since a "keep" above presented: "a well known writer, Social media activist and serial actress in Kerala, There is a lot of news about Ambika." (the lead of the article shows "Malayalam Television Supporting actress"), and of all the names presented there was nothing in the lead about "Ambika Jk" or "Ambika Soni". The name is mentioned in the cast section (number 27); "Ambika Jk as Gopika", so I figured I must have "missed it", but being just a cast member or having bit-parts and passing mention in sources does not advance notability. --- Otr500 (talk)

- Conclusion: Readers of an encyclopedia need to be presented with factual information. Other editors are not required to I have expended a lot (above evidence) of time and effort to to try to "prove" notability exist as it should be evidenced by sources. If these are not on the article a "Before" (Usually performed "before" a nomination) should reasonably present evidence. If there are obstacles, such as language barrier issues or lack of international notability, then the burden would be on those wishing inclusion so "we" (Wikipedia) are not presenting inaccurate or false content. Also, Advertising IMBd as evidence does not help. It is generally considered unreliable so offers no "proof". Otr500 (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the source about An affair to remember, which was clearly not about this Ambika. I am not certain that the other sources all refer to one person, but the Ambika who has published a book in 2019, and, per IMDB, has written a script for one documentary that appeared in 2018 (her only credit on IMDB), is not yet notable. Other claimed appearances seem to have been uncredited, and not for significant roles. So WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Hut 8.5 18:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grobir

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

No indication of notability, appears to fail WP:NYOUTUBE. Highway 89 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is WP:A7 material and pretty clearly an autobiography. creffett (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hesam Manzour

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

Searches turned up zero about this individual. The one source which is currently cited does not even mention him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Betzwieser

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

This article was de-PRODded by a user who argued that the gentleman is notable because he is a member of Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Germany. But membership in a professional organization is not a source of notability for either musicians or creative professionals. Both of those guidelines require evidence of works that have received reliable and significant coverage, plus citations from peers in the case of creative professionals. All that can be found for this gentleman are routine listings in associations and industry directories, and a few comments that he has made on other people's works. That includes German sources too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NPROF item 3. No idea whether he is notable as a musician. (de-prodder) —Kusma (t·c) 15:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not a professional organisation, the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur falls under WP:NACADEMIC #3, "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". This academy has 3 classes, and up to 100 members only in each class. That is highly selective. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the academy seems to be selective enough to pass criterion 3 of the academic notability guidelines. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added one published review each of two books by him to the article. That's only enough for a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, but I think the case for WP:PROF#C3 is strong. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only person expressing a "keep" opinion, Shevonsilva, is now indef-blocked for creating such articles, see AN. Sandstein 12:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Commons DbUtils

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

No sources that establish notability. And if were not the bullet pointing a single paragraph stub. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I speedied this once as a promo, unsourced advantages, but no limitations or downsides Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep I have added more references and this is clearly notable otherwise I will not create this. I removed the deletion tag to save time as this is a clear mistake happened due to the fact of lacking knowledge of computer science. Thanks.16:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- You should not remove the tag whilst this afd is open.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's promotional because it is copied from the software's accompanying promotional blurb. Copying promotional blurbs into Wikipedia never goes well. However, the subject is documented in depth. Two books with this in are already cited in the article, although nothing that the books actually say is in the article, and this is the usual bad editing practice of carpet-bombing the first sentence with superfluous references rather than having a further reading section. ISBN 9780131478305 chapter 14 has a small amount as well. Copying promotional blurbs is not writing, and one points to further reading by having a further reading section. Uncle G (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Modified biased content. Shevonsilva (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No you have not. You have not touched it at all, in fact, and the article is still the same as the software's accompanying promotional blurb. Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - No that is not a promotional blurb. it is a open source freeware with Apache 2.0 license. Some sections are about designed view points so, it should be as it is. The descriptions are accurate. If you have good arguments against my view and if you understand software engineering (related to the content for the software library), kindly let me know. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a copyrighted promotional blurb for a piece of software and your (non-)writing comprised copying it. The article remains even now a copy of that promotional blurb. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi, interesting. If the content is inaccurate, you or others have to prove it; it doesn't work in this way. I included the design intention of the library and it should be from creators. There is no misleading promotional content in the article (Note: this is a open-source free software module.): it does't really matter promotional or not if the content is accurate and, in this case, it is accurate; I am also welcoming your ideas too. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really know whether this is sufficiently notable, but I would point out that the creator, Shevonsilva, has a history of creating thousands of essentially vacuous stubs, with almost no text, but what there is being largely ungrammatical ("Sample code may look like as follows", for example). Given software entity P, he finds a list of components, p1...p27, and creates 27 articles, each of which says basically "pn is a component of P". He has a history of non-cooperation (deleting from talk page, not following conventions, deleting AfD templates etc.). I find it difficult to see how his efforts are actually improving WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant to this AFD, it might be at ANI, but not here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable software library. Szzuk (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Ward (footballer)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:ANYBIO. These are passing mentions in run of the mill match reports Dom from Paris (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that this player has made an appearance in the Australian W league, I see that Wikifootball projects FPL list for Womens leagues is incomplete, can someone from said project confirm whether or not the Australian league will be seen as a notable league in future? Seasider91 (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The W-League is Australia's top football league for women. I get that it's not a fully professional league like the A-League is, but that probably isn't too far away from happening given recent changes in other Australian women's sport (where, e.g. cricket and AFLW have gone professional in the last couple of years). I must admit I am slightly troubled by the fact that this is a means of excluding pages for Wikipedia that could potentially make a lot of W League players not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Having said that, I realise this is not a discussion about the notability of W-League players more generally but of one particular player (and I note that she appears to have only one appearance for her W-League club to date, so WP:TOOSOON may be applicable). Bookscale (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable football player. Barca (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the latest, uncontested claims of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May Thet Khine

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

No proof that she has acted in 150 commercials and 200 films the source that is used doesn't seem to exist www.chinhillnews.com. None of the other sources are in depth and seem to be user generated. Haokoo.com doesn't seem to be available either Dom from Paris (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not notable at all. Clearly fails WP:ACTRESS. Lefcentreright (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OMFG, she is one of the popular actresses around 2000s in my country and she has starred leading roles in several Burmese films see [21][22]. The article requires improvement but she seems to be a notable actress, definitely meets WP:NACTOR. Now, I'm working for expand article.103.200.134.149 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS. Claims like She is best known for her beauty are not legitimate claims of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and likely meat puppetry. Praxidicae (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is now improved. 103.200.134.149 (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm from Myanmar. She's a well-known actress who has played lead and major featured roles in several Burmese films, easily passing WP:NACTOR. The press from the major newspaper The Irrawaddy gives further background and showing about of her acting career. Shin Khant (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interview and not independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, she still meets WP:ACTRESS, please see expanded filmography inbox. Shin Khant (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can say she meets anything you want, as many times as you want but without coverage in independent reliable sources, it doesn't matter. Praxidicae (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator)the article has been expanded and sources added. Thanks for its. so passes criteria #1 of WP:ENT as Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, she has played lead roles in several Burmese films. see. "KoKoChitChit" (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is most notable actress in my country. Definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Thanks for work by User:Shin Khant Maung and others. ခင်မောင်မောင်လွင် (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:NACTRESS for me. KoHtee (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that GNG is met, outside of NFOOTY. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Pengelly

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:ANYBIO the sources are run of the mill match reports interviews and affiliated. There is no in-depth coverage and nothing of interest found in a before search. Myfootball.com is affiliated as it is the federation's web page, Brisbane strikers is affiliated, FFA site is affiliated and also a match report, SBS is an WP:INTERVIEW and also a streaming service but I am not sure if they stream NPLQ matchs. highly unlikely that a semi-pro player for a semi pro club playing in a state level league will generate enough interest to meet WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Fails WP:NFOOTY but may scrape through WP:GNG has been in the news for his scoring [23] [24] [25][26][27].Have added references. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources and they are all very local and not enough for me to change my mind about this nomination. This is symptomatic of the state of Wikipedia today is becoming a repository for sports stats and bios on local sports personalities that if we took a step back from GNG common sense would tell us that they are not ready for a place in an international encyclopedia. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably scapes through on GNG. Giant Snowman 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person passes WP:GNG per Pharaoh of the Wizards found references. Wm335td (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he fails WP:NFOOTY and all of the WP:GNG sources are very local. Hopefully he gets a professional call up but I think it's a bit WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 03:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just passes GNG with Pharoah of the Wizards' references. Bookscale (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree he passes WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails notability gudelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meeting WP:GNG is enough to justify inclusion. Local coverage is not a problem as long as coverage is not trivial clearly independent and from multiple sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers. It would be defensible to close this as No Consensus. There is fundamental disagreement here about the relative importance of the WP:SNGs vs WP:GNG, and I don't see how any amount of relists will resolve that. The issue of WP:CANVASSING is of some concern as well. Ultimately, I found Blue Square Thing's arguments why a redirect makes sense, to be convincing. As noted, should better sourcing emerge in the future, the redirect can be undone by any editor. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Latif

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

Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:ATHLETE which states "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". Regarding international appearances the book Wounded Tiger: A History of Cricket in Pakistan states in a footnote "a curious feature of this team was the selection of numbers 10 and 11, Mariam Anwar and Shabana Latif. Neither of them bowled or kept wicket, and neither reached the crease in either Pakistan innings. Anwar scored three runs in seven one-day appearances, and Latif scored none at all in three innings in four one-day matches. Like so many players in social cricket, it looks as though they were making up the numbers" --Pontificalibus 13:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Copying my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam Anwar - while I'm suspicious as to why you picked this one in particular, I would suggest you looked through all the women's Test and ODI cricketer categories and decided which others do not come to your satisfaction - and suggest we fix them rather than send them immediately to AfD? Deleting international cricketers is another matter altogether from deleting supposedly "minor" first-class cricketers. The suggestion that full international cricket and "social cricket" are analogous is... disturbing. Bobo . 13:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC. "Making up the numbers" is a little harsh here. She was selected to be part of the Pakistan women's national squad for a series against the West Indies, playing in five full international matches (four ODIs and a Test). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- check out the extremely non-neutral canvassing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Female_ODI_cricketers. Reyk _YO! 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to my comments here. At least we, as dedicated members of the project, can do something about this situation. Bobo . 13:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agonised over this one because this is the kind of athlete for whom the presumption of notability in WP:ATH is helpful. Surely an international cricketer would be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources? But I guess not. As this book linked in the nomination statement makes clear, Shabana was selected at Number 11 but didn't bowl. Nor did she score a single run in four career matches. In the author's words: "Like so many players in social cricket, it looks as though they were making up the numbers." Other than that, the sources tell us little about her. We know that she is from Peshawar or somewhere near there and had to convince her parents to let her play.[28] But for whom did she play locally? Did she bat, bowl or both? What is she doing now? Is she still alive? These are the kinds of questions that a biography would answer. They are the kind of questions that significant coverage in reliable sources would answer. For completeness, I tried a hack search in Urdu, hoping that it would bear out the presumption of notability in WP:ATH, but I couldn't find anything. Others may have more luck, in which case ping me. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No sorry, this has got ridiculous now. Okay, delete "A. Smith" with one first-class appearance in 1798. No problem with that. But to delete international cricketers who have played Test/ODI/T20I level. Nah, that's just stupid and disruptive. Easily passes WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this biography because it's sourced to a single statistical table. What could be considered disruptive is you trawling through my created articles desperately looking for one to take to AfD in retaliation for this. But that's actually fine by me - let's judge each article against our policies and not cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors. ----Pontificalibus 07:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are upset with the content of the article, AfD is not the way to go about it. Bobo . 14:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Lugnuts. Khadar Khani (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note satisfying WP:NCRIC/WP:CRIN alone is not sufficient grounds to have a separate article. At the top of WP:NCRIC it states "subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." In this case the guidance clearly fails because the subject does not meet WP:GNG.----Pontificalibus 06:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to !vote keep, but just as "I don't like it" isn't a valid rationale, nor is "I do like it". As one of the lead contributors to the women's cricket task force, I want this article to survive, but I can't argue with the nominator's rationale. I hope to spend some time before this nomination closes looking for sources to possibly show that the subject does meet the GNG, but failing that, I have to agree that it currently appears the subject fails to meet our notability criteria. Harrias ^talk 09:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having played for her country, until we have a major policy change to remove all sportspeople about whom little is known except that they played one match at senior/international level once or appeared once in the Olympics. And please, Pontificalibus, add that quote and book source, as an interesting comment on this player. Thanks. PamD 09:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough people are wanting to delete those as it is - don't encourage them..! Bobo . 13:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm essentially on the same lines as @Harrias: here. The fact that she's non-Anglophone and female suggests to me that we might keep - at least for a period of time to allow sources to be sourced - but there's a lack of reliable sources, so from that perspective I'm inclined to agree that it's a marginal case. In addition to the book source found by the nominator, there's a mention of a Shabana Latif in this ESPN article, although I'm not entirely convinced it's the same person. There's also a lot of reference to a make-up artist online, but, again, I have no idea if it's the same person. I'd have no objection to appealing to someone with access to non-English sources to check for more details - but the fact that there's no article about her on any non-English wiki isn't promising (or perhaps just a representation of the lack of status women's cricket has with many people). Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to pass GNG. the notability guidelines for cicket are clearly flawed and need to be rewritten.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Pontificalibus: as nom, would you have any objection to this (and Mariam Anwar) being draftified to allow longer to look for sources outside of mainspace? Harrias ^talk 07:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but consensus in the debate above should be properly summarised and closed by an admin. If it's deleted, it can be draftified and if sufficient sources are later found to overcome the delete rationale, then it can be restored.----Pontificalibus 08:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I'm not trying to circumvent the AfD process. In all honesty, I think even with another six months in draft space, it's unlikely that much will turn up. More because of the attitudes towards women playing sports in Pakistan than much else. I've had a cursory look through some of my stuff at home, and haven't found anything else. Harrias ^talk 08:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a teammate who died garnered sufficient coverage ([29], [30]), so I wouldn't write off local attitudes. However while Khan "was instrumental in getting Pakistan a women's cricket team", Latif and Anwar as noted above simply may not be regarded as having made a significant contribution to cricket by anyone apart from Wikipedia editors looking only at stats.----Pontificalibus 08:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regretfully, per my comment above. There simply isn't enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 08:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. As I said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam Anwar, WP:Notability (sports) seems somewhat contradictory about requiring subjects to also meet WP:GNG. At the top of the page it says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways." (My emphases.) According to my reading of this, she is presumed notable, having played "at the highest international or domestic level", and therefore "it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Those sources may not be online, but we do have sources online that verify her name and the games she has played in, which is sufficient for an article. The bit that requires WP:GNG is in Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Applicable_policies_and_guidelines and says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." That seems to be intended as a blanket statement about standalone articles on any topic, and is highly questionable - WP:NACADEMIC does not require subjects to also meet WP:GNG. And, WP:GNG states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". So in fact, it could be argued that this article is in line with the WP:GNG policy - it meets a subject-specific guideline. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers. The article is, as Harrias says, not going to meet GNG anytime soon due to a number of factors - including the position of women's cricket in Pakistan. The Keep rationale exposed by a number of editors has been the subject of RfC discussions in the past where the precedence of the GNG has been the consensus view - as does the FAQ at NSPORTS. This is almost certainly going to be closed as non-consensus anyway, but the most obvious solution is to redirect - we have a barely verifiable BLP which we're unlikely to be able to find additional sources for beyond database entries. If those sources are found we revert the redirect and add them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zafarullah Jan

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

Fails W:GNG. No coverage beyond statistics. Fails WP:CRIN, which states "judge notability by reference to a substantial secondary source that makes clear it is discussing a senior player, team, venue or match in historical rather than statistical terms". Fails WP:NSPORT which states "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". --Pontificalibus 11:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if that is true about "historical rather than statistical terms", then that needs to be addressed on the articles of thousands of cricketers, let alone merely "minor" first-class cricketers - including many Test cricketer articles. It does not fail CRIN as he has made a first-class appearance - if articles need to be based on "historical terms" too - whatever that means - as I've said, thousands of articles, let alone merely this one, need to be addressed. "Article needs cleaning up" is not a deletion criterion of any sort. If you wish it to be, please inform every Wikiproject that their articles need to be "up to scratch". Bobo . 12:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note note that the WP:CRIN criterion "played at least one first class match" is, according to that page "merely a rule of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. But, the terms of WP:ATHLETE... are binding." This fails WP:ATHLETE because there is no coverage beyond statistics.----Pontificalibus 13:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem which needs fixing on thousands of articles, non-English and English alike, Test and first-class, and targeting a single one will not achieve anything. If you are willing to help out to achieve this - especially for the scores of international cricketers to which this applies - please do. "Article needs cleaning up" is not a deletion criterion. Bobo . 13:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has created thousands of articles based on taking a sentence from CRIN out of context, that is obviously a problem. Meanwhile I will just PROD any article I happen to come across that fails to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't know where you are getting the cleaning up comment from, the subject fails basic notability criteria so there is no cleaning up of the article to be done.----Pontificalibus 14:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have said all along that in a perfect world, every first-class team would have a List of X players article. If anyone is willing to put together List of Karachi Whites cricketers please feel free. Bobo . 12:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- another cricket match report filed as a biography. Per nomination, and consensus at several recent similar AfDs, I agree with deleting this. Reyk _YO! 17:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally redirect to a list of Karachi cricketers (I'm not 100% on the exact differences between the Karachi teams - they seem to often get lumped together; Pakistani input might be helpful). In the absence of that list, I imagine delete is the best option. We know a name and that he played in a single first-class match. That's it. No other biographical details, no club matches and the like. In these circumstances I feel it's unlikely that we'll be able to source anything further than scorecards and statistical profiles - certainly I can find nothing helpful that's not based on Wikipedia. If source become available, perhaps in Urdu, then that's grand: we re-create the article with an appropriate level of detail. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments to keep rely on WP:NATHLETE, and the fact that this individual has competed in a high-level tournament of his chosen sport; however, that guideline explicitly says; "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." This is clearly not the case here. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wood (skeleton racer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT Collaboratio (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Updated profile has him competing in the FIBT World Championships 2011. This meets notability on sports. I am using Athletics (Track & Field) criteria as a reference. Chris (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is never likely to be more than a sentence or two. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has competed in the world championship in his sport. Meets WP:ATHLETE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly acceptable stub (give or take a source or two, and they do exist) on a world-level athlete who is clearly of encyclopedic interest. --Michig (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references - has not "been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources" as per WP:SPORTCRIT - no wins or other notable achievements, simply competing is not grounds for notability - clear fail of WP:BASIC notability guidelines - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports) which states "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline" and that WP:ATHLETE is simply "guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". Many sport-specific guidelines seem to be failing to do that.----Pontificalibus 10:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is very little information, and there is no references. The page itself is very disorganised, and does not look like an encyclopedia article to me. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 01:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tzy Panchak

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

Non notable musician, no major signing or any song charting. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Ceethekreator (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lefcentreright (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrzad Zarrabian

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

Refs appear to be links to various Iranian Movie Database listings. No independent evidence of notability. A loose necktie (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. I think that the article could be speedy deleted. The article has been deleted many times in Persian Wikipedia.Farhikht (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promo, no RS, no convincing claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Zhu Xian. Real-world notability is not indicated, but the suggestion to re-create the name as a redirect for searching seems reasonable. RL0919 (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biyao

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

This is about a fictional character. There are articles on the original novel Zhu Xian, and TV & video game adaptations of it. Although the article has 3 citations, it fails to demonstrate real-world notability of the character. The tone and content of the article do not make it of encyclopaedic value as it stands. – Fayenatic London 06:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fictional character. -Zanhe (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zhu Xian as the character is already discussed in that article and I could see some people finding this to be a viable search. There does not appear to be enough coverage for a separate article, but there is a language barrier at play. I would not be opposed to a deletion, but I think a redirect would be more valuable. Aoba47 (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom′. 103.200.134.149 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. Atkins

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

Another cricketer who fails to meet WP:GNG. This RfC has already confirmed that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. CricketArchive and Cricinfo statistical profiles, which can be regarded as trivial coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC, are not sufficient to establish notability. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The notion that someone who played one match for Singha Sports Club and scored no runs should have an encyclopedia article devoted to them on this basis is just ridiculous. All fail WP:GNG.----Pontificalibus 07:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "notion" of it is not ridiculous, as the cricketer achieved exactly the same in a single-match career as hundreds of others. The fact that their notability is being questioned is saddening but once again, an indication of how this project is changing. Perhaps for the better. I don't personally think so. Picking and choosing on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is starting to seem like victimization. Once again it saddens me that the encyclopedia is being hacked down for the sake of selective censorship, but if that's the way this project is going, so be it. If we want an incomplete project, based on the view of our own project members (isn't that just a tad disturbing?) then that's what we'll have. Bobo . 07:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Pontificalibus: - if you think the "notion" of a single-appearance first-class player is "ridiculous", what do you think the brightline criteria should be - other than the same as it is at every other competitive team-sports project? Just asking. Once again, someone is saying IDONTLIKEIT without coming up with an alternative solution based on brightline criteria. Bobo . 07:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for every article should be WP:GNG per WP:WHYN.----Pontificalibus 07:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG and N (to which WHYN redirects) completely contradict each other. N explicitly says "either". Bobo . 07:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire purpose of subject-specific notability guidelines is to help assess whether a subject satisfies WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) begins "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." If the subject-specific guidelines are offering up subjects that patently fail to satisfy WP:GNG then the guidelines are flawed. WP:WHYN makes it clear why we need significant coverage in reliable sources.----Pontificalibus 07:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then please feel free to suggest new subject-specific guidelines and new sources based on your knowledge of the subject. Far too many people are willing to say the guidelines are flawed, none of these people is willing to provide alternative solutions. Exit, pursued by a bear. Bobo . 07:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. With WP:NCRIC I'd delete criteria where most players didn't receive significant coverage in reliable sources. So that would probably mean deleting #2, #3 and #4, and deleting "domestic" from #1. Sure there will be non-international players who satisfy WP:GNG, but they can dealt with on a case-by-case basis like most other subjects.----Pontificalibus 08:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither 2, 3, or 4 impinge on this example. And deleting "domestic" from 1 means getting rid of every non-Test and non-ODI cricketer - regardless of which country they play in. Cool. That'll do. Bobo . 08:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misread what I wrote. The criteria are guidelines as to which subjects typically meet WP:GNG, so "every" non-international cricketer would not be "got rid of" if they meet WP:GNG. Many non-sport subject-specific guidelines are worded along the lines of "players who have competed in domestic competitive finals at the highest level are often found to satisfy WP:GNG", so suggestive criteria like that can also be used. The main aim is to identify groups which almost invariably meet WP:GNG. The current criteria fail to do that. ----Pontificalibus 08:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and consensus established at similar recent Afds. Reyk _YO! 09:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it can be inferred that if we don't even know their full names, the subjects come nowhere near to meeting the general notability guidelines. In these circumstances, the technicalities of the subject-specific guidelines are pretty much irrelevant. If anyone has any questions of me, please ping me; I can't put these AfDs on my watchlist because Bobo192's incessant badgering clogs it up.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I'm only defending the difference between "we know nothing about these cricketers therefore this article offends me", "we do not know this cricketer's name therefore he doesn't pass guidelines", and "this article passes basic notability guidelines"... My questions remain the same every single time, and still nobody answers them. If you have an answer to offer yourself, please go ahead. Bobo . 10:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are your questions? Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline" and that sport-specific guidelines "provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". Which part of this are you interpreting differently to everyone else and why? ----Pontificalibus 10:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we know basically nothing about any of these players. They are all described as "Indian cricketer"s, but I suspect, given some of the surnames and the state of the empire at the time, that some would probably have considered themselves English. All fail WP:GNG, but I have no prejudice against re-creation if new sources come to light. Harrias ^talk 09:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Fails basic required GNG and verification without knowing these players. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect K. Mendis to Kalutara Physical Culture Centre (where there are a host of other possible redirect candidates btw).

Comment. The page Kalutara Physical Culture Centre has not a single source and the subjects all listed above could not be verified by independent, reliable sources. See no point to redirect at all. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: The CricketArchive external link has a list of players who played for the side. If there's a desire to create lists of players then that's, generally, where the information to create the list comes from. Individual players can then be sourced to their respective statistical pages (see, for example, List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players). It's an odd club though and there's very little that I can find about it as an entity, although it does seem to have also played at first-class level in 2016 as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect others - ideally an appropriate list would exist to redirect these to. At this time I don't think we've much of a hope of being able to put anything in terms of detail on these chaps. Each, other than Mendis, played one match, and in all cases we lack even basic biographical information other than a surname and initial. Beyond wikipedia and scorecards there's nothing that I can find out there with the level of detail we have - so, unless some "magic" "research" turns up something, we've nothing to fill out the biographies with. If reliable sources which add an appropriate level of detail emerge then any articles can be re-created easily enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all it is time to rid wikipedia of articles that are really just directory entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psepholograph

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

This article was written by Matt Balogh, who invented the "psepholograph" in his 1993 book, Quantitative political analysis in Australia: introducing the psepholograph. Contrary to the author's claims presented without evidence on the article's talk page, the word is not widely used. Googling it reveals only clones of the article. Google Scholar and Google Books return Balogh's book (with no articles citing it) and an unrelated exam prep book in which the word appears as an incorrect answer to a multiple-choice question. There is also a post from a confused Redditor who came across the Wiki article but couldn't find any other info. The seven citations in the article are not helpful. Three are broken links, even the auto-generated Wayback archives, meaning the links were presumably broken back when they were archived almost a decade ago. Two are links to Balogh's profiles on websites of organisations he has worked for, neither of which mentions the psepholograph. Two are external pages that also do not mention it. The last one is a link to a short record of Balogh's book, with no information, just the title and keywords, on scientificcommons.org, a website that no longer exists. Also, there is little use in an article about a type of data visualisation if it includes neither a picture of the visualisation nor a description of how it looks. 1o8x (talk) 05:19, 18 August 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 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like pure original research from a 1993 Master's thesis. I can't find any evidence for the author's claims that this is an "accepted term" or that it has succeeded the Mackerras pendulum in any sense, be that use by psephologists or media publication to the public—in fact, while the article is scant on any technical detail or illustration whatsoever, that seems to be the case for the broader internet, where I can find not one illustration or example of a psepholograph outside of Balogh's thesis, and believe me, I am very interested in psephology, visualisation and related concepts. The Reddit question indicates that the article's very existence is a problem—the suggestions of its widespread use is confusing and even misleading for readers who then find no details or examples of the concept on Wikipedia, Google or anywhere. As the nominator has outlined, the references seem reasonably numerous, but upon deeper inspection merely verify Balogh's employers and authorship of the thesis, with the last three actually referring to Mackerras's pendulum, not the psepholograph. --Canley (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Canley (talk) --SalmanZ (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all refereces are now archived, points to topics being not relevant. Also most page contributions are not independant, coming from thesis author. Teraplane (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Canley. Bookscale (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With additional sources brought forward in discussion, subject appears to meet WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Adachi

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

Not independently notable outside of her company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, clearly corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No acceptable claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do sometimes wonder if anyone does a thorough WP:BEFORE. I have edited the article and added some sources. There is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in the journals Consulting Magazine and The Glass Hammer, and the book Organizational Behavior: Science, The Real World, and You. The awards listed in the article may not meet WP:ANYBIO, but they did result in coverage of this person, so that she does meet WP:GNG. I am still looking for sources, and will add more as I find them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources added to the article. A source review from other users would be beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources added. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm often frustrated by the fact that a very strict interpretation of our rules requires us to delete articles about intelligent, accomplished and successful people but keep the list of crayola crayon colours, biographies of bigfoot "investigators" and that article about the precognitive octopus. I'll choose to believe that Rebecca Green's revamp is sufficient to demonstrate notability in this case even if it might still be possible for a strict deletionist to quibble.—S Marshall T/C 17:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I wouldn't have accepted this article for inclusion in Wikipedia if I did not think (1) she met GNG and (2) the article could be improved and expanded. Missvain (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are quite clear about her relevance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 05:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stallbrook Marketplace

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

This article cites no sources, and appears to only serve to promote the development. Garchy (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really tried to save this article and find sources. However, I cannot find any references or information on this development. It is WP:MILL. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Galbraith

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. The Danish league isn’t listed among the leagues for criteria #2 and #3 and he has no preeminent honours at college level to pass #4, plus he never played for Denmark in the top pool of the World Championship so fails #6. Tay87 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Article has four references. Whether this is enough to pass WP:GNG I am not sure but if more can be found to pass GNG, I will withdraw the nomination. Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in GBooks, and nothing substantial in GSearch. Both websites in the References section appear to be indiscriminate collections of information, and as such constitute trivial mentions and thus do not establish notability. Given all this, GNG is not met. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Galbraith played for 24 seasons in the highest Danish professional league. Wikipedia has biographies for people who played one season in baseball. In 2017, he was inducted into the Danish Ice Hockey Hall of Fame. As he is a Danish player so we need to search Danish German and French sources as well. I added the source.Patapsco913 (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And those are worthy of notability for most leagues, but like I mentioned, the Danish league isn't listed on WP:NHOCKEY's guidelines for #2 (at least 200 games) or #3 (preeminent honours). Therefore, there are only two realistic ways a Danish player can gain notability while playing in Denmark. The first is by playing in the top pool of the World Championship, which he did not. He played in the B pool but he had to play in the A pool to achieve notability. The second and most important reason is WP:GNG. If an article has enough substantial independent references then it passes notability regardless of NHOCKEY's criteria as GNG overides NHOCKEY. Currently, there are four references which I don't think is enough for it to pass GNG but if more can be found then that would help. Your points are very valid, but WikiProject Ice Hockey's strict and remotely limited guidelines say otherwise I'm afraid. Tay87 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken but someone who played for so long in a national league and on the national team and later coached and has reliable references in Danish and German (I can probably add more), would he not even compare to a NHL minor league player. And does not notability go beyond performance. If sufficient sources deemed him notable in Danish and German, should we discount those? Well you guys decide. I just had to comment since I saw there was a German entry and thought I would investigate further.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that " only realistic way a Danish player can gain notability while playing in Denmark is by playing in the top pool of the World Championship" is incorrect. He can gain notability through meeting GNG, which is not addressed in the deletion rationale here. If there are multiple significant sources covering him (including in German or Danish) he would meet our notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog: Very true and I apologise, I have ammended that comment.Tay87 (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a prima facie consensus to delete. However the question of sufficient coverage to pass WP:BASIC has been raised somewhat late in the discussion. I have decided to relist this discussion for a week in order to allow that to be explored. That said, if nothing substantial changes in the discussion I would expect that the page will be deleted next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of the things I find frustrating about Wikipedia's insistence on showing sources. Online, I can find another article in Faceoff.dk from 2015 [31], by the same journalist as the article about the hall of fame - so it does not count for "multiple independent sources". It does have a little more information, that Galbraith was about to make his World Cup debut in 1983 in Budapest, when the IIHF ruled him ineligible, although apparently it later turned out that they had made a mistake. It also quotes from an article published in the Danish newspaper B.T. after the 1982 Pondus Cup "If George is sovereign on Vojens' club team, he is even better under severe international pressure."

There is an article 'Trist dag for veteranen George Galbraith' in Berlingske, 2001 [32], which describes him as "a living legend in Danish ice hockey". He is named in the book Hockey: A Global History (University of Illinois Press, 2018) [33], but the relevant page is not available on Google Books. A news report on U.S. Hockey Report from 2006 [34], about Galbraith finding an American college for his son, says Galbraith was "a goaltender at Clarkson in the early to mid-70s, is a fixture on the Danish hockey scene, first playing and then coaching there." Newspapers.com has reports of games in US and Canadian newspapers in which Galbraith played for Clarkson, and some descriptions of his play, so that information could be added to this article.

But while I would assume from the fact that a 2001 article describes him as a "living legend", and others call him legendary, plus a short quote from a 1982 Danish newspaper, that there would have been coverage of him in Danish and German newspapers from the 1970s-1990s, I am not aware of digitised newspapers from those countries for that period, and so can't search for such sources. I would say that being Danish League Player of the Year for three consecutive years, and being inducted into the Danish Hockey Hall of Fame, gives a presumption that coverage exists and that he therefore meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. However, many WP editors vote based on what they can find online, or other editors can produce in the short time of the AfD. I would certainly !vote Keep, but I expect it will be deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: I'm actually prepared to withdraw the nomination. If there are more references out there he'll pass WP:GNG. One of the key things to note is this was created by Dolovis who created hundreds of non-notable hockey stubs in open-defiance towards NHOCKEY's guidelines, and I am practically working my way through knocking them off because it's frankly been long overdue and somebody has to do it eventually. Hence, I got round to this one and hence the nomination because he doesn't meet NHOCKEY. But like I said, if the refs are out there, he'll pass GNG. Tay87 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. I agree with the analysis by RebeccaGreen. And the 2015 article "King George Created Goalie Revolution" in the Danish ice hockey magazine Faceoff pushes this beyond WP:GNG criteria. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He definitely doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY as he never played in a qualifying league and Denmark never played in the highest tier of the IIHF world championships when he was involved with them. Playing and coaching, even successfully, in the Danish league doesn't show notability. I agree that there seems like a good possibility that coverage exists, but those advocating to keep the article must show it actually exists--and right now I don't think that's been done.Sandals1 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note your agreement "that there seems like a good possibility that coverage exists," and that passes WP:NPOSSIBLE of the GNG guideline. As stated by that guideline, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Agreeing on the likelihood of extant sources, we should provide enough time for editors in Denmark to peruse physical archives of newspapers and magazines from the 70s and 80s. (For example, here's a 5th article [35] published now as "Retro."}. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOSSIBLE of the GNG guideline, and similar comments above. Flibirigit (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the articles RebeccaGreen found plus the articles about being inducted into the hall of fame he arguably already meets GNG. And given that his playing career largely predated Google and most sources would not be in English, the strong likelihood of more sources make me confident that he meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above he meets the requirements for WP:GNG. By the way if he was born in 1955 he is now 64 and not 46 as mentioned in the article. Alex-h (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by RebeccaGreen and CactusWriter. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 23:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Vegetarian Party

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

Defunct political party or parties that never achieved ballot access - let alone elected a candidate - and does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Article was previously deleted and brought back with no real justification or evidence of notability and no notification of myself. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The party never achieved anything. Trillfendi (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is covered in detail in numerous sources including the following:

Vegetarian Times
The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink
Sins of the Flesh: A History of Ethical Vegetarian Thought
The Great American Medicine Show
Vegetarian America: A History
The New Yorker
TIME magazine
Encyclopedia of Third Parties in the United States

Other aspects of the nomination such as the lack of electoral success or the failure of the previous nomination are irrelevant. Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are of questionable value to meet WP:ORGCRIT, which requires substantial, non-trivial coverage from multiple independent secondary sources. The only sources of any detail appear to be 2 (which is an article about oddity parties, apparently) and 5, both of which are behind paywalls. Of the ones currently in the article:

The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink - One paragraph mention that the party existed and a few of its candidates. Not in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT.
Vegetarianism and veganism - One brief paragraph on the party having existed and having won four total votes in the 1948 election. Much of it references the fact it was founded by Symon Gould - this is a potential merge target. Does not meet ORGCRIT.
Vegetarian Party Quits - Tiny article less than two paragraphs noting its candidate had dropped out. Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT.
Guide to the Presidency and the Executive Branch - Listing of the party's nominee. Clearly does not meet ORGCRIT.

The fact that this party apparently won, at most, four votes, and that coverage does not seem to go beyond the thing existing is strong evidence this article fails WP:ORGCRIT. Anything useful could almost certainly be merged to Symon Gould, the party's founder. Toa Nidhiki05 01:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources all look fine as WP:SIGCOV and the nominator fails to address the most encyclopedic of them: Encyclopedia of Third Parties in the United States. I've not had a sight of its entry for this party yet but one certainly exists as the Library Journal review says
Such well-known parties as the Black Panthers and the Communist Party of the U.S.A. are featured as well as such lesser-known ones as the Anti-Monopoly Party and the American Vegetarian Party. Approximately 80 narrative entries of one to ten pages in length describe the history of each party, and references to further information in books and periodical articles are given at the end of each entry.

My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ORGCRIT’s listing of encyclopedias as trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 10:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGCRIT has

Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement:

A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger,

A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,

A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products,

An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization,

....

So, the existence of an encyclopedia entry suffices and WP:ORGCRIT is passed. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the section on trivial coverage, namely that inclusion in indiscriminate lists of information does not count. The fact we have no idea what this entry says, if it is even there, indicates this should not be considered. Toa Nidhiki05 10:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's only been three days since the discussion began, but I have found that this article develops the subject of public presence in a way not covered by other articles. Something needs to unify people, and if political parties are not primary tools of that unification because the communities that would be unified are so diverse with regard to themselves, what other means are extant to unify them? In the history of an evidently growing theme in American social history, the participation of what once was The Vegetarian Party played a part in its time, and the work done on and for this article is substantial and valuable, I would tend to think. I vote to retain the article (and perhaps develop it further). MaynardClark (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-trivial news coverage over several years. St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, Missouri)16 Aug 1956, Page 5. The Lincoln Star (Lincoln, Nebraska)18 Aug 1960, Page 4. The Morning Call (Paterson, New Jersey)18 Aug 1960, Page 6. Lansing State Journal (Lansing, Michigan)18 Aug 1960, Page 8. The Daily Tribune (Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin)03 Nov 1952, Page 14. Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, New York)03 Jul 1952, Page 16. Valley Times (North Hollywood, California)17 Aug 1960, Page 8. The Courier-News (Bridgewater, New Jersey)05 Aug 1947, Page 8. The Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, Florida)21 Jul 1988, Page 91. lots more. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG is clearly met. A paragraph is more than a trivial mention. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of American Horror Story: Murder House characters. czar 01:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Dean Howard

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

Revert to redirect ─ Topic of article is a long shot off meeting WP:GNG (i.e. very little coverage of her by independent sources). Very similar draft (created by same user Mrs. Hastings) of this article was rejected by AngusWOOF for, who said No independent notability of this character. Just because the character is reused doesn't make the character automatically notable. Redirect to the main series' characters is sufficient. Only a minor character in the series American Horror Story. While I know I'm nominating very soon after the article was effectively created, I honestly believe this article shouldn't exist, as I cannot see any scope for improvement for this article considering the little notability. --Ted Edwards 20:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
btw. the redirect should be to List of American Horror Story: Murder House characters. --Ted Edwards 18:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Ted Edwards 20:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of American Horror Story: Murder House characters. The character does not appear to have enough notability for a separate article, but a redirect would be helpful as a search term. There are sources talking about the character, but it is primarily in relation to the show. I do not see anything that qualifies as significant coverage on the individual character. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep withdrawn by nominator Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Niang

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

Fails guidelines for WP:NCOLLATH notability. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's got notability in his college career - he went through an entire season in the Big 12 without giving up a sack.

Please see WP:NCOLLATH. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he gained national media attention as a top prospect for next year's draft.MaroonFrog (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually the reason I nominated for AFD and not csd, a projected draft is not a final thing. I could be wrong but I'm not seeing the other parts needed. We can let others weigh in and if I'm wrong I'm ok with that :) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH Hughesdarren (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Updated with national media attention for his individual play, per the requirements of WP:NCOLLATH MaroonFrog (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination overlooks WP:GNG. It is well established the WP:NCOLLATH is not an exclusive standard; indeed, the intro to the guideline explicitly states: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline ..." Here, Niang is a truly rare case -- a college level offensive lineman who has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and thus passes the GNG bar. Offensive linemen almost never get press at college level. E.g., [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Cbl62 (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decent point about O-lineman. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, per User:Cbl62 Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Livas

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

A ways away from meeting WP:GNG, does not appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Provided sources do not comprise independent coverage of the subject, an internet search did not turn up additional sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Draftify - notability based off being cited/ interviewed by state level radio stations in order to reinforce claims. However yes, per the disclosure, I did take the article up from the subject at their advertisement based off the percieved notability — IVORK _Discuss 01:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that IVORK did not post a paid contribution disclosure until after I inquired about their motivation for working on the article—this is when they posted the disclosure, and this is when I queried them on their talk page. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being interviewed by radio stations is not an accepted indication of notability. The principal basis for notability is significant coverage of the subject--here, Mr Livas--in reliable sources. We don't needs things written or said by Mr Livas, we need things like newspaper articles that are about him. So far as I can see, those don't exist. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two reasons the radio interviews do not establish Livas's notability: 1) they are interviews with the subject of the article and hence not independent coverage; 2) the interviews with 4BC and 2GB aren't even about Livas, instead focusing on the Notre-Dame fire. The other sources in the article do not provide significant coverage, and like nom I couldn't find any other sources that would establish notability. Clearly fails WP:GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being interview by a radio station is not grounds for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews about another subject does not make someone notable. I'm quite disappointed that an experienced editor like IVORK would take cash to create and defend an article that does not pass WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews are primary sources for which they do not contribute to notability requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable. While interviews can be used to cite information, the do zip when it comes to establishing notability as they are WP:PRIMARY. Without in-depth, independent coverage in a WP:RS, the topic is a clear WP:BIO failure. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Pontificalibus 09:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adavosertib

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

Delete as Too Soon Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you search in Wikipedia for the subject you will find several mentions of it in other articles. I think that this fact alone suggests importance of subject. In article Protein kinase inhibitor it is in the first row of the table, added in 2018. It is also mentioned in article Tyrosine kinase inhibitor, edit is from 2018. It is also mentioned (as AZD1775) in article Dafna Bar-Sagi. Daevid (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in the encyclopedia and it's own article IMO are two different things. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an entry in a table, where all other entries have own articles. The article itself is only a stub, where I put only basic and interesting information, it can be expanded. It also has its own Wikidata entry https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27074716 from 2016. Daevid (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it some thought and return to this tomorrow. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Daevid (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw the nom, it is a stub, it isn't advertising or promoting so even if it is a little too soon (it might not be) there is no harm in letting it stay and have it improved. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found two review articles discussing the drug on Pubmed: [42] [43] I haven't looked at them and don't really have the expertise to evaluate them, but people looking to improve the article might find these useful. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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