Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 June	12 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AVST

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

I can't find any notability here. Very promotional/"about us" in tone, plus a lot of non-notable company and product history. As far as I can tell, all of the sources are either 1) the company website, 2) press releases, 3) secondary reports of presentations/demos by the subject, or 4) investment profiles - none of which meet the criteria for significant independent coverage. There are a couple of secondary mentions of a report by "COMMFusion LLC," but both mentions were very promotional and didn't mention any other company besides AVST, which makes me a bit suspicious of the neutrality of the report. I spent some time looking for good sources on my own, no results. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability under either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. As nom points out, sources offered comprise a nearly endless list of complete garbage, company webpages, unreliable "investment" profiles and other trash, all clearly intended to discourage anyone from the tedious job of poking through it to realize there's no there there. A poster child for WP:MASKing an utterly non-notable company. Msnicki (talk)
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or Soft delete: There are some issues around a confused nom. and the notification on the creator's page. I think I'm in agreement with the delete but the notification to the nom. was a tad messy and a re-check may be appropriate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, yeah, sorry about that, that was my mistake. What happened was that I initially filed an AfD, then ran the page through the copyvio tool and saw that it was a significant match to another site and went for a G12 speedy deletion, then realized that the match was to a known Wikipedia-copying site (first time that I've had that issue, surprisingly) and therefore not a copyvio, so I restored the AfD. Sorry about the mess. creffett (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem is there is a lot going through AfD / PROD at the moment, mainly PHP related. So it is not easy to give due diligence. However the Afd / speedy notification on the talk page looked messy with uncancelled speedy under the AfD notification (which isn't mandatory anyway). I've just fixed one permanently dead link; not that it adds much. Its likely the product CallXpress/CX-E is more notable. This isn't a sexy product but we have an interesting comment from an adopted here and even [1] indicates a lot of current action with Microsoft dropping Unified Message on 1 December 2019. In the end its probably going to delete ... but I'm not sure if I'm seeing something here. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:12, 18 June 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 09:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Davis (singer)

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

She does not qualify for notability, almost all of her "references" are from her work, record promoters, etc. TiberiasTiberias (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not encyclopedic. Cox wasan (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page was not fully delsorted, nom is indeffed as a sock, and deletion is about notability, (WP:NOTCLEANUP). My quick opinion is she fails the GNG, though.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, She does not meet GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV of her. Sources in the article are all of quite poor quality (ex. self-published). Newshunter12 (talk) 04:32, 18 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Dhungana

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

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

Per WP:GNG. Two legitimate sources mention the subject. THT and TKP. THT also mentions Mahesh Paudyal and the photo there was also taken by Mahesh. TKP article is a puff piece written by Mahesh Paudyal. Mahesh Paudyal also wrote another puff piece on him in his personal blog. It was part of a concerted effort to get each other on wikipedia. There was further evidence in edit history of Mahesh Paudyal's page which has since been deleted. This page was created and mostly contributed to by Nepalwrites and this is all that Nepalwrites ever contributed to. I have searched for this person with all search terms I could think of, in Roman as well as Devanagari script. ~~Finally, a fallacious argument: Nor have I or anyone I know of ever heard of him (I should as a resident compatriot).~~ Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Notability guidelines. Thehimalayantimes[2] is a one sentence passing mention. (The author very sloppily and unprofessionally duplicated that sentence, which would also raise obvious questions of the reputability and editorial oversight of the source.) Kathmandupost[3] has more substantial coverage, but it's apparently written by one of his university teachers raising significant independence/COI concerns. The other sources in the article are not independent. I also found myrepublica.nagariknetwork,[4] but it's a passing mention, I'm not sure of the quality of the source, and it doesn't help that it's a blatantly promotional event. I searched and was unable to find any other Independent Reliable sources to support Notability. I don't know if there is some local language spelling of his name, but if some one pings me with a another version of the name I'd be happy to search on that as well. Alsee (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Alsee. The sources in this article are all either useless or of sketchy value. It therefore fails WP:GNG and the WP:SPA COI issue with the creator means it should be uprooted from the encyclopedia so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mars

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player; fails WP:NBASEBALL. Now out of MiLB after signing w/ independent league team Pozzi.c (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.-- Yankees10 23:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of those references contribute to notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NBASEBALL and coverage consists of routine minor league sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; original creation looks to have been WP:TOOSOON. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MrClog (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Considering opinion on this one is more or less split, and people seem willing to look for more sources and expand or perhaps merge the article into a new one with an expanded scope, I am closing this as no consensus for now. If the article is not expanded or merged there will of course be no prejudice against a new AfD. Since there seems to be a disagreement about how to interpret WP:NBUILDING, it might be a good idea to clarify the guideline. I note there is already a discussion underway on the talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derwent House

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

No apparent notability, only one reference, unavailable and not specific to this house. Maybe the house that Willet lived in has some notability, I see no reason that this one does. Kevin McE (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NBUILDING due to its status as a listed building[5]. Lowercaserho (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a quite appalling miscitation of NBUILDING, which says nothing about listed buildings being notable by virtue of listing. "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Nothing to indicate that there is anything of historic, social, economic or architectural importance, and no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Kevin McE (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the first bullet point of the section which covers cultural and national heritage. I maintain that being a listed building fulfils that criteria. Lowercaserho (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really your contention that one house among many others of similar size on a suburban road constitutes a "Geographical Feature"? Kevin McE (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Lowercaserho (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And is it your contention that all the half million listed buildings in the UK are of national importance to the cultural heritage or history of that country and deserving of an article in Wikipedia? Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have always held that listed buildings do indeed meet the first criterion of WP:GEOFEAT. They have clearly been "assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level". Are you seriously arguing that they haven't? And this certainly looks to me like "verifiable information beyond simple statistics"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, U.K. Grade II listed buildings have long been assumed NOT notable; there are too many of them and little info is available for most of them. In U.S., individually-NRHP-listed buildings are assumed notable because of usual documentation and general equivalence to Grade I and Grade II*, but not all the numerous/too-many buildings included in historic districts, equivalent to Grade II. --Doncram (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no, not true. There is usually a fair amount of info on the Historic England listing, for starters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, even the listing is rather brief. As opposed to Grade I and II* listings, which tend to indicate a building will satisfy WP:GNG, the lowest category of Grade II (representing 92.5% of listed buildings) does not. ----Pontificalibus 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBUILDING because it lacks WP:SIGCOV of its importance/value in any respect. Just being on a massive "vaguely special building" list as described above does not make it pass WP:NBUILDING. There are similar honors given to countless millions of buildings across the world, very few of which have/deserve Wikipedia articles. It's just a typical building on this street, nothing uniquely special. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep": Per User:Lowercaserho and WP:NBUILDING that does offer a presumption of notability. There are approximately 344,080 grade II buildings and churches are listed separately. I didn't look to see how many of those would be from 1899 (Victorian era). This building is listed by the Department of Culture Media and Sport in England which is certainly a national cultural listing. This prestige is higher than the NRHP listing because the protection status is by statute and a building cannot be altered without permission. In this case the fact of being in the Chislehurst Conservation Area gives additional protection. that even includes trees, so is double protected. WP:NBUILDING does not differentiate between the classes of listed buildings as presented above but states:

Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available, are presumed to be notable.
Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Arguing a lack of notability because of a separation of protected status is ineffective and notability does not depend on the state of references in the article. I have not yet looked for sources as this listing is already working on day 7. I did see it appears to be a nursing home and not just a residence. Otr500 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about U.S. NRHP vs. U.K. listed buildings. Both are covered in databases, so listing status can be established. But U.S. NRHP's generally have extensive nomination document plus accompanying photos, now mostly available on-line and hard-copy for others can be obtained by request to National Park Service. So NRHPs meet the Wikipedia requirement for notability based on existence of sourcing. For a listed building, no documentation can be assumed, as far as I understand.

I !voted "Delete" below, for now, but I would rather not "win" this decision. Otr500, could you post a link to that nursing home mention or anything else? Maybe this can be saved by adding some sources for the existing statements in the article and/or for any new statements that can be added. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listed building so clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have to side with those who support keeping this article. It meets WP:GEOFEAT. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tentatively. In the past, Grade I and Grade II* but not lower Grade II listed buildings have usually held to be assumedly Wikipedia-notable, because sources can be expected to exist. But perhaps there may be sources, info that bring this one up to notable? More needs to be shown besides fact of listing.

What is the exact location of this house, i.e. coordinates? Can it be seen in Google Streetview or otherwise? A photo sometimes helps settle an AFD. This one is architect-designed, might be impressive or it may seem no more significant than its neighbors.

There is a different(?) Derwent House in Bromley on St. Georges Rd. which sold in 2019 per this. However This is google maps view of difference between Camden Park Rd. and St. Georges Rd.; they appear not to intersect. --Doncram (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the one in the middle of the screen, between Bonchester Close and the house with the swimming pool. No Street View, unfortunately, but it looks pretty large and impressive. Note that most of the houses on the street are not listed. Only Derwent House and its large neighbour to the left, Bonchester, in the immediate vicinity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So if i am interpreting that correctly it is at 51°24′38″N 0°03′41″E / 51.410571°N 0.061435°E / 51.410571; 0.061435 (Derwent House), which for some reason brings up term "Wimple Nook" when "what's here" is checked (right-click on loacation in Google maps. From the satellite view, it is looks like a complex-roofed building, not more significant than neighbors up and down the road. Why is this one listed but not others? Bonchester is a dismbiguation page; there is no Wikipedia coverage of Bonchester Close AFAICT. --Doncram (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am generally "inclusionist", but don't see justification here to Keep, yet. There is no link to this from any list of Grade II listed buildings in Bromley, or wherever; I think no one is creating such lists even, much less individual articles. --Doncram (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Grade II listed buildings in England is almost empty. It would be okay as an alternative to deletion to redirect this to a list in which it is covered, but there is no such list. --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it's listed because Historic England staff, who are experts in their field, think it's worthy of listing! Bonchester is also listed. The fact it doesn't have a WP page yet is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that almost the entire article is unsourced, and could therefore be stripped down to "The Derwent House on Camden Park Road in Chislehurst, Bromley, is a Grade II listed building built in 1899, and was designed by Ernest Newton. A large property on which it was later built was bought in 1890 by William Willet. it has a tiled roof." The two sources in the article having links only establish Grade II listing and architect. The 1890 The Builder source, unlinked, apparently only establishes purchase date (i infer this from reference placement in article and fact that it is dated 9 years before building's construction). All the rest is unsourced embroidery, AFAICT, and is mostly not about the house itself. It is not even established that Willet was its builder, or that it is Arts and Crafts in style, or that there was any later addition (maybe true, but not supported). Does not establish significance/notability for Wikipedia, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 16:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The substantial detail in the article was added in 2009 by an I.P. editor without sourcing. I tend to believe the info, do expect the person was informed and correct, but there is no sourcing given. --Doncram (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Preposterous to assume that hundreds of thousands of buildings are automatically notable for a low-level listing - "2% of English building stock" is an absurdly broad set of places to supposedly deserve an article without challenge. Any supposed "presumption" of notability operates under the expectation that substantive independent sources can be found, but if they cannot, then the place is not in fact notable after all. Furthermore, NGEO discusses artificial geographic features and buildings separately - this is obviously the latter and would "require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability," which it does not have, so the keep votes merely asserting this guideline fail to clarify that it passes it. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found a passing mention on [6], but that is it. Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. WP:GEOFEAT says: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Therefore, the presumed notability arguments above are invalid. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Like others above, you seem to be conveniently ignoring: "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." Listing meets these criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am in agreement with what Masem has said regarding "artificial geographical features" on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#UK Grade II Listed buildings. And also with Reywas92 and the Grade II-"cultural or national heritage" bit, period. We disagree, and that is it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - And read what I wrote there too. But whether we disagree about notability or not, you cannot possibly say that a listed building of any grade does not fall into the category of being "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage". That would be ludicrous. What do you think listing means? Also, WP:GEOFEAT has always been held to include buildings of all sorts at AfD. Always! You can't start deciding you don't like that interpretation when consensus is clearly that that is the interpretation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - You didn't read me when I mentioned the Masem's comment about the "Artificial geographical feature", so yes I don't think it falls there as such. Because if it was, as a building would contradict the other part of WP:GEOFEAT... "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." I think there is a line between the two. You say "always been held", okay. But where is that in the guideline? And how do we avoid contradictions like I mentioned above? I think we need to have a RFC that will add things (or not) like these there or do some clarification of the guideline. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it doesn't contradict it at all. It's saying even if a building is not listed as cultural heritage then it may be notable for other reasons. If that's a contradiction, then surely so is the third bullet point to what Masem is claiming! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Doncram: Sorry I got tied up. The map coordinates you listed are correct but Google map does contain errors so I am not sure why it shows "Wimple Nook". I categorically reject assertions that a "presumption of notability" is somehow equated to "automatic notability".

I am in a state of shock concerning this whole thing. This is not because of "Delete" !votes, because there apparently have some justification, but because:

This building and others, (apparently lowly listed as only a standard grade II) is nationally listed and does carry protection under the law.
The area (all Chislehurst) and building, listed under "location" as "68 DERWENT HOUSE CAMDEN PARK ROAD CHISLEHURST BR7 5HF", clearly identifies the building just before Bonchester Close). My reasoning and initial assessment was that these are supported by Historic Environment Law, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and a supplement in 2014, and the National Planning Policy Framework giving the statutory duty of special regard to listed buildings. Regardless if there is 20 buildings and areas or a half million "it would seem" that there would be primary sourcing (at the least) leading up to such classification as well as secondary regional or even local sources. I have found nothing yet even in the local Bromeley Times.
A concern of the lack of easily found sources, apparently shared by others is perplexing, making this difficult considering most of these were grand estates with architectural significance from particular eras and with national listing.

I am still looking, considering the historical aspect of the subject and such significance as the provided protection under national laws, it seems there "should be sourcing somewhere and maybe it just hasn't been found". Wikipedia is not, however, a crystal ball and there needs to be sourcing.

The link for the [nursing home] does not provide any usable substance. I found the subject name referenced as being in the book [Discover Chislehurst and its Environs] (2007 by Darrell Spurgeon) but do not have access for examination. I have found historical drawings that I think is the building but need to be able to confirm this.

No street view!. This is a gated community so private. If one goes to Google street view using "CTRL+ mouse drag" the uniqueness of the architecture can be viewed in 360 degrees. This is especially appealing considering the design is from 1899. Most of the buildings in this area are grand and unique. Please note!: All of the buildings are considered important and protected by the conservation status of the area. Many of these buildings are individually listed but not all of them.

None of this really matters if there is not an editor in that area that wishes to take interest in this, or one with better resources. I was looking for copies of the newsletters Cockpit, the Chislehurst Report, and the Chislehurst Resident that might provide some connection but have not located anything yet. I did see the 1992 study Chislehurst Conservation Area but content on the subject is just a repeat of previous material and does not cover any historical aspects.

All of the above aside I am at a lose as to where the sources are found. Otr500 (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Wimple Nook" is a valid alternative name and sources might be found searching on that term? This list of Council taxes omits "68 Camden Park Road" and includes "Wimple Nook" instead. But my searching is overwhelmed by hits on "nook" reader device. --Doncram (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also browsing found me mention in this of de Quincey family \, that "“Aunt Alice” is likely to have been Alice Maud De Quincey Hayward, Richard’s married older sister who lived at Derwent House, Camden Park Road." and in this a mention of a 1912 wedding including a son of "Mrs. Heyward, of Derwent House, Chislehurst". --Doncram (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge / redirect to an article on Chiselhurst Conservation Area (was a redlink)? Akin to an article covering a NRHP-listed historic district in U.S., in which brief treatments of various buildings are included, often in a table.. The source that User:Otr500 provided is substantial and gives wide context about arts and crafts and more, including specifically on page 30 that "Derwent, No. 68 by Newton, was built in 1899; it is two storey plus attics with red brick ground floor and tile hanging above. The tiled roof is hipped on the left and half hipped on the right. There are 2 gabled, tile hung dormers. On the right is a modern brick 2-storey addition." Which corroborates previously unsourced stuff in the article since 2009. --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this interactive map of conservation areas and listed buildings in Bromley allows zoom in to see Derwent and all the others within big Chislehurst area.--Doncram (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found information on other places while looking that has more sources. I would support this. Otr500 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by that study, I am not sure this house would even merit a mention in an article on Chiselhurst Conservation Area. We simply have a description of a house made of bricks and tiles. As to the area itself, there are 45 conservation areas in Bromley alone, so I am not sure an article on this particular one is warranted. The lengthy Chislehurst Society Area Study, while full of intresting information, should not be considered an independent source for the purposes of demonstrating notability - the society exists to promote the interests of residents in preserving the area, regardless of its particular historical signficance when viewed in a wider context. The Chiselhurst article has room for expansion, and I'd contend anything worth mentioning about the conservation area should be included there instead. ----Pontificalibus 06:23, 20 June 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) 02:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Longshanks (band)

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

An article about a band that does not appear to meet WP:NBAND. The article has been sourced only to the band's own website since its creation, and I have been unable to find any sources that discuss the band in any meaningful way. The most I was able to find was this brief review on their one released album. However, the site its hosted on is questionable as a reliable source, and is not sufficient on its own to support notability for the band. I initially WP:PRODed the article, but the PROD was contested by the page create without explanation. Rorshacma (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it probably won't be a surprise to anyone to learn that this is an autobiographical article... the creator "Imagesandmusic" is the band's founder André Kamer, as he states here: Talk:Taj Mahal/Archive 4#Virtual tours online. Just for good measure, his design website at https://imagesandmusic.nl/ also includes some images he created for the band's music. Richard3120 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. The article was created by an individual with serious COI issues and should be uprooted from the encyclopedia so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. The only edit by this editor in six years was to de-Prod this article. They are clearly trying to keep it for personal and non-encyclopedic reasons, which was the whole purpose of the article in the first place. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: I would advise the closing admin to block ImagesAndMusic (creator of this article) per the obvious violation of WP:NOTHERE as seen by the account's contributions [7]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to find anything significant that would push this band past any of the WP:NMUSIC criteria, nor WP:GNG (obvious case of having no significant coverage, searches are still leading me to Edward I of England despite searching it with "band" in the title). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Dingra

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

Sources are neither independent not reliable. None are in-depth.

[8]

is an interview with the subject

[9] is an interview with the subject
[10] a speaker bio, which is typically provided by the agent of the subject, not written by an independent source.
[11] doesn't mention the subject
[12] doesn't mention the subject
[13] is an annnouncement of a corporate aquisition, but says almost nothing about the subject
[14]
[15] isobar is a marketing agency. Dingra's company is a subsidiary.
[16] lists the subject as included in LinkedIn's Power Profiles 2016 from the field of Marketing and Advertising in India. That is presumably this list: https://members.linkedin.com/power-profiles-2016/in/industry/marketing-and-advertising.
[17] doesn't mention the subject
[18] a speaker bio, which is typically provided by the agent of the subject, not written by an independent source.
https://traveltogandi.com/t?t=1&/employees/rajiv-dingra/ dead link
[19] is a press release
[20] not even a mention, only a caption identifying the subject in a photo. Vexations (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Vexations (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is puffery for mostly run of the mill accomplishments. There are some news mentions, largely in the form of "Rajiv Dingra, Founder and CEO, WATConsult said, “We’re proud to partner with (X or Y company) in their digital journey." No SIGCOV. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHe does not pass GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of significant coverage. --MrClog (talk) 20:32, 18 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Marxer

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator based on his call up to the Liechtenstein national team. Since he has not actually played a match for this country this does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both, a recent call up to the national team and playing in a national cup final for Alexander Marxer, and being a regular in the youth national teams (including playing in the under-21 team's first ever win) and having been called up for the 3 most recent national team squads for Armando Majer, makes the players notable. SpookySpaghetti (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. None of SpookySpaghetti's reasons to keep are valid. Dougal18 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I couldn't find detailed enough coverage to determine with certainty whether Marxer actually played in a 2020 UEFA qualifier. It's the only thing that would make him WP notable. The burden of proof is on those claiming notability to show he actually played--being on the bench is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Armando Majer His article states he has not appeared for the senior national team so he fails to meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:22, 18 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Things (film)

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

Article, created by somebody with a direct personal conflict of interest, about a film whose claims of notability per WP:NFILM are not properly referenced. By far the majority of the references here are unreliable sources, such as Amazon.com and unreliable blogs and podcasts and its own self-published website about itself -- and of the two genuinely strong sources (Variety and Dread Central) where I was actually able to verify anything at all about what they said, I can confirm that Variety was definitively a falsified source: when I tried to Wayback it, it actually led me to a review (dated 1935!) of a completely unrelated film called Things to Come, not to any content that had anything whatsoever to do with this film. And as for the Harris M. Lentz book, it's being used only to footnote that the film exists, rather than any content about the film, so it's very unclear whether it contains any substantive content at all -- and both the faked Variety review and the self-promotional sockpuppetry that infested the Barry J. Gillis AFD last week leave me very not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. At best, this is a candidate for the blow it up and start over treatment, if somebody can actually find better sources and write a new, WP:COI-free version -- but at worst, a self-aggrandizing filmmaker tried to abuse Wikipedia to make his work seem more notable than it really is by reference bombing it with bad sources in an attempt to hide its lack of good ones, and articles like that have to go away. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite COI and sockpuppet issues, I don't see any issues with WP:GNG. I hate giving socks any ground but this article isn't much of a puff piece, the largest section goes into great detail about how awful most people thought the movie was. WP:TNT not needed. I'll note that although it was a decade ago at this point, there was a previous bundle AfD which decided Things was notable but Gillis wasn't. I don't think that has changed over the years.LM2000 (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that most of the sources here are trash, I'm not seeing how GNG has been satisfied at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. This whole article needs WP:TNT and can come back if someone finds actually significant and reliable sources for it. It's a complete mess on every level at the moment. The COI issue also means this article should be vigorously uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Sorry but I cannot give socks or COI editing any ground. I don't know the reliability of Huffpost but the implications that a COI editor has a close relation to the subject means a possible financial gain so by proxy is COI/paid editing. This automatically calls into question any neutrality as provided by the "Five pillars". Otr500 (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COI issues aside, the poor sourcing on this does not allow the article to pass the WP:GNG. As stated, the vast majority of sources on this are not from reliable sources, and the few that do come from reliable sources are not substantial enough to establish notability. The book by Harris Lentz, for example, is nothing more than a listing of the film's year of release and cast. As the nom stated, the article was just reference bombed to make it appear that it received far more coverage from legitimate sources than it actually did, and when you strip that all away, what remains is not enough to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 21:49, 18 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project 3D-VIEW

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

I am not able to find multiple independent sources to support this article. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Morantz

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor and as yet non-winning candidate for political office. As always, these are not notability claims that pass WP:NPOL: a city councillor has to serve in an international global city, which Winnipeg is not, to be deemed notable for being a city councillor, and a federal election candidate has to win the seat, not just run for it and lose, to be deemed notable for his efforts in federal politics, but this is not referenced to anything like the depth or range or volume of reliable source coverage it would take to make him a special case. Three of the four references are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all -- and the only one that is a reliable source is just the purely routine "party selects candidate" piece that every party's candidate in every election always gets in the local media, so it is not enough coverage to make him special all by itself. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the federal seat -- but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible to have an article today. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free platform for candidates' campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable enough to keep Kevinhanit (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed candidate for provincial office and current candidate for federal office do not meet WP:NPOL. If/when Morantz wins the seat, we can re-discuss. Bkissin (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:NPOL. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April Jeffs

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a smalltown mayor and as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, these are not notability claims that get a person into Wikipedia in and of themselves: a municipality has to be much larger than Wainfleet before its mayors are presumed notable just for existing as mayors, and a person has to win the federal election, not just run in it, to become notable because of a federal election. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if she wins, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here constitutes reasons why she would already be eligible for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed provincial candidate, non-notable mayor and future federal candidate do not meet WP:NPOL. Use of Wikipedia as free election advertising would violate WP:PROMO. Bkissin (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:NPOL. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Vidal

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a smalltown mayor and as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, these are not notability claims that get a person into Wikipedia in and of themselves: a municipality has to be much larger than Meadow Lake before its mayors are presumed notable just for existing as mayors, and a person has to win the federal election, not just run in it, to become notable because of a federal election. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here constitutes reasons why he would already be eligible for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to keep Kevinhanit (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mayor and future federal candidate do not meet WP:NPOL. Use of Wikipedia as free election advertising would violate WP:PROMO. Bkissin (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:NPOL. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Aitchison

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a person notable only as a smalltown mayor and as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, neither of these are reasons why a person gets an article under WP:NPOL: deriving notability from the federal election requires winning it, not just being a candidate, and a place has to be much larger than Huntsville (pop. 19K) before a mayor is presumed notable in the absence of much more reliable source coverage than this article shows. Of the three footnotes here, however, two are primary sources self-published by the city government, which are not notability-supporting sources -- the only one that's media coverage is from a community hyperlocal, and is merely a short blurb verifying that he won the mayoral election in 2014, which is not substantive or wide enough coverage to make a smalltown mayor permanently notable all by itself. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the federal election -- but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of campaign brochures for aspiring MPs, and nothing here is valid grounds for him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough and even comes from a small town. Can be recreated if he wins the fall federal election. Kevinhanit (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mayor and future federal candidate do not meet WP:NPOL. Use of Wikipedia as free election advertising would violate WP:PROMO. If and when he wins we can re-create. Bkissin (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:PROMO. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Weir

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a smalltown municipal councillor and as yet unelected candidate in a future election. As always, neither of these are claims that pass WP:NPOL: to derive notability from a federal election he has to win the seat, not just run for it, and to be notable as a city councillor he would have to either serve in a global city on the order of Chicago or Toronto or be referenceable to a depth and volume and range of coverage that marked him out as much more special than most other city councillors. But nothing here does that at all: five of the six footnotes are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all -- and the other one is the routine "party selects candidate" piece from a community hyperlocal, which is not enough coverage to make him permanently notable just for being a candidate. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins, but nothing here is a reason why he would already qualify to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to keep at this time. Article can be recreated if he wins in the fall federal election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinhanit (talk • contribs) 00:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable municipal politican and future federal candidate do not meet WP:NPOL. Use of Wikipedia as free election advertising would violate WP:PROMO. Open to re-creating if and when he wins in October. Bkissin (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:PROMO. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B S Shiju

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

A mildly promotional article about a person without evidence of notability. (Despite the bombarding of the articles with references, few if any of them give substantial coverage of him.) (Contested PROD.) Yhto Plwhm (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Yhto Plwhm (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a political party's research director is not an "inherently" notable role for the purposes of getting an encyclopedia article — it could get him in the door if he were shown to clear WP:GNG, but is not an automatic inclusion freebie that guarantees him an article just because he exists. But the footnotes here are not substantive coverage about him for the purposes of establishing his notability — they are nearly all glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, primary sources like his employer's own self-published media relations handbook, or purely tangential verification of stray facts about other things or people that completely fail to mention Shiju at all in the process — and the few that are genuinely about Shiju are just short employment announcement blurbs, not substantive coverage. The notability test is not "has had his name mentioned in the media", it is "has been substantively the subject of a significant volume of media coverage about him", and the sources here aren't passing it. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bearcat. This article fails WP:GNG because the sustained WP:SIGCOV of this man is just not there. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:38, 18 June 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) 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Konanz

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

WP:BLP of a tennis player, smalltown city councillor and as yet non-winning candidate in a future election, not properly sourced as clearing our notability criteria for either sportspeople or politicians.
WP:NTENNIS requires a person to get seeded in the main draw at Wimbledon or the French or US Opens, not just to compete in the preliminaries and fail to advance past #228, while WP:NPOL does not extend notability to either non-winning candidates or non-metropolitan city councillors: a federal election candidate has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable on that basis, and a city councillor is only notable if you can show a depth and range and volume of coverage that clearly marks her out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors. But the referencing here is entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to clear WP:GNG on the sources.
As well, it warrants mention that the article was created by a virtual WP:SPA who seems to be almost exclusively interested in creating premature articles about as yet unelected Conservative Party of Canada candidates.
As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if she wins — but neither the sourcing nor the substance here constitutes reasons why she would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NTENNIS as she competed in the main draw of 6 Grand Slam events in Doubles. There is no requirement for players to be seeded to pass the SNG. Iffy★Chat -- 09:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NTENNIS as mentioned above, as she has competed in several WTA events, including six grand slams. Smartyllama (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough as a tennis player. Kevinhanit (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She did appear in 6 Grand Slam doubles events, although she never won a match there. A top doubles ranking of #228 wouldn't seem to be encyclopedic, but she does meet WP:NTENNIS. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Duncan (Canadian politician)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a smalltown mayor and as yet unelected candidate in a future election. As always, neither of these are article-clinching notability claims per WP:NPOL: a person has to win the election, not just run in it, to pass NPOL #1 for federal politics, and a person has to have a lot more than just a couple of hits of local media coverage to pass NPOL #2 as mayor of a small town. As always, GNG is not just "anybody who can be shown to have gotten their name into any media outlet twice" -- it also tests for the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of how widely his coverage is originating from, and the context of what he's getting coverage for.
Additionally, it warrants mention that the article was created by a virtual WP:SPA who seems to exist solely to start premature articles about nominated Conservative Party of Canada candidates in the forthcoming election. Obviously, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the seat and becomes an MP, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here are enough to make a smalltown mayor or an as yet unelected candidate special enough to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The coming election is close. Should this content be merged in a candidates listing page instead? Alaney2k (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, do we still make those types of pages? Alaney2k (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been a formal consensus to officially deprecate them, but the will to create or maintain such pages at all has certainly waned in the past few years. Federally, lists do exist for 2015; provincially, Ontario was the only province that ever consistently did them, and even then 2011 is the last time they were done consistently across the board — the PCs have one for 2014, but no other party does. In other provinces, lists either never existed at all, or exist only as isolated one-shots for purely random and inconsistent combinations of party and election year. As well, even the lists we have are incredibly poor — many still follow the old style, where the lists were allowed to contain basically all of the biographical content that would have been in a standalone BLP if the person qualified for one, and have never been properly cleaned up to comply with the tightening of rules that disallowed that. Conversely, the newer ones are complying with the current "no extended biographical sketches" rules, but there's little to no editorial will to actually getting them completed: see, frex, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates in the 2011 Ontario provincial election, in which the residence, votes, % and rank columns have not been filled in for even one person in the list, and the occupation column has been filled in only for three. And since the election articles contain complete vote results tables anyway, the lists aren't actually offering any unique information we aren't already covering in other places. So for all of those reasons, I believe that the lists should be deleted and not carried forward as a thing we do anymore, but there hasn't been a formal consensus for that yet.
And at any rate, we have a longstanding consensus that we do not keep articles about unelected candidates just because the election is "close". If the election were literally less than seven days away, such that an AFD discussion might have to be prematurely closed if they turn out to win, then we have some leeway to potentially consider just holding off for a few days — but candidates get no special dispensation to keep articles months in advance of election day just because there's a chance that they might win. Either he already holds an NPOL-passing office today, or he has to wait until he does before an article gets to be started at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't currently pass WP:NPOL ~~but the article could be Draftified until the election and then either published if Duncan wins or deleted if he loses~~. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be draftifying premature articles about candidates pending the election results, because that just turns draftspace into exactly the repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates that NPOL is designed to prevent mainspace from becoming: if we draftspace this, then we automatically have to let every other candidate across Canada keep a draftspace page pending the election results too. We also have the ability to restore deleted articles if circumstances change, so draftspacing isn't necessary. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat you're right, completely forgot about that option. Straight up delete. GPL93 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to be kept at this time. Article can be recreated if he wins the fall federal election. Kevinhanit (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the candidate wins election in 2019, then the article can be recreated. --Enos733 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he wins the election he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable mayor and future federal candidate do not meet WP:NPOL. Use of Wikipedia as free election advertising would violate WP:PROMO. If/when he wins we can re-create. Bkissin (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:NPOL, but can be recreated if he wins the election. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog

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

Has been deleted before on notability grounds and has been notability tagged since March 2017. In common with many articles of this kind (see the successfully deleted Patriotic Socialist Party), this outfit was a one-off novelty act with little to no notable independent coverage, little to no electoral impact, little to no notable people associated with them, and little to no notable impact after their time in the spotlight. Notability is not attached to political parties merely by their existing, they must do something other than stand for election to be notable. By that measure alone Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog fails WP:GNG. doktorb _words^deeds 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of frivolous political parties#United Kingdom (with or without a couple of extra words there), as a possible wikireader lookup. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and any notability guidelines. This article is not any more notable then when it was deleted the first time, so the decision should be clear here. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:25, 18 June 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) 19:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Canyon Apartment Homes shooting

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

This event does not seem that notable to me, it doesn't really have a lasting impact on many people, yes a police officer was killed, but cops are killed quite often. Out of all the 2017 mass shootings, this one has the least amount of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YatesTucker00090 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not yet document this, but it's had sustained impact within Colorado; it was "the incident that in some ways began Colorado’s push for a so-called 'red flag' gun law" [22]. That bill, which was just signed into law and has been extremely controversial (there have been many Second Amendment sanctuary declarations in response), was named after the deputy killed.[23] postdlf (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Postdlf, and the fact that there was national coverage and that regional coverage has been ongoing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may be written like breaking news, but as postldf points out, the event passes WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE as it led to a controversial reform in the law. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:EVENT as is WP:LASTING, thanks to Postdlf for highlighting its impact regarding red flags, agree rewrite is required incorporating this info. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 18 June 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) 02:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Urynowicz

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

PhD in 2008. h-index of around 4. Works for a government education/research/prosecution/lustration agency. Not close to passing NPROF or NAUTHOR. Doesn't seem to pass GNG either. Note that there is a Polish soccer player,[24] with the same name with much more coverage - however they are not the same individual (the soccer player is 20 years younger).Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite its brevity, page suffers from Wikipedia:Citation overkill in what appears like an attempt to give a writer who fails [[WP:AUTHOR the appearance of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Dissent due to my recent view that we need to be more inclusive for academics. I see a dozen+ mentions of him (interviews, comments) in Polish media (newspapers, radio - google search for ""Marcin Urynowicz" -wiki historyk"). Ex. 2019 interview in Polskie Radio, or another about his research/views in [25], Polish mainstream daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), or even on TV [26] in TVP. While those are interviews and comments about other issues, not about him, it shows he has some media presence, and it's not like it' 2-3 hits total, I count easily dozen+, so he is seen as a reliable scholar/expert by the Polish media. His h-index is low... but Gscholar is not very good at indexing non-English scholarship. Google Books shows he has been cited more than what Google Scholar shows, through I won't argue he passes due to citation count - I will just note that we don't have a reliable way of estimating citation counts for scholars whose majority of work is published in non-English language. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

getting quoted by news media is not an indication of notability in any field. What we need to see is stuff like long profiles of his work and impact; books getting multiple reviews in solid journals, and/or serious scholarly papers/books that discuss his work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice. Hence, week keep since I am not seeing the type of coverage you describe that would make me vote full keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per arguments above. Zezen (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being quoted in a few news stories does not establish notability for an WP:AUTHOR. And Note that he is not at a university, and that his appointment as a "panelist" is at the Institute of National Remembrance, an institution not held in high repute by historians working outside Poland.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - can anyone speak to the publishers of his books? Having three books published by academic presses in the US would lend significant weight to an individuals credentials in the US. Having three (very short) books published by think tanks and government offices would not. I'm familiar with IPN and think their publications have to be taken on a case-by-case basis (and in this case, few citations suggest little influence). Żydowski Instytut Historyczny has been led by historians who themselves have wikipedia pages, and may suggest greater influence. However, short of a few citations by Hanna Kozińska-Witt [red-link intentional], that book also seems to not have broad influence. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 2003 book is an illustrated book specific to the town of Kozienice.[27] The 2010 book is with a co-author (Elimelech Rak, listed first) and is on memoirs of Jewish craftsmen. The 2009 book is based on his 2008 PhD dissertation - he worked at the time for Warsaw public education office of the IPN. The IPN itself, beyond having a complex reputation, publishes a wide variety of publications - Research at the IPN differs from academic work in several respects (Behr, 2011). First, researchers do not only conduct scientific projects; they are also required to take part in educational and public outreach initiatives such as exhibitions, short publications, designed for lay readers and youth (like the monthly IPN bulletin), websites, and even board games. The purpose of this deliberately synthetic history, reduced to a playful and attractive format, begs the question: does it seek to popularize knowledge about the past, or to turn it into a political tool?. per Behr, 2016 - in short their publications vary quite a bit in quality/audience. Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rewrite it about the more notable soccer player. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To date, no editor has been able to find WP:SIGCOV of his life or his books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, and WP:NAUTHOR due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV of any of his life or works. Just nothing substantive here. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Newshunter12. --MrClog (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found this [28], but it seemingly also relies on what he said about something that happened in the history. So I am not convinced with Piotrus' arguments here: WP:INTERVIEW clearly states interviews cannot be used for establishing notability, and citations and comments of what he said is not WP:INDEPENDENT coverage of his. Citations count is absolutely low, so no hope for WP:NACADEMIC here, and WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR is also not applicable (no notable awards and no multiple reviews of his work besides of this [29]). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Black

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a lawyer and political candidate, whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. This is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources, and the only reference that's anything like a reliable source just glancingly namechecks his existence a couple of times in an article that isn't about him. Nothing here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but the sources simply aren't cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG. This was a good faith creation in 2005, but Wikipedia's inclusion and sourcing standards have changed too much in the past 14 years and this article isn't meeting them anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the article needs a major rewrite with a lot of content taken out and better sourcing, but there’s no doubt that sources are plentiful. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say that sources are plentiful, because there aren't good sources in the article and my own WP:BEFORE efforts failed to find nearly enough sources that were any better. Sure, it's possible that better sources may exist somewhere else — nobody on Wikipedia has a completely unfettered ability to locate every valid source that exists on earth, and each person has access to a different combination of resources, so it's entirely possible that one person can find sources that another person wasn't able to. But if you're invoking an WP:NEXIST argument, then you have to show hard evidence of what other sources you're finding, and it's not enough to just say that sources are plentiful if you don't show some evidence of those plentiful sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among what I could find are 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both BBC links are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage about him that would constitute support for his notability; and the book just takes me to a "you have reached a page that is unavailable for viewing" error, making it completely impossible for me to verify whether it constitutes substantive coverage or just another glancing namecheck. The Toronto Star source is good, but isn't in and of itself enough if the other three aren't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the tone is inappropriate and promotional but on rereading your nomination, where you say claims of notability are not well sourced, I wonder if you mean that we can’t really be sure that he was an advocate in the Rwanda and Yugoslavia trials? If you think there is no sound basis for believing he had these roles then I see why you think his notability is doubtful. If you are satisfied he did have these roles, I’m not clear why you think the claim of notability is not well sourced. There may be specific details that lack sources but the overall picture isn’t in doubt, or is it? Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not a question of what the article says, it's a question of how well the article references what it says. The notability test he has to pass, to qualify for an article on here, does not hinge on simply being able to offer technical verification that he exists, in primary sources and blogs and brief mentions of his existence in coverage of other things or people — it hinges on the extent to which his work did or didn't result in reliable sources producing and publishing content that has him as its subject: journalism about him in real media, published books about him, and on and so forth. It's not his job titles that are in question — it's whether he has the depth of reliable source coverage about his work needed to clear WP:GNG as notable for holding any given job title. No job title, not even "King of the World", ever hands anybody an instant notability freebie that would exempt them from having to have been covered by the media in that role before they qualify to have a Wikipedia article because of it. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There is a lack of sourcing for this. A few quotes in a BBC article is not significant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:36, 18 June 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) 16:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Dowdall

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a not yet elected candidate in a forthcoming election and mayor of a small town. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being federal election candidates: to pass NPOL #1, he would have to win the election and thereby serve as an MP, not just be a name on the ballot. And smalltown mayors don't automatically pass NPOL #2, either: to be considered notable for being mayor, either Essa would have to be much larger than just 21K, or Dowdall would have to show a depth and range and volume of coverage that marked him out as much more special than most other mayors of places this size.
But two of the five footnotes here are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all; two more are the routinely expected coverage in a community hyperlocal, which are not notability-clinching sources for a smalltown mayor or a non-winning MP candidate all by themselves, because every smalltown mayor and every non-winning MP candidate can always show a hit or two in their local media; and the last looks stronger on the surface if you only eyeball its URL, but is not actually about him for the purposes of establishing his notability: it just quotes him giving soundbite about a public emergency in an article whose subject is the emergency and not him. As always, getting a person into Wikipedia is not just a matter of showing that his name has appeared in the media two or more times: we also evaluate (a) the depth of how substantively a source is or isn't about him; (b) the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and (c) the context of what he's getting coverage for -- but none of this is enough.
No prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the federal election, but nothing here (either in the sourcing or the substance) constitutes a reason why he would be entitled to have a campaign brochure on Wikipedia today. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mayor and future federal candidate do not meet WP:NPOL. Use of Wikipedia as free election advertising would violate WP:PROMO. Bkissin (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- small-town mayors do not automatically pass NPOL.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark DeMontis

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

WP:BLP of a person "notable" primarily as a candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia -- he has to win the election and thereby get sworn in as an MP to become notable as a politician, and the only way he gets an article any earlier than election day is if he was already notable enough for an article for other reasons before being selected as a candidate for anything. But founding an orgainzation is not a notability freebie either -- to get an article on that basis, he would have to have been the subject of enough reliable source coverage in that role to clear WP:GNG -- but all of the references being cited for that work are primary sources that do not count as support for notability. The only reference here that actually represents media coverage at all is a single hit on the candidacy itself, which is not nearly enough to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. No prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins, but nothing here entitles him to already have an article today.
Additionally, it warrants mention that the article was created by a virtual WP:SPA who seems to exist only to start articles about nominated Conservative Party of Canada candidates in the forthcoming election. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Likely notable for his trip across Canada and for his creation of the Canadian Blind Hockey Association. Kevinhanit (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Kevinhanit (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article now has additional sources and needs to be looked at by nominator. Bearcat to see if this should be speedily closed. Kevinhanit (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's been added is not enough to change the equation here. GNG is not just "as soon as the number of media hits in the article meets or exceeds two", but also tests for depth and range and context. It doesn't include Q&A interviews in which the subject is the speaker, so "Blind hockey players, Ottawa 67's hit the ice" doesn't help at all — he has to be the thing being spoken about, not the person who's doing the speaking, for a source to assist in establishing his notability. Short blurbs aren't substantive coverage — so "Blind hockey rolling across east" would be fine for verification of stray facts if the notability question had already been covered off by stronger sources, but is not a notability-making source. So the only new source that's actually getting us anywhere at all is "Prime Minister to honour blind hockey player", but that source doesn't get us to the finish line all by itself as the only substantive and reliable source in play. Even in terms of establishing that he had preexisting notability as an organizational founder, it still takes considerably more substantive coverage than this is even attempting to show. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed provincial candidate and future federal candidate do not meet WP:NPOL. Use of Wikipedia as free election advertising would violate WP:PROMO. Bkissin (talk) 20:49, 17 June 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 Move to draft--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaiden Animations

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

Speedy was removed with the rationale "as has content related to multiple events post the AFD". However, there was no real in-depth coverage since the last AfD. The first new source, from The Daily Star, is a shared sentence about her. The second is from Animation Magazine, and is a very brief mention. The same with the new refs from Market Insider, WatMag, and TenEighty. More simple mentions occur in News.com.au, Billboard, Streamys, Variety, Heavy, and Metro. There were a couple of YouTube additions as well, which isn't a RS. The only new source which was more than a mere mention was the second source from TenEighty, which is about a health care panel she sat on. However, that's more of an interview, and not really in-depth about her, and as an interview, it's a primary source, and doesn't go to notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe make it into a draft - Jaiden is still relevant/notable being involved in the 2017 and 2018 YouTube Rewind and working with other YouTubers. The article just needs some work. Also, how does David Brown (boyinaband) meet notability but Jaiden doesn't? Just doesn't make sense to me. Within the next few days I can find more sources and improve the article. I'll tag @Atlantic306: since he removed the deletion tag and gave a reason for it. If it isn't ready, we could make it into a draft, work on it, and make it an article when it is ready. Might just be a case of WP:too soon but if she isn't notable enough now she might be notable enough in the future. Deleting it just doesn't seem like the best option when she is a pretty big YouTuber.Bowling is life (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without considering the article sources, a new search for sources finds these:

Metro "Inside the world of Jaiden Animations: The animator who hid PewDiePie memes in YouTube Rewind"
A mention in People and
a mention in the book "YouTubers: How YouTube shook up TV and created a new generation of stars".

All in all, there is not a heck of a lot here, based on a fresh search. Even considering the article sources, which are largely passing mentions and lists, the Metro article above is the only in-depth overage I can find. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep, per reasons listed above - she's an extremely prominent animator on YouTube (who frequently collaborates with other notable individuals), she's gotten coverage on her work on body positivity, she's gotten coverage on her bulimia-and-anorexia-related music collaboration, she's gotten coverage on her featuring in YouTube's official YouTube Rewind series and the controversial YouTube Rewind 2018 situation, and she's gotten coverage on her animations which helped popularize a genre, etc. She's just as notable (if no more so) than many other fellow YouTubers (many of whom she's collaborated with) who have articles. (Wikipedia:Women in Red doesn't hurt the situation either.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being popular on Youtube means nothing. For notability we need in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Please show us the "coverage".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what ThatMontrealIP said, whataboutism really isn't a good argument (WP:WAX). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, maybe make it into a draft, or allow time for improvement~~ striking duplicate !vote - Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC) It is hard to find sources for a lot of YouTuber's. This it the case for TheOdd1sOut, Alex Clark, and David Brown but they have Wikipedia articles and all of these articles are pretty weak. Jaiden had about the same amount of coverage in sources as these YouTubers mentioned and sometimes more. We should either turn this article into a draft or allow time for improvement instead of straight up deleteing it. If the TheOdd1sOut, Alex Clark, and David Brown can have articles, I don't see why Jaiden can't. I am planning on working on this article within the next week when I have time and encourage others to do as well. @ThatMontrealIP: In terms of examples of coverage, she was in both 2017 and 2018 YouTube rewind. Her part in 2018 YouTube rewind was one of the most talked about parts. Their was even covered by BBC News. One of her tweets from 2017 was covered by media outlets. She did a song called "Empty" with David Brown. Jaiden was in MrBeast's $200,000 YouTuber Battle Royale video. All of this info is supported by sources in the article. If you think more info and sources are needed, than give editors some time to add some more. Bowling is life (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if there's no consensus to Keep (and "Keep" doesn't seem like a likely outcome at this point), it should probably be draftified so more work can be done on sources and stuff. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, unfortunately none of the keep !votes above is based on policy, but rather mostly WP:OSE or WP:ILIKEIT. It could be converted to a draft, but it's already been deleted twice.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there just isn't enough coverage to pass WP:BASIC. The mere mentions here and there really can't verify any details. While I understand that she may be popular, articles aren't created based on popularity. Handoto (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nominator. Should not have been recreated. Also potentially violates WP:PROMO. Since this has popped up three times, I think it should need to go through draft space before it's created again. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- While I get the "draftify" reasoning (which I think should happen if there's no consensus to Keep), I don't believe this violates WP:PROMO, as it doesn't seem any editors are associated with the subject in any way. I think there's just a lot of people who rightfully believe she's notable enough for a page (that's all, it seems). Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a difference between WP:PROMO and WP:COI. A page can be promotional in tone without there being a conflict of interest. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as there are some references found such as the Metro that suggest she may be notable in the medium term but not ready for mainspace at this time, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above. Just one more secondary indep reliable source is all it will take to reach WP:GNG. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above. We should just turn the article into a draft, work on it, and publish once major improvements have been made and it meets WP:GNG. Also, I am the one who recreated the article. I am not promoting her nor am I associated with her. If there is anything in the article that violates WP:PROMO, we can fix it when the article is turned into a draft. Bowling is life (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want the article to be draftified, you should strike your "keep or maybe draft" vote at the top of this discussion. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @IntoThinAir: So I can just move my vote to the top? Bowling is life (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Sullivan (Canadian lawyer)

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

Biography of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party. This is not an WP:NPOL clinch, however; people who have been in that situation qualify for Wikipedia articles only if they can demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons besides having been an unsuccessful leadership candidate, such as having been an actual member of the party's caucus in the legislature and/or having already had preexisting notability for other reasons before they ran for leader. But the only other potential notability claim here, the Evelyn Dick murder trial, is not referenced to any evidence of media coverage about Sullivan in that context, and I can't find any elsewhere, either: even on a deep ProQuest search for pregooglable coverage, all I'm getting is glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of Dick, not coverage that is substantively about Sullivan for the purposes of getting him over GNG as an individual. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ontario_Liberal_Party_leadership_elections#1950_leadership_convention not enough sourcing or notability to warrant a full article. Bkissin (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-lack of sourcing, notability not established.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 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 Reactive extensions#Observables and Observers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Observable (Computing)

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

This is nothing more than covert artspam for reactivex and is specific only to this, basically a neologism and rife with WP:OR. Praxidicae (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge into Reactive extensions; if "An observable is one of the key components of reactive programming", Reactive programming should include it. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to an anchor in Reactive extensions#Observables and Observers; redirect catagory with history, printworthy and possibly even with possibilities. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per above. The article cannot stand as it is, with no WP:RS sources.

Comment. If kept as a redirect, the page will need to be renamed to Observable (computing) per WP:PARENDIS. Narky Blert (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm I'm happy with that rename. It's also just possible this is WP:TOOSOON Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dix mille ans de cinéma

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

Yet another short film I can't find much notability for. Either delete or a redirect to the director (Balufu Bakupa-Kanyinda) would be the best. The only sources I can find are Wiki mirrors (outside of a Youtube link) Wgolf (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are plenty of mentions on Google Books, but it is true that there is little in-depth coverage. It may be better to redirect. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG because there is a complete lack of in-depth coverage of the film, both in the sources in the article and in the sources I was able to find in a WP:BEFORE search I did. It's just not notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:50, 19 June 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 Uplift Universe. Tone 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoon (fiction)

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

Unsourced article on a fictional species that fails WP:GNG and MOS:REALWORLD. This nomination is related to List of Uplift Universe species, also at AfD RetiredDuke (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same issues w/ lack of sources and failure of GNG/MOSREALWORLD:

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Uplift; too crufty for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems like this isn't getting a lot of attention, so I'm just going to argue that I don't agree with a merger since none of the content is reliably sourced. If the best sources we can get on these creatures are the novels they originated from, then this is just a lot of fan-crufty original research. And whether in these articles or in another article, the content still fails MOS:REALWORLD since there's no secondary discussion of these topics at all. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without a redirect (too many hoons:)) to an appropriate section of Uplift Universe, no sourcing to sustain a standalone article, ditto the others. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Uplift Universe. Much of the information are unnecessary therefore can be trimmed before merging. Apart from some passing mentions, I can't see RS that deals with the subject in depth, so deletion is also a possibility. Hzh (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject currently fails notability guidelines. If anyone wants the article userfied so that they can work on it if/when more sources become available, let me know. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwafunmilayo Oni

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

Contested A7 speedy as makes some claim to significance. However, does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are weak and PR-heavy. Could be worthy of an article in the future but not yet. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The Guardian, just as its Woman supplement is a reliable source. The style of writing used there is typical of the supplement and is not advertising - it also varies per country. That's very similar to how they do it when featuring individuals. YNaija is a RS news site that covers the country. Both sources cover the subject in detail and are not passing mentions. At the very least, the subject passes WP:BASIC.Tamsier (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is no connection between The Guardian (Nigeria) and The Guardian, although I am sure both are equally reliable so that's probably beside the point. The question in my mind is not reliability but depth, volume, and significance of coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited are not passing mentions but an in-depth coverage of the subject which is a Wiki policy. Can you point me to any Wiki policy that specifically mentions the word "volume" for the purposes of AfD? I have heard of "multiple" and significant coverage, but not "volume". Multiple mean more than one (i.e. multiple sources, more than one source - which there is). Significant coverage mean an in-depth overage of the subject and not passing mentions - which there is. However, I have not read/seen any Wiki policy regarding AfD that mentions "volume". If there is, perhaps you can point me to the right policy. As per our policy, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.". Multiple, again, mean more than one, and for our purposes, not from the same source - which is what we have here. Therefore, can you tell me which policy you are referring to when you mentioned "volume"? As it currently stand, your other rationale for nominating this article goes contrary to our policy. I am therefore waiting for your rationale for "volume".Tamsier (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails notability guidelines. Anyone can get a reliable source to publish an item about them, what will be more difficult is to get MULTIPLE sources to give different perspectives on a subject, which I'm not seeing here. While Guardian is a top level source, let me point out that YNaija is a mid level source (in terms of its reliability). I'm just not convinced that the subject has been covered enough to have a Wikipedia article. She's doing something commendable, but that is not notability. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete: while her work seems important but we will have to wait for her to have more press coverage.Viztor (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable, and promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep : The subject is a product of a campaign(Wiki loves women radio) initiated in Nigeria to bridge the information gap that exists about women on the English Wikipedia where amazing women are being invited for radio and then profiled on Wikipedia.. But still the subject passes WP:BASIC and was the center of a very reliable source The Guardian (Nigeria); it's a work in progress as a stub and will be work on more with other reliable sources. Deleting doesn't ascertain anything, it only worsen the narrative. Thanks. Kaizenify (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that this editor is the article's creator; while this doesn't invalidate their arguments, it does demonstrate an obvious bias in their vote that should be considered. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the prose from the The Guardian (Nigeria) article is Oni discussing herself. The first two paragraphs seem fine, but the entire rest of the article is, by definition, not independent. I'm also confused what is meant by: "Deleting doesn't ascertain anything, it only worsen the narrative." I haven't looked enough into it yet, but right now I'm leaning Delete, because all I'm seeing is two paragraphs from an online Nigerian newspaper. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Subject does not meet WP:SUSTAINED: Notable subjects have attracted attention over a significant period of time. While the Guardian Nigeria is a reliable source, the WP:GNG requires secondary sources, which this interview is not. Additionally, even were there more and better sources (by GNG definition) that would only create presumption of notability, as in presumably there is sufficient source material with which to write a biography — which does not exist yet. There is nothing that states that two articles means guaranteed notability, so it should not be read as 'multiple' means 'two and in'. This is turning the guideline on its head. WP:WHYN explains further why the current coverage of the subject is insufficient for notability. Others have made valid delete arguments which I won't repeat here. ogenstein (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A delete closure right now would be completely defensible, but out of deference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Loves Women, I'm going to relist this to see if a clearer consensus emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep> Clearly meets GNG, adequate coverage in neutral, reliable sources. Underrepresented topic, often a bit harder to find source material, but the sources provided here are high-quality and reliable. Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your "underrepresentation" argument. Neither the topical nor the geographical scope looks like areas where a notable subject wouldn't get sufficient references. Since the internet boom in 2010s, Nigeria is one of the most digitally active countries. And she's doing something that news portals will want to cover. The issue I see here is that she hasn't gotten enough impact to attract more significant coverage, which may come if she remains consistent in what she is doing. HandsomeBoy (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment; i clearly would have just skip commenting here and just wait for the consensus but with HandsomeBoy comment about "underrepresentation argument" will not make me. This is a Nigeria subject where the media don't care to cover your work even if meeting cogent needs and worthy of news portals until you make a move and this is one of the cogent areas as Nigeria Wikimedia community we are focusing for our Wiki Loves Women project campaign that the media should always do the needful and that's why we are in partnership with a lot of media houses now. There are lot of Nigeria women right now worthy of a Wikipedia article but cant be here as the Nigerian media isn't motivated to do a story on them until they make the move themselves and that's a real information gap; i clearly understand Wikipedia guidelines about notability but when HandsomeBoy who is a Nigerian and familiar with some of the challenges comment like this, then i have to react. Thanks Kaizenify (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand my point. Does gender bias exist on Wikipedia? Yes. Are African content less represented than western topics? Yes. But putting that into context in my assessment of this article. I don't believe that is what is coming to play here. Just because someone is a woman and she's doing something inspirational, does not mean automatic notability. To make myself clearer, example of scenarios where gender gap is very operational on Wikipedia is women in sports, etc. Most of my articles on Wikipedia are cinema-related, I can tell you that there is little disparity between both gender in that topic area. Men and women in films are covered almost equally in Nigeria. Same applies to musicians, however in terms of genres of music, there can be a convincing argument. Now coming to this article, I want you to ask yourself, if Olufunmilayo Oni was a man doing exactly what she is doing will that increase/reduce her coverage significantly? Again, if she was focused on removing the number of male school drop-outs, will that change anything? Speaking about coverage, There are a number of popular Nigerian news portals that generally support sensational topics that are not profit-oriented. If she continues to do this, she will get one of the numerous credible individual service award for her dedication to humanity which will make her pass N:BASIC. When I speak of topical scope, I mean what she's doing is something that people/government will love to read about, which is why she is even likely to get at least some coverage without even being notable.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And when I speak of 2010s internet boom, what I mean is that the way I assess the coverage for a Nigerian musician who peaked in 1990s is different from another musician that rose in 2016 for example. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per my rationale above, the most I can find about this subject in the way of reliable coverage is two paragraphs in an interview from The Guardian. I exclude the rest of the references in the article because they are, in order: a podcast, a group blog, an article from UNICEF that has literally nothing to do with Oni, and a personal blog. Aside from that, I turned up nothing that isn't a blog or an interview. This article is pretty obviously WP:TOOSOON and should be removed until Oni receives more substantial, reliable, independent coverage. As of right now, fails WP:BASIC by a significant margin. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This pains me as the subjects like these need more space on Wikipedia, but she fails WP:BASIC here, since she fails the "they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." part. Besides The Guardian Nigeria one which is WP:SIGCOV, that is pretty much it (my searches brought a passing mention in a book). WP:TOOSOON. She may be notable in the future, but not right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and any notability guidelines as she lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV and notability is not inherited either per WP:NOTINHERITED. I will also add that the need for diversity on Wikipedia should not come at the expense of lowered notability standards for certain groups of people. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honorio Banario

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is a mixed martial artist. Subject has not been fought in top tier promotion. Fails WP:MMABIO CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still has zero top tier fights, so he fails WP:NMMA. Routine sports coverage is inadequate to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hofmann

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

Subject is a mixed martial artist. Subject has not fought in top tier promotion. Fails WP:MMABIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights, instead of the three required. Coverage is routine sports reporting, which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:48, 15 June 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. Tone 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Liao

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no sources at all. Sheldybett (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR, the only thing I could find were pictures on Getty images. No WP:RS is talking/talked about her. Orville1974 (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails to reach the standard for WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 18:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I may have voted Delete too soon. Perhaps this article needs some ambitious editors.

Secondary coverage where the coverage was about the actress

Variety
Bustle
Featured in Teenplicity
Minimal coverage here hnentertainment

Thank you for the additional sources, but these are still either announcements of a future role in an unreleased film, or of a minor role in a TV show. I think we're looking at a case of WP:TOOSOON still. Orville1974 (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just attempted to improve the page by incorporating those sources and some more, as well as fixing the formatting of the page. Starklinson (talk) 9:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep as has prominent roles in notable productions such as Fuller House and the Kicks, the article has been improved since nomination, passes WP:NACTOR, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. I am not seeing several significant roles. Sounds like a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the improvements since this was nominated, another week to discuss the new sources seems like a good idea.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has had notable roles in several mainstream productions. I found some sources, and I see she easily passes WP:NACTOR. The article and sources have improved since nomination Lubbad85 (☎) 02:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources like this [30] and others found, proves she passes the general notability guideline as well as the subject specific guideline for actors. Dream Focus 04:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be plenty of sources out there. Here's another one. Andrew D. (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't see how WP:NACTOR is met. All of these refer to one role in a television show. The criteria for notability of an actor is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (my emphasis added) Orville1974 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter since WP:GNG is clearly met from the coverage found. As WP:NOTABILITY clearly states, you have to pass either the General Notability Guidelines OR one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. Dream Focus 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Meltzer (author)

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

WP:BLP of a writer, whose notability claims are not reliably sourced. As always, neither being CEO of a company nor writing books constitute automatic inclusion freebies for every CEO or every writer -- for either endeavour, the notability test is the depth of reliable source coverage the person has or has not received in media. But the references here are not notability-supporting media coverage: five of the eight are primary sources (self-written contributor or staff profiles on the websites of his own employers, his books metaverifying their own existence in online bookstores, etc.), two of the remaining three are podcasts, and the only one that's actually a genuinely reliable source is just a short blurb in a listicle which quotes him speaking about himself rather than being written about in the third person. None of this is substantive reliable source coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over a notability criterion, but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show any substantive reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G5, likely sock of Abhishek4889 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddiqsazzad001. Not deleting myself while the appeal is open. MER-C 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keyun Ruan

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Being editor of a book and having written a couple of papers is not sufficient. Almost all references are her own work, and being included in a '30 under 30' list is not nearly enough in the absence of other in-depth coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:BASIC. While I do hope she succeeds and makes a name for herself, she hasn't yet. Hydromania (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kelly (fighter)

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter who has not fought in any top tier promotion. Fails WP:MMABIO CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Coverage doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to from List of countries by English-speaking population. Sandstein 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC) - Amended, Sandstein 13:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical distribution of English speakers

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

Redundant to List of countries by English-speaking population. Interstellarity T 🌟 11:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of countries by English-speaking population, with possible Merging of any useful sources not currently included in the target. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Interstellarity:, @Rorshacma:, @Andrew Davidson: I created the article in question as part of a series of similar articles which used the same style as this one and focus on other languages such as Russian, German, Italian, Polish and Portuguese. There are significant differences between the article List of countries by English-speaking population and Geographical distribution of English speakers such as the clarity regarding the source, the population size and the source year which allow to constantly update the figures with the most recent sources. These improvements can't be found in the mentioned redudant article which is rather confusing. Deleting Geographical distribution of English speakers would result not only in a loss regarding the series of article, but also in the effort put in searching the most appropriate source for every country, for which I did some research myself. I would instead consider leaving them both, or merging List of countries by English-speaking population into Geographical distribution of English speakers being the latter more updated, reliable and recent.FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FrankCesco26: Go right ahead. I'm OK with it. Interstellarity T 🌟 11:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge given that they cover the same topic. The question is which should be merged to which. I see that List of countries by French-speaking population and List of French-speaking countries are redirects to Geographical distribution of French speakers, therefore the same could be done here. Merging the content of List of countries by English-speaking population into Geographical distribution of English speakers would be consistent with other articles that start with "Geographical distribution of ...". Hzh (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Hzh. I get the AfD is for this article, but it seems to make the most sense for all the above stated reasons to merge List of countries by English-speaking population into Geographical distribution of English speakers. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as copyvio. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kosman Island

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

An article about an island could be notable, but in that case the the article should be about the island. This article is not. Unreliable and possibly fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 11:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is, ironically, not the problem. The text of the article was lifted wholesale, sentence by sentence, from Sabetian & Foale 2006, p. 6 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSabetianFoale2006 (help). It was not actually written by a Wikipedia editor at all. Copying and pasting is not writing. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sabetian, Armagan; Foale, Simon (2006). "Evolution of the artisanal fisher: case studies from Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea". Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin (20): 3–10.
- Kinch, Jeff (January 2002). "Giant clams: Their status and trade in Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea". TRAFFIC Bulletin. 19 (2).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly rename to Long-Kosman reefs. The place is listed as 'Kosman Island' in multiple editions of 'Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia' (for example here) and it also appears as such on Google maps. However this article and the research paper by Foale and Sabetian refer to the place as reefs. I can't find any refs apart from these, so wasn't initially sure if it met our notability requirements. However there's too much specific info to make a merge with Louisiade Archipelago appropriate. I don't agree with the comment by UncleG above: several sentences in one section of the article are close paraphrases of text from the Foale and Sabetian article, but I don't see that as problematic. In thinking about whether this place is independently notable or not I've taken as a benchmark the many thousands of stub article we have in the encyclopedia about geographical features in Antartica. These places have never been inhabited and never will be, and are simply described as next to another islet or peak. The community has long agreed that these articles should be kept for their gazeteer value. As the Kosman Island/reefs have been the locus of a specific piece of research and of recorded human conflict, they meet a much higher threshold of notability than the Antartica ones. WP:GEOLAND says geographical features may be notable 'provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.' The content of this article is that information. Mccapra (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

original by Sabetian & Foale, op. cit.	ganked copy
Beche-de-mer are cooked on these small uninhabited islands, which are used as camps for one to two-week-long fishing trips, made mainly by Ware and Brooker Islanders (Geoff Cal- lister, pers. comm.). Apart from the six-month closed season, and what appear to be increasingly frequent and acrimonious territorial disputes between Brooker and Ware Island fishers, the fish- ery is essentially unregulated. There is very little in the way of local level management initiatives, and one of the reasons for this is an apparent lack of awareness of the limits of stocks. Foale (2005) pre- sents interview data from islands in the Bwanab- wana language group (which includes Ware Island) on the topic of perceived limits to fished stocks (reproduced in Table 1 below). Foales demonstrates that there is relatively low awareness of limits to beche-de-mer, even despite the common knowledge of sandfish and black teat overfishing, and an almost total disbelief that there might be limits to finfish populations	Beche-de-mer are cooked on these small islets, which have camps for one to two-week-long fishing trips, made mainly by Wari and Utian Islanders. The fishery is essentially unregulated. There is very little in the way of local level management initiatives, and one of the reasons for this is an apparent lack of awareness of the limits of stocks. Foale (2005) presented interview data from islanders, in which he found low awareness of limits to Beche-de-mer, even despite the common knowledge of sandfish and black teat overfishing.

original by Kinch 2002, p. 24	ganked copy
He stated that prior to commercial harvesting, unfished areas of south-ern Milne Bay Province contained an overall density of 39/ha for all species of giant clams (Chesher, 1980).	Prior to commercial harvesting, the overall density for all species of giant clams, was 39/ha.

This is not close paraphrasing. This is out and out copy and paste. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G12, clear WP:COPYVIO. No comment on the notability of the island, it's likely notable per WP:GEOLAND given the sources. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Too much socking for a good discussion. Can be renominated. Sandstein 17:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sab Kichu Bhene Pare

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

~~The given references of the article are not worthy of it, they do not provide any strong information about the book. Shoikot H ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)~~ This account has been globally locked for “long-term abuse”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 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 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:BKCRIT #5. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete'. The page must be deleted, the book is not notable in Bangladesh at all. TBF 93 (talk) (contributions) 07:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC) This account has been globally locked for “long-term abuse”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Both Shoikot H and TBF 93 are sock of Bishal Khan aka জঙ্গলবাসী and globally locked. ~ Nahid ^Talk 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete', lack of proper information, also the book is not notable. Saif Rasel (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC) This account has been globally locked for “long-term abuse”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As some of the participants were identified as socks, relisting to get more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject (book) is not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, three of the !voters have been globally locked for long-term abuse, which does normally include sockpuppetry and other shenanigans. I’ll strike out their !votes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only !vote left after removal of votes by globally locked accounts is a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE vote. As such, requesting more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book is notable, because it's clearly stated here: WP:BKCRIT #6 The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. @MrClog: You must know that the deletion process is not voting, so why you wait for others vote as well? ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book does not meet any of the WP:BKCRIT criteria. Hasn't been reviewed in multiple reliable sources (in fact, the sourcing in the article all seems unreliable, and I was only able to find passing mentions in articles about the author), hasn't won literary awards, and certainly wasn't historically significant like the creator of the article argues it to be without any reason or proof. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 19 June 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) 16:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darryn August

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

Article about a person not truly notable per WP:BLP1E. The event this person reportedly is notable for didn't even happen, which reduces it to nothing more than a petty fraud crime story. Minor human interest story at the time, but not worthy of note in an encyclopaedia.

BLP1E says probably don't have an article:

1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

Tick on all three counts.

Should probably add; most refs are same story regurgitated. ClubOranje^T 11:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ClubOranje^T 11:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ClubOranje^T 11:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing in searches for this WP:BLP1E is too thin to pass WP:CRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:CRIME I found no indication that the exposure of the fraud has even resulted in prosecution, so there's no basis for an article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IndiMusic TV

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

Reads like blatant advertising. Of its 3 sources, 2 are not independent reliable sources (ascap.com and prnewswire.com) and 1 is a book which I do not have access to. Contains inline external links to sources that do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH: a general listings page (alexa.com), an interview on Facebook, a patent, and to the subject itself. Searching the web, I cannot find independent reliable sources; I can find perfunctory business bios / listings and regular business announcements (they do not satisfy WP:NCORP either).

Created in 2009 by a user whose name is the same as that of the founder of the subject of the article, and whose only contributions to Wikipedia were to write this article, add very promotional content to another article in support of this article, and to add wikilinks to a third article for an identical name to that of the user in question. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sometimes better references can be found for an article with weak references. This one might help: Boyle, Christopher (March 3, 2015). "CEO, Founder Chris Pati's Independent Streaming Music Video Network; IndiMusic TV, It's All About the Music". Long Island Exchange. I added that one and a few others. As well, press releases (including those distributed by PR Newswire) aren't reliable sources themselves, but they can sometimes add useful context. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interview in a local paper is just another weak reference that does not satisfy WP:NCORP. As for press releases adding context, this AfD is about notability and press releases do not contribute toward that. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. The article was also created by a WP:SPA with an obvious financial interest in this page, so this article should be swiftly uprooted to remove such corruption from Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Grant (political expert)

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

Fails WP:BIO, as no significant coverage in independent sources. BilCat (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she has done less than expected.

Her biggest appearance this year for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ8BDF_gTK0

Hcobb (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's plausible she passes AUTHOR or one of the NPROF guidelines (some of her pieces do have not insignificant citation counts - however the common name makes things difficult here). Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can just google for "Rebecca Grant airpower" or USAF or F-35 and all the results will be for this one specific Dr. Grant. Hcobb (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR as she lacks sufficient sustained WP:SIGCOV to meet these notability bars. A WP:BEFORE search I did turned up nothing substantial. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas D. Everett

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

Notability not established. Not high enough in hierarchy to be automatically notable. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC, although there are other people with the same name. Not much media coverage. Another editor tagged this for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but it isn't, since U.S. federal government publications are in the public domain. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being executive director of the US Federal Highway Administration is certainly a role that could get a person into Wikipedia if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing, but it is not such an "inherently" notable role that he would be exempted from having to have any good sources just because he exists. But two of the four references here are primary sources which do not count as support for notability at all — and the other two are brief glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about him. The inclusion test for people like this is not just the ability to verify that he has been named in newspaper articles once or twice — it is whether he has been the subject of enough coverage to clear GNG, and there's no evidence here that he has. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bearcat. Fails WP:GNG plain and simple. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office

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

Non-notable law enforcement agency. Article is based on primary sources alone. Article contains no information of encyclopedic value. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page was previously PRODded as a one-liner, then re-created and expanded, hence AFD rather than WP:PROD is the applicable process. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All police departments seem notable to me. Further, this one is fairly large. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sufficient coverage. Clearly not all police departments are notable. That idea causes me to run for the hills.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NORG. Police departments are an interesting case. Whereas there are hundreds of newspaper articles mentioning particular police departments every year, those stories are about crimes; they are both WP:PRIMARY and WP:ROUTINE. It is completely impossible in most cases to write an article sourced primarily to secondary sources. There are absolutely 0 secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, news stories about any police department (and not about crimes) are likely to be about corruption and misconduct. Use those stories and people complain about a lack of balance.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 13:32, 16 June 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. Museumification to WP:LHOW can be asked for at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manila (1365)

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

All of the sources referenced in this article do not explicitly mention that a battle occurred in 1365 in a locality named "Manila". Some of the sources even lack the necessary keywords like "1365", "Battle" and "Manila", making this article not satisfy the basic verifiability and notability criteria of Wikipedia. Also, it is clear from the conversations with the author in the talk page that he can't provide reliable secondary sources from reputable journals or academic books that can be used to improve this article and all that has been claimed so far in this specific Wiki page are most likely original research. Stricnina (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Stricnina (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Stricnina (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most creditable interpretation of the talk page discussion is that there must have been a battle, but that it is completely lost to history, all records of it destroyed. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Some quick looking around only got me a book that was written by people with credentials in geomorphology, agriculture, and soil science that explicitly cited Wikipedia as its source for its history. And even that did not actually talk about any battles in 1365, just about Canto 14 and Saludong, as discussed at the top of the article's talk page back in 2016. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Talk:Battle of Manila (1365), and as sufficiently explained by the nominator. The only thing which can extracted from the sources cited (reliable or not) is that around that time (year not specified) some kind of political transition (unknown whether peacefully or by external force) took place in certain polities in the area of present-day Manila (which latter itself is not mentioned). I.e. the very event which makes up the subject of the article is completely unattested. –Austronesier (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I as the primary author of this article recognize that after some peer review by my fellow Wikipedians, the only truth that can be extracted is that Manila was under the political dominion of Majapahit at least by that year metioned, from a previously independent status. Whether a battle or voluntary allegiance happened, isn't stated explicitly only that political domination occured according to the text of the book "Nagarakretagama". I suggest deleting this article and migrating the information to the new one, called: "Incorporation or Vassalage of Manila" to make it conform to community standards.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion on the Talk page. I am not convinced that moving the article (as implied by the previous reaction) is the best solution. Probably just one or two sentences of the current article are worth to keep, which can better be incorporated in History_of_Manila#Early_references_to_Selurong_(1360s). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And clearly do not move the article. Not every change in control of a place is worthy of its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Talk:Battle of Manila (1365) I would say deleting this article and replacing the data to the new one. --MA Javadi (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a blatant hoax Mimihitam (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider sending to WP:LHOW. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 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 procedural delete. G5. Created by a sock. Further reading: this SPI. (non-admin closure) —usernamekiran(talk) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh Ram

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Sheldybett (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Sheldybett: Did you do WP:BEFORE? Every member or former member of a state or national legislature is considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as a member of a state legislature.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL Atlantic306 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Members of state legislatures pass WP:NPOL #1 right on its face. Yes, the article needs improvement, but we judge inclusion by the existence of appropriate sources, not just the current quality of the article — so if a person has a clean pass of our notability standards for politicians, as a holder of a role that does get press coverage, then we do not delete the article just for not already being in better shape: we keep it, and just tag it for referencing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Article has been G5 deleted outside of AfD due to the creator being in a SPI; also a likely copyvio. Nate • (chatter) 19:53, 11 June 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. Sandstein 17:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diospyros ebonasea

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

No botanical databases have any record of Diospyros ebonasea. This species name doesn't not exist. Several woodworking sites do have articles on "Malaysian blackwood"; at least one notes that the scientific name given is unconfirmed. I'm not sure that Malaysian blackwood is notable subject given that there is very little reliable information about it (such as the species it comes from). However, the title "Diospyros ebonasea" should not exist. Plantdrew (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not in the ITIS, not in Wikispecies, not in the i-Tree database, not in the AVH. All mention of it I can find either has no date or is dated after the article was added by Boy888 in 2012, which I speculate was a deliberate hoax. Also, Comment: If this article is deleted, mention of the alleged species in the Wiktionary entry for 'blackwood' (added in 2013) should be subsequently removed. TheTechnician27 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per below, I retract my speculation of a deliberate hoax, but per Elmidae, a guitar catalogue is not taxonomic literature; the article and corresponding mention in the Wiktionary should still be removed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete absence of any verifiable trace of the species, so I would assume it was a hoax entry. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information. This is likely a hoax. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly not a hoax: [31]. Routinely mentioned in luthery sites. I suggest: DE "is an unconfirmed botanical name commonly associated to Malaysian blackwood ...". 188.216.192.146 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted, all these mentions seem to postdate the creation of the Wikipedia article, which suggests that the name originated here (possilikely as a hoax) and then spread over the net. It happens; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prithvilus willardi. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seem? Based on what? The article is from 2012. This book from 2008 cites DE. 2.34.244.101 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting. Yup, that's earlier. But in any case, when it comes to species names, it's the scientific literature and not guitar catalogues that are the reliable sources; and there's no mention in the former. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that a guitar book is may not be a reliable source for biology but this does appear to be a reliable source for guitars. This is a guitar article not a biology article and the article can be edited to make that abundantly clear. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Malaysian blackwood and clarify that Diospyros ebonasea is not a bona fide species. ~Kvng (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yup, ideally with a redirect from DE. By the way, the genus Diospyros belongs to the Ebenaceae family, which suggests how the snafu came about. Still, the usage is now common. 188.216.192.3 (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an item of misinformation that has circulated amongst guitar makers. Whilst they may have expertise in that field, I do not credit them for expertise in botany. There is no indication that I can find that the authors of the guitar-making books and suchlike pointed to are also qualified in botany. So, after looking for anything confirming this and finding nothing beyond inexpert sources, I agree with the other editors here that there is no support for any such species. It is certainly not in the dictionary of Malaysian timbers which is at least the quality of source that is needed here.
The problem is that Malaysian blackwood isn't right, either.
"Blackwood" is a slang name so abused that it really does not identify a wood accurately. The actual common name will be something like (to pick an example of how Wikipedia is not getting this right at all) balau (an article that we do not have, despite the colour), listed by the Malaysian Timber Council, a trade federation that cites its scientific sources, at balau; or, as seems the likliest candidate to me, Kayu Malam (kayu malam) which is what the MTC lists (Kayu Malam) as the common name for ebonies in the genus Diospyros family Ebenaceae as claimed based upon unreliable sourcing to be "Malaysian blackwood" here.
The people selling this stuff seem to know the science, or at least can point to it, and the names. The people buying it seem not to know their onions, or indeed woods.
Uncle G (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no trace of actual scientific proof this is a real plant, so this article clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia or any Wiktionary. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xaraya

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not notable Clnreee (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant reliable sources --SebastianQuilo (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hutchings

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

This artist appears not to have received sufficient independent and in-depth coverage to pass WP:NARTIST. The most in-depth thing here is a blog interview [32], to which I would assign little weight. The rest is passing mentions or material that is published by himself or associates/associated bodies. - BTW, what does appear notable on its own strength (but does not yet have an article) is The Invisible War: A Tale on Two Scales, which he illustrated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he has certainly done things and published/illustrated books. I can't find any evidence that this work as the subject of enough independent, in depth secondary coverage that would meet GNG. I found this, which is a passing mention. It is all about The Invisible War, which indeed seems notalbe. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have added further sources of coverage/citations which hopefully illustrate notability within the Australian arts/literary community. Boofhead78 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NARTIST because he lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV of his life or works and it's not clear that he has had major roles in multiple substantial projects. The limited coverage around him and The Invisible War is just not enough to get him over this bar. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jilly Gibson

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

The subject does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Current mayors of surrounding Sydney councils do not have wiki entries. Final reference is broken, remaining 2 references from a single source. Link to web site is broken. Content too brief, only two sentences. Mayoral incumbency info is already available at North Sydney Council. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mayors of local government areas in Australia (which are not the city government itself, but what North American or British readers would understand as borough councillors below the level of the main citywide government) are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing as mayors, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to actually pass the "subject of significant press coverage" test. That bar is not cleared by every mayor or councillor in the world who can show two local press hits, because every local mayor or councillor in the world can always show two press hits — at this level of prominence, the notability test is the ability to show a volume and depth and range of press coverage that expands to the point that she would have a credible claim to being a special case of significantly greater notability than most other mayors of local government areas. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an LGA is the third tier of Government in Australia, we have Federal Government(National), State Governments(NSW, QLD, WA, etc), the next tier is Local Governments of which this person is a mayor. Note that some of these local government areas can cover land areas bigger than many countries. A list article all mayors from an LGA is ok, but an alternative primary reason for notability is generally needed for LGA Mayors, being mayor would only lift a one other event person to notability. Gnan garra 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PHP JSON Parser

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

Not notable Clnreee (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Rabin.r and User:Parisa700 are sockpuppets of User:MrNewWritter and they are trying to create articles about Seyyed Ali Mohammadiye (author of PHP JSON Parser and LMPHP). They are blocked in fawiki. -- ARASH PT talk 22:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Sarminhamidi (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any notability here, only 19 stars in github!! --SebastianQuilo (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable software. Viztor (talk) 23:49, 17 June 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. A few undisputed sources that were offered late in the discussion carry this to a keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Pauw

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

Article is mostly about her father, with a good chunk of the text an exact match from the article about her father. An outside search brings up no WP:SIGCOV to prove WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it looks like theres more here, the reason for notability may be hidden away at the end "His widow had been married to him for 22 years, and wrote a biography of him that was published in 1943, three years after her death.” The article needs cleanup but it also seems like a rough translation from various Afrikaans wiki pages so thats to be expected. I'd suggest a stay of execution but whether or not the subject will eventually meet WP:GNG appears to be up in the air. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea what the passage in Africaans says, but when the content on her father (which is in his article) is taken out there is very little left. Possibly selectively merge to her father as a final paragraph to that article. I not we do not have one on her husband. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was created just 2 months ago and deserves time to develop. If it does not develop it can always be merged or redirected to Johannes Rath (missionary). ~Kvng (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to her father's article and merge anything that's referenced in there. Google did not reveal any additional sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed content that was about her father, not about her, and also the long quote. The para in Afrikaans was the original of the following para in English; I have deleted it, and corrected part of the translation (Anna survived her husband by 22 years, she was not married to him for 22 years). Now I will try to look for additional sources. Based on the contents here, I do not think that she would meet any WP:SNG, so it remains to be seen if she meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the time and place, the sources are adequate and her work is independent of that of the men in her life. WP:ANYBIO is met. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: two reliable non-English Afrikaans sources: * Krüger, prof. D.W. en Beyers, C.J. (hoofred.) Suid-Afrikaanse Biografiese Woordeboek Deel III. Kaapstad: Tafelberg-Uitgewers, 1977. Vermaak, Adinda. 2004. Kroniek van 'n kontrei. Die verhaal van die NG kerk Kuilsrivier. Kuilsrivier: NG Kerkraad, along with this one in English: * KlausDierks.com Biographies of Namibian Personalities That is three reliable sources, which due to the extensive time interval between the person and the source, are also third-party.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Singh (Politician)

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

I don't see him as politician yet he is the son of MLA, himself he is not MLA nor MP fails WP:GNG also fails WP:POLOUTCOMES Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why would multiple Indian media report on his change of party affiliation? He does not appear to hold elected office, and I cannot tell if he has run for office in the past. I am reluctant to |vote on an article with references from three reliable sources when I don't understand why these three media outlets think he's important enough to write about. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the sources verifies that his political role was as youth president of his hometown's local chapter of a political party. This is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, however, and the amount of coverage shown here is not enough to make him a special case over the thousands upon millions of similar people in the world: one is a short blurb about his party switch as a coda to an article that's fundamentally about somebody else, and the other two are WordPress blogs, not established reliable source media outlets. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Mlambo

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

Subject is a mixed martial artist. Subject has not competed in tier one promotion and fails WP:MMANOT and WP:MMABIO CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights (and only one second tier one). Coverage consists of typical sports reporting and fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 15 June 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. Meets WP:SK#1: Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete arguments (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ReMarkable

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

Company fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Its product, the tablet, may be notable, and the article is actually a confusing mix of the two topics, but frankly outside infobox it's close to a WP:TNT mess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-sourced stub. The in depth sources now include: Business Insider, Laptop Magazine, Digital Trends, Popular Mechanics, Gizmodo, and others. Very, very clearly meets and exceeds WP:GNG. The article includes both content on the company and on its namesake products. Could separation/detail between either be improved, sure!, all articles have room for improvement. But deletion is not rewrite, so keep it! XavierItzm (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @XavierItzm: You are still missing the point - their tablet may be notable, but the company is not. The sources you mention review the tablet, not the company. If you or anyone else wants to rewrite it as a tablet article, I'll likely withdraw this. But the article, currently, is about the company (with tablet info thrown in), and the company fails at notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, unfortunately, it is you who is misunderstanding policy. Deletion is not improvement. You could have moved the article or you could have re-structured the article, which, granted, like all Wikipedia entries, has room for improvement. Yet you insist on deleting an article which clearly passes the WP:GNG, based on massive WP:DEPTH coverage by numerous WP:RS. Not cool. XavierItzm (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have little love lost for spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did quick and dirty rewrite changing article subject from the company to its product. The article seems to be still somewhat promotional, but notability should not be an issue now (eg. I found this review in the German ct magazine: [33] and another quite big review on golem.de [34]). Pavlor (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Rewrite by Pavlor addresses the issue. Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose that the result ought to be:

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew the nomination, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected.

cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seems like the consensus is that GNG is not met - the keep arguments on that point are vague - so NACTOR is the only guideline that could justify the inclusion (under WP:N a topic can meet either to allow for inclusion). It seems like there is reasoned disagreement about whether the NACTOR guideline is met, as they have starred in several notable works but they are not necessarily well covered. I don't see a policy-based reason for preferring one side of that argument over the other, so this is a no consensus. With respect to Wikipedia:Too soon, that's an essay, so it would not necessarily override NACTOR based arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandile Mahlangu

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

WP:TOOSOON Coverage does not meet WP:GNG. I searched his name in DuckDuckGo and Google, and found nothing of substance. I don't think the filmography claimed in the article meets WP:NACTOR.

Evaluation of the sources provided:

[35] is an interview on a local news site.
[36] is an ok amount of coverage, but the source is unreliable per the disclosure on the source's terms and conditions page saying thebar makes no representations or warranties, whether express, implied in law or residual, as to the accuracy, completeness and/or reliability of any information, data and/or content contained on the website.

The rest of the sources are mere mentions _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: subject has played significant lead roles on two television series that air on notable TV channels [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], view and has played lead on a film alongside Vuyo Dabula, Deon Lotz, and Anriette Van Rooyen [42]. Has been featured on a radio show Touch HD. Passes WP:NACTOR #1 Ceethekreator (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ceethekreator (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Ceethekreator, that guideline says multiple notable films, television shows.... From my count, you've mentioned two TV series and one movie, which means that even if each of them were notable (which does not appear to be the case) we'd be barely scraping the guideline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill What makes a TV show/Film notable?. Please see WP:PW/NTV/WP:NTV. The Television shows are clearly notable per the WP:PW/NTV /WP:NTV guidelines. All the TV shows mentioned air on national television channels, SABC 1, Mzansi Magic and e.tv. Ceethekreator (talk)

Notability is demonstrated first and foremost by coverage in reliable sources. At any rate, looking at the article, I see three roles that at a glance look significant, one of which hasn't been released yet. This is a case of TOOSOON. If Mahlangu stars in an additional film or two, then I think NACTOR #1 will be more clearly satisfied. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Entertainer #1 is satisfied for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", apart from the Television shows and film. The subject has also been featured in several major TV commercials. (KFC, Debonairs Pizza, Halls, Sunbet International, Cell C and Stimorol). Ceethekreator (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is a well-known actor in South Africa, playing on major television channels. A quick Google search did reveal several credible news sources discussing the subject and his roles. Ash Glover (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hashmanza, could you share some examples? I have no intention of arguing for deletion if there's RS coverage lying around, but I genuinely could not find any when I searched online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator. I checked out the sources and they unfortunately are mostly passing mentions and/or local or puff pieces and nothing shows that he meets WP:NACTOR yet. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON I feel. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I checked out the sources are unreliable, I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON- --MA Javadi (talk) 18:51, 16 June 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 arguments made by Pirhayati (talk · contribs) convince me the bookshop is notable. I have added an {{Expand Persian}} template to the article accordingly. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toranjestan Soroush

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

Notability? Not here. Viztor (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the article on enWiki is threadbare, the Farsi-language article linked to it has several sources that appear to discuss the subject in detail. Machine translations are very poor, however, so I'll defer to editors who can actually read the sources if they disagree. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I noticed the Farsi article, an ordinary store on the street is unlikely to pass notability unless there is certain notable events linked to it. I'm inclined to delete until someone could inform me as to how this store is unlike the rest. Viztor (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Toranjestan is notable because it is a pioneer in its models in bookselling. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pirhayati, would you care to elaborate? Viztor (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, the references say it is a successful model in bookselling in Iran, for example this and this. This is important because there is an economic crisis in book market in Iran and bookstores are getting closed one after another. Second, this bookstore simply has "independent reliable references with significant coverage" then it is notable according to GNG.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus here appears to be that the awards do not satisfy the WP:ANYBIO significance criteria. And the sources offered were either not presented at all or have been argued to be inadequate with little opposition. Thus, delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Santini

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

Fails ENT and GNG. Awards are no longer a substitute for sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Google News link above turns up several articles, though Santini is not the main subject of them. -sche (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At least two sources with decent coverage of her.[43][44] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lack.of depth to those articles. We don't aggregate lots of weak sources to make up for the lwck.of really strong sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I disagree with your assessment of depth, WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" It's like you don't have any experience writing content on here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as '2018 Xbiz Award for Trans Performer of the Year' satisfies ENT per unique contributions to the field and being exceptionally prolific as well as a trans performer. --Fæ (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. It wouldn't even count for PORNBIO..Please provide evidence that this is a significant and well known award. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total and complete failure of any notability guideline we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:NOTADIRECTORY, because the article subject doesn't meet WP:BASIC. The NYTimes piece is significant coverage of the website, not of Santini. The Houston local news piece – it's terrible what happened to her – but it's not significant coverage of her as an entertainer. It's a story about her being a victim of harassment and discrimination; it only briefly mentions what she does for a living. I'm not seeing anything in the article or finding anything online that approachers significant coverage to meet BASIC. Xbiz is a major adult industry award but so what? Awards don't establish notability for entertainers. – Levivich 04:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep google news search brings up daily dot, papermag, dazed and the NYT article seems to go into sufficient biographic info as well. Rab V (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Links please Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The XBIZ awards are in abnormal numbers, even for quite ridiculous categories. However, if someone gets the title of best (male, female, transgender) performer of the year, I would tend to consider him/her noteworthy. Westmanurbe (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under what policy is that argument founded!? PORNBIO has been eliminated and the award does not meet ENT. Do you have anything to passGNG? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read in ANYBIO that a person could be notabile if he/she has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. In my humble opinion, the XBIZ Award for "Performer of the Year" is a well known and significant award in this field. Westmanurbe (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What RS backup is there suggesting this is a "well-known or significant" award? I can't find any coverage reporting on anyone winning this award, ever. – Levivich 23:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominators correct analysis - Awards aren't replacements for sources - I'm unable to find anything of notability beyond the usual SELF-PUBLISHED drivel, Fails ENT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the lack of sources in the article, in which the information provided is quite small. About the awards, not all of them are the same, and, always in my humble opinon, a person who won the title of "Performer of the Year" at the XBIZ Awards 2018, XBIZ Awards 2019 and AVN Awards 2019, like Santini did, colud be relevant according ANYBIO, having received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several time. Westmanurbe (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has repeatedly been rejected by consensus. Niche or specialized awards like "Girl-Girl Performer of the Year" and "BBW Performer of the Year" or the equivalent have been found to fail the "well-known/significant" standard. In addition, most (at least) XBiz Awards fail the significant prong of the test, since XBiz is a public relations business and has admitted (even touted) the fact that nominations for its awards are controlled by its clients. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:18, 17 June 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 Ohio#Earthquakes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Eastlake earthquake

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

Unremarkable event Dawnseeker2000 01:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Dawnseeker2000 01:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to a list. No ongoing coverage and WP:NOTNEWS --94rain ^Talk 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No enduring notability. Just a news story and a minor one at that. Mikenorton (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ohio § Earthquakes, add USGS ref. Mapsax (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I included said information there as part of a larger edit. The only things not duplicated from the article in question were the media reference, the time (trivial), and the lack of injury/damage (implied). Mapsax (talk) 16:34, 13 June 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.