Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 January	15 January >

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 keep. Nominator withdrew and wants to keep. If anyone disagrees, feel free to re-nominate. Missvain (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Zsadon

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

Having done an online check, I can’t find any sources to suggest notability under WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - thank you to Voceditenore for finding substantial sources so quickly, I now believe that the article passes WP:GNG therefore withdrawing my nomination.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Hungarian uses the Eastern name order, so in the subject's native language her name is "Zsadon Andrea":

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has an entry [1] in the Magyar színházművészeti lexikon (Hungarian Theatre Arts Dictionary) which is also published in hard copy. She is a recipient of two major awards in Hungary, the Mari Jászai Prize and the Knight's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary. Her main career was in Hungary in the 1970s and 80s and she retired from the stage in 1992. Thus, it will be very difficult to find online material. Nevertheless, I have found two lengthy articles about her on reputable news sites in Hungary from 2018 and 2019. I have copyedited, expanded, and referenced the article to reflect this. Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Voceditenore, I missed these sources when looking and the article is in much better shape now. Withdrawing my nomination. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following Voceditenore's customary excellent work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to Voceditenore's remarks I see she one of the leads in the recordings of the operetta János Vitéz by Pongrác Kacsoh as well as Kálmán's Zirkusprinzessin both of which probably have reviews that have yet to be digested. - kosboot (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs improvement, NOT deletion. It has 5 independent sources and 2 recordings. To me, she is noted enough as per WP:GNG. -Jay (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, these sources were added after my nomination, which I’ve now withdrawn as the article is clearly notable. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Coffee County, Tennessee#Century Farms. Deleting before redirection due to copyright issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Acres

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

Promotional, and very little coverage. If this were created today as it is, it would probably be speedied. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. The article is very promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - If anything of use is there to Coffee_County,_Tennessee#Century_Farms or delete. Missvain (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coffee_County,_Tennessee#Century_Farms where it is already mentioned. Would support merge if there were any sourced material, but since there are no references there is really nothing to be merged. Just noticed the entire article is a cut/paste from the linked ref on Century Farms in the Coffee County article - so it is probably a copyvio anyway. (The ref is a archive link that doesn't show the copyright of the original page; I can't find the info on the current site, but everything there is copyrighted. MB 00:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Coffee_County,_Tennessee#Century_Farms per others; fails GNG. Speedy because WP:G12 says that text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license are eligible for deletion, which implies that if there's no notices found about what type of copyright it is then we should speedy it just in case. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't know this was a possible copyvio when I nominated, but if this is redirected, then that means the history should probably be revdeled? Bneu2013 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that should happen; forgot about that. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 06:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Smerge and/or revdel based on closing admin's discretion. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Blum

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

This article came to AfD in 2010 but seems to have generated no discussion at all. It is hard to find sources when there are so many different individuals with the same name, but it’s not clear to me that this musician is notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also appears that the article was authored by the subject himself. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; can't find anything that works towards GNG and no real redirecting option. The Arabic Wikipedia article () is no help. Courtesy link to old discussion. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With some targeted searches I found a few listings for this guy's appearances on albums by other people, and the usual streaming/retail sites for his own self-released works. I can find no reliable media coverage that would get this article beyond a mere introduction to his existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel Ayan

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

Fails the GNG. Excluding non-independent sources what you're left with is merely two citaitons: one leads to a press release, the other one is what looks like a PR puff piece, starting with "Middle East’s most celebrated and coveted black model". Could not find any other coverage of note apart from photograph captions, a promotional African tabloid publicity push from about October 2019, and the usual social media posts. PK650 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I could not find enough sources to prove a significant amount of coverage on this person in third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish we could keep Ms. Ayan on Wikipedia, but it might be WP:TOOSOON. After an extensive search - all I could find were articles already cited. Granted, those are from reliable secondary sources in Kenya, Nigeria and Dubai - major publications. However, they are promotional-style pieces that almost appear like sponsored content with a by-line. Missvain (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they quite clearly read as promotional pieces spat out by a PR team. PK650 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Will have to conclude that it is too soon. She can be easily found in reliable media sources from various countries, but as the folks noted above, all the articles certainly appear to be PR puff pieces. If her career progresses into reliable and significant media coverage, a WP article may be more viable in the not-too-distant future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of these are truly RS, several are spam sites and I can find no other coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2020 (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 notability is not established Nosebagbear (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common Grains Alliance

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

Of the sources listed: one returns a 404, two are local magazines that mention it once in passing, two articles that don't even mention it, one is a "Forbes" repost that doesn't even mention the organization, another is a local magazine, and what appears to be its main "significant" coverage in Forbes only actually mentions it the single time. Clearly fails NCORP. PK650 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability. Missvain (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article in Richmond Magazine is a reported profile of the Common Grains Alliance. The reported articles in the Charlottesville Weekly and The Roanoker discuss this organization. I am happy to revise my opinion if another editor discovers more sources, but at this point the sources are not enough.IceFishing (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (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 GO Wellington to preserve history of any merged material. RL0919 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2008 GO Wellington dispute

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, a strike lasting no longer than two days had no lasting effects and a geographic scope limited to one region. Ajf773 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I generally tend to be an 'inclusionist', but this is ridiculous. It was a completely non-notable event. Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:NOTNEWS. Small scale event with no lasting impact or wider significance. Mattg82 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Not notable by any Wiki definition. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above commenters, lacks any sign of lasting notability or relevance. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~; meets GNG unlike some are suggesting but fails NOTNEWS by stretches. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to GO Wellington; see below. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 21:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect per below - I've added the sourced content to GO Wellington~~, but there is no need for a redirect let alone a standalone page (the only link is from 2008 in New Zealand but the link can easily be deleted from there)~~. Bookscale (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia we'll have to keep the page history now since you have copied a few bits. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 21:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I deemed the content so unimportant I did not consider a merge. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GO Wellington. It might seem trivial, and it would be in the context of Public transport in the Wellington Region, but it is surely a significant part of the history of the GO Wellington brand.----Pontificalibus 12:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already been merged thanks to Bookscale and we shouldn't make the merging backlog even longer. I don't think further merging is needed. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 21:20, 20 January 2020 (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 significant amount of non in-universe coverage has led to a clear consensus that notability is demonstrated Nosebagbear (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Trio

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

Fails GNG/NFICTION. Prod declined by User:Jhenderson777 with a request for AfD so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. They are a recurring enemy of Batman. Plus, where else would they be merged with? The group villains section of the List of Batman family enemies? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's eight paragraphs on the Terrible Trio in The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes vol. 1: Batman, available at the Internet Archive here. I'll see if I can find more. There's a lot of published analysis of 40s & 50s Batman, so there may be other good sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an entry on the Terrible Trio in The Essential Batman Encyclopedia by Robert Greenberger, Del Rey Publishing 2008. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My stance is obviously Keep. Full details of why when more active. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability. There is zero commentary in "The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes vol. 1: Batman," so that is trivial coverage. I cannot seem to find the pages covering the topic in the second source, but the general theme seems to be limited to in-universe descriptions. TTN (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eight paragraphs is trivial coverage? I've seen "that's trivial coverage because it only mentions in one sentence that X exists," but I think eight paragraphs in a published, reliable source should count. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a description of their in-universe role with zero real world commentary. The book is as described, and it's thus completely useless for anything aside from verification. TTN (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to WP:GNG: The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes offers "significant coverage" because the topic is addressed directly and in detail, and is more than a trivial mention. It has editorial integrity (published in multiple editions by multiple publishers over decades). It's a secondary source that's independent of the topic -- it's been reprinted by DC but was originally written and published by an independent company. In other words, it's a reliable published work of literary criticism about this subject area, and it considers this page's topic to be notable, therefore: notability. I don't see anything in GNG that creates a distinction between "real world commentary" and "in-universe". -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF. These dictate how we treat fiction. If the source cannot do anything to fulfill those, it is trivial coverage. It's just a fluff source with absolutely nothing to say. We cannot have articles that are solely plot information. These encyclopedias provide only a plot summary of the items listed. They're simply completely factual details with zero commentary that can be replaced by primary material with no loss in quality to the sourced statement. TTN (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think that having an article in another reference work should be enough, but when such entries are just plot summaries, I concur, we need a bit more. After all, WP:PLOT... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs:. If you could find external sources on news results. That could help even more. So far I am noticing at least one source that might could help reception wise here. Also since they have appeared recently in comic books like this that could maybe help. It’s obvious they are still being utilized. So hopefully we could do more digging. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenderson777: There's a review on Nerdist of the TT's episode from Batman: The Animated Series which discusses their depiction as overprivileged rich kids. Also a review on Batman-news.com of the recent Batgirl arc. They're also mentioned in Hero-A-Go-Go: Campy Comic Books, Crimefighters, & Culture of the Swinging Sixties and A Boy Who Loved Batman: A Memoir. Also mentioned in Tech Times. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a long established and commonly recognized part of the Batman universe, notable on its own, and per WP:CRYSTAL, per Jhenderson777 when he puts up more details. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources seem to be available to establish notability for this subject. — Hunter Kahn 17:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, like a good chunk of these disruptive deletion spammings. Dark Knight 2149 20:47, 20 January 2020 (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. Fails general notability guidelines per the community. Missvain (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chorus Girl (album)

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

Not a notable compilation album. Mattg82 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I could not find enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG requirements. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Najarian

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

Article seems promotional and I am not convinced of the notability of this person Philafrenzy (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like a promotional blurb.TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NGRIDIRON number 1 as he has played multiple National Football League games as evidenced by [2]. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears in google results; of sufficient notability for an article. I'm not seeing the "promotional" aspect, as the assertions in the article are factual and free of puffery. Kablammo (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON #1. Sources ([3]) show that Najarian played in 18 career games in the NFL, easily passing NGRIDIRON. The article is badly in need of a rewrite, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly notable for football career. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NGRIDIRON, desperately needs promotional cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 03:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NGRIDIRON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move I think he is more widely known as Pete Najarian.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 20 January 2020 (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. Fails general notability guidelines and also does not have any sources. Missvain (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bluehilda

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

can't find a single word about "Bluehilda" outside of non-rs like fandom, youtube, reddit etc... Praxidicae (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2020 (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 Virginia's 11th congressional district#Recent electoral history. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Fimian

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

A non-notable candidate for public office. This amount of coverage is going to be found on most candidates for US house and we have decided we do not want articles on most unsuccessful candidates for US house John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This figure does not seem to pass GNG, I can find some coverage about him, but a good deal of it is from blogs, old campaign materials, etc. A lot of the rest seems to be routine materials, like announcements that he is speaking at an event (this could be found for just about any political candidate in the modern age). WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests a redirect to the applicable election, but since he ran twice, WP:XY applies. So I'm suggesting a redirect to Virginia's 11th congressional district#Recent electoral history to catch both the '08 and '10 elections. Hog Farm (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Virginia's 11th congressional district#Recent electoral history seems sensible. Although searches in back issues of national media brought up a good deal more national coverage than gubernatorial elections usually attract, everything appears to be campaign related. Because there was so much coverage, if someone finds significant coverage of other aspects of his career, or wants to argue that something in one of the campaigns was sufficient to argue keep, I will be willing to look at what you find and reconsider.IceFishing (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (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. Convinced by the labor and arguments of Chubbies and ThatMontrealIP. Feel free to dispute or re-nom if concerned after making efforts to improve. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shigefumi Hino

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

I believe the subject fails WP:BIO. He's certainly mentioned many times in many articles, but none seem to do more than mention him. In addition, a large bulk of his mentions are simply reporting on an interview [4] published on Nintendo's official site. Other coverage includes him in teams of Nintendo employees, in group interviews or as listings of credits for work on games. Yoshi is certainly a notable creation, but as a member of a team of artists, his status as "creator" is certainly shared with others to a large extent. There are even articles documenting how his creation of the character differs drastically from the final product [5]. In addition, the concept of the character was by no means wholly his (see link 2), leading me to believe that in addition to a lack of significant coverage, the subject fails WP:ARTIST. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage I see, some of which predates the one interview that got a burst of attention, discusses Hino's role in Yoshi's creation and how it changed from his original design. Even if the design be drastically different, that would not hurt Hino's notability as long as sources cover those differences. (Here's a start for anyone wanting to expand the article.) He was also the co-director of the Pikmin series, for which he received additional attention, and which hurts the case for turning this into a redirect (there is no reason why this should become a redlink, which ultimately means AfD is probably the wrong venue for concern about this article). Chubbles (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for discussing. My take on the article you linked and others I found was that the article's subject is not Hino himself. The one you linked, for example, interviews him (and others) in the context of a project he worked on (SMW 2), but does not really contain info about him personally or his creative process outside discussion of the development team as a whole. This info seems more appropriate within articles on those specific games. I look forward to seeing what others think, as I was on the fence about this one for a couple of weeks before posting it. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he needs to be the explicit subject of the article, as long as his role is discussed substantially. And if Yoshi is the subject of an article and he is discussed in relation to the character's creation, I have long held that coverage of a creator's creations is coverage of the creator (and have always been confused by arguments to the contrary). Chubbles (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was the co-creator of the "Yoshi" character, although don't ask me what that is. What I do know is there are dozens of Gnews sources and many mentions in books of this fact. He has therefore met both things mentioned in WP:ARTIST part 3" "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." if a German news site thinks enough of their creation to translate an article about it into German (also mentioning the article subject), the "work" is well-known. The coverage is also in multiple languages; Belgian news site lesoir.be says "Créé par Shigefumi Hino, le gentil dinosaure prénommé Yoshi était une brave bête qui a conquis le cœur de bon nombre de joueurs." I don't read Thai, but this quote tells me that a Thai news site also knows who Hino is: "หรือเป็นเพียงแค่การชี้นิ้วสั่งแบบในหนังสือคู่มือที่ถูกวาดออกมา เพราะเมื่อเราดูในเกมแล้วมันเหมือนเอามือทุบหัวมากกว่า ซึ่งก็มีคนสงสัยเรื่องนี้ได้ถามไปยัง Shigefumi Hino คนออกแบบตัวละครในเกม Super Mario World ที่ได้ออกมาเปิดเผยว่า สิ่งที่เขาคิดตอนออกแบบเกมนั้น Mario ต้องทุบหัว Yoshi เพื่อให้มันแลบลิ้น". Italian media knows about him too: "All'atto pratico, Yoshi doveva essere una semplice cavalcatura utile a Mario per superare gli ostacoli più insidiosi; eppure, nell'originale design di Shigefumi Hino erano già racchiusi tutti i tratti che avrebbero poi reso quell'animaletto una mascotte formidabile." The article may be lacking basic biographical facts and in-depth coverage about the actual life of the artist, but WP:ARTIST #3 means that even those who keep their private lives hidden are notable, if they create a well-known body of work. I did add four sources to the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject of article passes WP:NARTIST, based on research and rationale of Chubbles and ThatMontrealIP. Netherzone (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An artist of documented accomplishment.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cider producers in Cornwall

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

WP:YELLOWPAGES, primarily. This is a badly-sourced list of companies, very few of which have their own articles. WP:LINKFARM seems to apply, too. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfitting list topic. If Cornish cider is well-known enough, a prose article can be written. Geschichte (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's two legit notable entries on the list, making the rest look like spam. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTYELLOW. Any notable entries should be included in List of cider and perry producers in the United Kingdom if they aren't already. I would also recommend the nominator added List of cider producers in Devon to this AfD as well (or create a separate one). Ajf773 (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also List of cider producers in Dorset and List of cider producers in Hampshire. Ajf773 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was considering this as well for the same reason. It's listcruft and a directory. I'd recommend bundling with the two ajf pointed out above. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and probably WP:LISTN, too. Hog Farm (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2020 (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 Woodlands Wellington FC#Youth Academy. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 20:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands Wellington Centre of Excellence

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

Non-notable entity within children's sport. Puff piece. Geschichte (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIGCOV found, nothing here to meet WP:NTEAM. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woodlands Wellington FC#Youth Academy, no need for separate article. Giant Snowman 19:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woodlands_Wellington_FC#Youth_Academy just as GiantSnowman suggested. Missvain (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Rajabi

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

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:NCYCLING. Using the information from the one source, none of the major results are notable per WP:NCYCLING and no new results since 2016 to further presume notability. ~riley (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No results qualify under WP:NCYCLING, no WP:SIGCOV out there. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The longer surname appears to be the correct one - Rajabikaboodcheshmeh. 2604:2000:E010:1100:C813:882A:A64C:761D (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Alaa :)..! 20:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not pass notability. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2020 (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 19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bullock (actor)

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

Despite the best efforts of myself and other editors in our attempts to improve coverage about pornographic actors in the wake of the pornography biography notability guidelines being deprecated, Robert Bullock and his pseudonyms do not pass WP:GNG. We have only been able to find minor mentions of the subject. Now, perhaps folks want to see winners of AVN Best Actor be inherently notable, but, at this point, Mr. Bullock does not pass our general notability guidelines. Thanks for your reviews and assuming good faith in our efforts. Missvain (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's quite possible that sufficient sources exist if someone had the right sources from his era handy, but there's absolutely nothing sourceable online nor an ability to confirm that sources do exist elsewhere. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources available atm to satisfy notability requirements. Mattg82 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR and even WP:GNG. No disambiguation page in the future of Bullock's, then. -The Gnome (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2020 (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 19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Blaze

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

Despite the best efforts of myself and other editors in our attempts to improve coverage about pornographic actors in the wake of the pornography biography notability guidelines being deprecated, Roxanne Blaze does not pass WP:GNG. We have only been able to find minor mentions of the subject. Now, perhaps folks want to see winners of AVN Best Actress be inherently notable, but, at this point, Ms. Blaze does not pass our general notability guidelines. Thanks for your reviews and assuming good faith in our efforts. Missvain (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Source mentions online anywhere are trivial at best (in either the porn or B-movie capacity) and given her brief career I'd be much less confident that sources were likely to exist elsewhere than some other currently nominated articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable pronorgraphic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and would fail even WP:PORNBIO were it still in place. -The Gnome (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Levivich 22:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Olson

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

Contested PROD. Article subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Source discussion below. – Levivich 17:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 17:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 17:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 17:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm finding:
1. Local news reports about his work, such as this 1979 article (scroll down to the "Farm Page" about halfway through the PDF, or search for "nitrogen" or "Olson")
2. 1987 death notice appears to be a paid death notice and not a journalist-bylined obituary
3. 1989 book uses Olson as a source, but only discusses Olson in the dedication, and the dedication is written a couple years after Olson's death, by the Dean and Director of the Agricultural Research Division at the University of Nebraska, where Olson worked for 38 years. Doesn't seem to meet the independence requirement of GNG. The Dean calls Olson a "prophet" who is "internationally recognized".
4. He received a Lifetime Achievement Award, but it was from the Dept of Agronomy at the University of Nebraska, where he worked. Not sure if this satisfies NPROF. The write-up about the award is not independent and thus wouldn't be a GNG source.
5. According to this 1987 dedication (and other sources as well such as [6]), he was a fellow of the Soil Science Society of America and the American Society of Agronomy. It's unclear whether these are "highly selective" as to meet NPROF. The dedication itself is published by those societies, and thus would be non-independent and not a GNG source. Oddly, he does not appear to be on the "official" list of American Society of Agronomy fellows [7]; rather, he's listed as an awards recipient.
6. 2013 article in CSA News (PDF) plagiarizes the 1987 death notice, word for word
7. Doesn't appear to have an overwhelming number of GS cites
- Notes: there are other academics in other fields named "Robert A. Olson"; the author of this article was recently blocked for being a sock; and there is a Draft:Robert A. Olson submitted by an IP in 2018, which is longer than the mainspace article, but unsourced. – Levivich 17:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he predates Google Scholar profiles, his citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, with several articles having 200+ citations. And the SSSA fellow looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C3, per the description here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Russ Woodroofe: Would you mind linking to the articles with 200+ citations? I was able to find this (311 on GS) and this (194 on GS), but everything else I found was under 100.
The SSSA fellow web page talks about the fellowship today, when they have a membership of 6,000, but Olson was elected as of 1963 (search for his name here), when they had a membership of 2,000 (per the SSSA history). The same history page says that the first fellows were elected in 1976, and in 1977 they "grandfathered in" an unstated number fellows back from 1936. Before 1984, everyone who was a fellow of the ASA was automaticaly made a fellow of SSSA. I don't know if anyone will find any of that persuasive one way or the other on the NPROF#3 question. – Levivich 18:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. GS searching for "author:olson,ra" was productive for me. "Evaluating the Sulfur Status of Soils by Plant and Soil Tests", "Crop nitrogen requirements, utilization, and fertilization", "Sources of nitrate to ground water" all appear to be highly cited and by the right RA Olson. Good catch on the SSSA fellowship. It is not unheard of to jumpstart a fellowship program in similar ways, but we should look to the ASA fellow program instead, which appears to be similarly selective. In short, I still think this is a C3. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. . The meaning of notability in WP is not famous, but just notable . The level of citations depends on the field. The number of citations a paper can expect to receive depends upon the citation density, the average number of citations each papers includes in its references. A field like biomedicine, where each paper normally cites many dozens or even hundreds of references as a matter of course will make it much more likely thaat any paper will be cited, than a field in most physical sciences where typically only a dozen or two or cited, Even in biomedicine, our standard in practice is one or two papers with more than 100 cites. (We tend to ask for two now, because citation density has increased in the last 15 years; the number 100 is the level used 40 or 50 years ago by Garfield, who invented the modern use of citation analysis in science. Olson has papers with 311 and 194, and this would be enough for a pass in any field. :There is no need for analysis of whether he passes any of the other criteria. Meeting any one criterion is enough (actually, the influence in the person's field criterion which is addressed by citations is best thought of as the basic criterion; the others are either shortcuts like national awards which imply the influence without having to do the bother of citation analysis, or special cases like writing widely used standard textbooks. (fwiw, I do not think being a fellow of the society relevant here is by itself sufficient--I think the only ones we recognize in special fields is ACS, APS, and IEEE; but it doesn't matter if the citations are there.) And I agree that calling him a leader in a obit tribute or introduction to a book is irrelevant--these are in any field at all places for puffery, no matter how distinguished the person who wrote them. (But, the obit in the NYT is an editorial obit. The image of the page is [8], which may need a subscription. The editorial ones use the NYT ordinary headline format. The paid dealh notices are the ones below the line, in the columns headed "Deaths" in fancy type.

This article I think would never have been questioned except that the original version was written by a spectacularly unreliable WP editor. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make the same point about the NYT obituary. The fact that the nominator says that it "appears to be a paid death notice" when the very link that he provided shows that it is in fact an obituary casts severe doubt on whether we can believe all his other statements above. I was nearly 50 when I started editing Wikipedia and had before that never even thought that confusing death notices with obituaries was something anyone did, but it seems that very many editors here can't tell the difference between them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, boomer. – Levivich 22:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Follett dedication (which goes into significant detail on the subject) and the NYT obituary (not paid death notice) are enough for WP:GNG, and by sourcing the claim that Olson "was one of the first to prove and warn that use of nitrogen fertilizers could do harm", they both make a clear case for WP:PROF#C7. #C1 is also plausible. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2020 (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 19:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Lam

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

WP:BLP of a journalist and academic, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for either role. The only notability claim in evidence here is that she exists, not that she achieved any particular distinctions in either job, and the only source is her staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media. As always, "person who has a job" is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie -- people do not get articles on here just because their own employers' websites offer technical verification that they exist, they get into Wikipedia by being the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and insufficient information to pinpoint actual person from thousands of Jenny Lam in Hong Kong. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source available to build an encyclopedic article per WP:GNG, WP:BLP and WP:V. Matthew hk (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete television journalists are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2020 (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 19:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucía Benavides

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:JOURNALIST. The only notability claim in evidence here is that she exists, and the article is "referenced" entirely to her staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own past employers -- but as always, the notability test for a journalist is not the ability to verify that she exists, but the ability to verify that she has been the subject of coverage in sources other than her own employers. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2020 (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 19:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

André Moreau

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

Advertorially toned article about a television journalist, not reliably sourced as passing WP:JOURNALIST. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their own staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers offer technical verification that they exist -- the notability test is being the subject of coverage in media outlets other than their own employer, but there are zero sources of that type being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried searching his name with the call letters of the stations he worked for, but came up with merely routine mentions. NotButtigieg (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found one reliable secondary source that covers him significantly. I even looked into his photography career but found nothing aside from passing mentions. Missvain (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Englin

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

This article should be deleted for lack of notability. I am the subject of the article, and I have been a private citizen for many years. I was an officer in the US Air Force for longer than I was a member of the Virginia House, and have been out of public life for longer than I was in it. The article contains references to my private life and my family that are incomplete and misleading. As a non-notable private citizen, I have a right to privacy, as does my family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlenglin96 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 14 January 2020 (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/2020 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:NPOL as a member of a state-level legislative body. ST47 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets NPOL. We can probably remove a bit about his family if the subject requests it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 04:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can certainly reconsider how much information the article needs to contain about your post-political activities or your private personal life — but our job is to have articles about everybody who has ever held a state legislature seat, not just the current incumbents, so the fact that you're not still in office today is not a valid reason to delete any record of the fact that you ever held the office in the first place. Again, we can discuss and review how much information the article actually needs to contain about other aspects of your life outside of politics — but like it or not, the fact that you did hold a state legislature seat means that we have to keep an article about at least that aspect of your life. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPOL. While there are community standards for when a semi-notable person can request that a page about themselves be deleted, an elected official in a state legislature will always be notable. All information in a BLP must be sourced to reliable and independent news outlets, and there are policies, including WP:WEIGHT, that seek to ensure appropriate balancing in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2020 (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. Unsourced BLP = mandatory deletion. Sandstein 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teo Olivares

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

Non-notable actor. Completely unsourced WP:BLP (and has been since its creation) that does not pass WP:NACTOR (no "significant" – e.g. main cast in a TV series – roles). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, so there are no reliable sources at all here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was in Geography Club (film), and has one article about him in his local newspaper (about him being in the movie) and the rest if coverage about the film or mere mentions about him being a reaccuring character on television shows. Does not meet WP:ACTORBIO. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The actor has had enough significant supporting roles in notable TV and film productions that I believe he meets WP:NACTOR—for example, appearing in 44 out of the total 55 episodes of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, and roles in Geography Club, Tiger Eyes and Legendary. However, sources are needed. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No – WP:NACTOR says "significant" roles – "recurring" roles are almost never significant. His role on Ned was virtually non-speaking until the third season – that's not "significant". The lack of in-depth coverage means the other roles weren't significant either. And subject certainly fails WP:BASIC, in addition to failing WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think some recurring roles are definitely significant. But if you disagree with me, that's fine; simply vote to "delete", as other editors have. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it, so I clearly already think it's a "delete". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see. Then presumably you automatically disagree with any "Keep" opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn as I was probably at least 75% asleep when making this AfD, and ignored part of WP:BEFORE. Closing, as A) AfD is not for cleanup, and B) someone is working on the article (non-admin closure) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agency agreement

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

Source-less since 2007. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can I please have a couple of more days to do research on this legal stub? Bearian (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. AfD is not for cleanup. See Google books and scholar. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, ..I forgot I even made this. I should know that by now. Closing as withdrawn because nominator probably did this AfD while half asleep. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2020 (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 19:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X-Lite

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

Notability seems to be roughly nil after some investigation. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2020 (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 19:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C Krishnakumar

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

A deputy chairman of local municipality. Lost in legislative assembly and parliament election. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete The subject fails general notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage of them. Also, the subject fails notability guidelines for politicians. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not guaranteed Wikipedia articles for any of (1) being deputy chairman of a local government, (2) being secretary of a political party's regional organizing committee, or (3) running as a candidate for higher office in an election the subject did not win. But this is referenced almost entirely to raw tables of election results, not to any strong evidence of reliable source coverage about him, so he doesn't get over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass WP:NPOL either. I'm so done with this constant barrage of articles about low-level BJP functionaries — can we please just permanently rangeblock the entire party now? Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill local party and public official. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2020 (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 19:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nishat Rahman

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

Do not adhere to Notability and WP:MOS. One subheading is also written in a non-English language. SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 15:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 15:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The only reference is given in this article is not considered as WP:RS. Via google search in Bangla and English I do not find any reason for the article should be kept. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apart from 1-2 unreliable sources I can't find any mention of the person, anywhere. Avalerion V (let's talk?) 16:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not pass notability . --SalmanZ (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-noteable, nearly zero sources N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 13:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails pass notability . --SalmanZ (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have voted twice, SalmanZ. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination. The article itself is basically non-existent. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill character actress. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2020 (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 19:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Java User Group

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

Unreferenced list of trivias about a non-notable concept. damiens.rf 15:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not have any reliable sources and do not adhere to notability guidelines. --SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 14:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2020 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Fashanu

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

WP:BLP of an activist and clothing designer, not properly referenced as passing WP:GNG for either endeavour. As always, people do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist as businesspeople or activists or journalists -- the notability test is not just what the article says, but how well the things it says can be referenced to media coverage about her. But of the seven footnotes here, five are primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- and the only two that actually represent real journalism in media outlets just glancingly namecheck her existence in the process of being about other things, which means they aren't about her for the purposes of establishing her notability. Further, this was created by an WP:SPA whose username was "AF-Assist", suggesting a likely conflict of interest by either the subject herself or a friend or employee. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be much better referenced than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes general notability guidelines. Get past the click-baity titles of some of these, and these articles are about the subject and her work.

"Justin Fashanu's niece 'disheartened' as The Gay Footballer Twitter account is deleted" from Sky News
"Amal Fashanu: «No hay que juzgar a un jugador por su homosexualidad»" (in Spanish) from La Razón
"Amal Fashanu claims to know of seven gay Premier League players from The Independent
"Amal Fashanu On What's Gone Wrong With Footballers And Sex" from Grazia
"Who is Amal Fashanu?" from Radio Times
"Amal Fashanu: Gay footballers should be supported" from Sky News (video)
"Justin Fashanu’s niece supports anti-homophobia campaign" from PinkNews

And we also have a few gos papers, but, hey, it's something.

"Amal Fashanu: My dad regrets what he said about Justin’s suicide" from Metro
"HOT FASH Wimbledon legend John Fashanu hosted Deal or No Deal in Nigeria but his talented daughter Amal now takes centre stage" from The Sun
"Amal Fashanu: Professional footballers will not discuss homophobia" from Channel 5
"Justin Fashanu's niece Amal hopes gay footballer Twitter account isn't a hoax" from Sky News

I will drop them on the talk page of her article. Missvain (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG. Also seems wrong to even think of deleting when Justin Fashanu has an article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know who he was until I looked at her article (he's not a public figure in the US) and he got a few eyerolls and groans out of me... Missvain (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 20:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Europeana

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

The topic is a rather large project by the European Union, so it is a bit surprising that notability would be a problem. Yet, if you do a standard web search, nothing GNG-source-worthy pops up; with "europeana" news my first non-EU (i.e. primary) result was a book/play. (If you use europeana without quotation marks, the fuzzy search thinks you meant "european".)

Among the current sources, only two are independent of the subject: [9], [10], and both are about the subproject Europeana 1914-1918. I think the subproject is notable (due to those plus others at the subproject's article), but Europeana itself does not inherit notability, and the sources in question do not devote more than a sentence to the umbrella organization/website.

It turns out that the Europeana website has a press review page. Because of the variety of languages there are some I cannot read, and some I can only partially read (I can speak French/English/German, and get the gist of Romance language texts (Italian/Spanish/Catalan); OTOH I have absolutely no idea what the Russian or Hungarish sources say). Those I did read all fall under either passing mention or PR-wash. Examples:

[11] is a PR-wash, judging by wording such as This vast store of cultural heritage materials from across Europe...; [12] looks like an ad, and the site's "about" page says "I am open to different shapes of partnership or advertisment".
[13] is the closest to GNG-source among the passing mentions. The topic of the article is some art found in the collections (here, Notre-Dame's 3D model). Europeana gets a couple of lines as the financier/host, but nothing that you would not find on Europeana's website, so it is not GNG material.

Though the press review might be incomplete (in particular, if a newspaper clip painted the org in a negative light, it probably would not be here), it is circumstancial evidence of the absence of a source directly talking at length about Europeana.

(Sorry for the long nomination, but I wanted to document exactly why the numerous potential sources are IMO insufficient.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hope this nom is some kind of joke, but fear it may not be. That an organization can persuade a lazy RS to largely repeat its press release in no way prevents this being valid independent coverage in GNG terms - if that were so where on earth would that lead? Equally that an independent source has "nothing that you would not find on Europeana's website" does not disqualify it. The hundreds of items linked on the press page linked to gives plenty of adequate sources, like this, this, this or this. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That an organization can persuade a lazy RS to largely repeat its press release in no way prevents this being valid independent coverage in GNG terms - if that were so where on earth would that lead? Well, see WP:PRSOURCE.

Regardless, I did miss the actualitte/mymodernmet sources which are plainly not passing mentions, so I withdraw with apologies to all involved. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst the project hasn't helped itself by smothering the world with vast numbers of press releases on its huge range cultural activities and achievements across Europe, it is easy to find any number of WP:RS in books and journals which go into great detail about this ambitious European Cultural Project. Just filter out the Europeana site itself. With 10 million cultural artefacts on its database from international museums and galleries, this feels a bit like AFD-ing the Wikipedia article. That said, I have also worked to remove all the copy vios from one of the three new sources I have just added to the History section. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Road Logistics Costing in South Africa

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

Seems like a WP:TNT-mess (also fails WP:GNG and WP:V). We don't have an article on road logistics if this is even a thing; search for road logistics costing produces only this article and its mirrors. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like nothing more than an Essay. Mattg82 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no such thing as "road logistics". This appears to be about the cost of trucking freight, but there isn't anything specific to South Africa that warrants an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Ajf773 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2020 (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 Prison Break. History is available if there is content that anyone wants to merge. RL0919 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Company (Prison Break)

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

One big plot summary of the show (WP:NOTPLOT), WP:REDUNDANT to Prison Break#Series overview. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect and merge (see below) - The Company plays an important role as the primary antagonist in the series. IMDB makes reference to it in the first clause of its summary of the show: "Due to a political conspiracy, an innocent man is sent to death row...". Prison_Break#Series_overview also summarizes this well, particularly the series climaxing in the fourth season with bringing The Company down. In light of its importance to the series, this article seems more akin to a character biography (of which we have loads) than anything else. WP:REDUNDANT doesn't really cover this situation, and WP:NOTPLOT suggests to me improvement rather than deletion.--Chaser (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then, the WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NOPAGE guidelines describe my argument better than REDUNDANT. Both of them explain why this AfDed article is unneccessary even if real-world notability was established (which it is not, but that's beside the point for this AfD). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think those pages undercut my argument sufficiently to change it. In particular, WP:WHYN's discussion of sourcing is persuasive. I can find sources mentioning the company, but none that discuss it. That said, both WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:WHYN seem to support merging rather than deleting. Given that content may have been traded back and forth without attribution, that's probably better. So I'd favor simply redirecting now and notification on Talk:Prison Break so that content contributors can decide what to merge. I concede a standalone article is overkill. I considered suggesting exporting to Wikia (now Fandom), but I cannot find anything about whether that is (still) possible.--Chaser (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prison Break. ミラ P 22:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prison Break where the topic is already covered. Aoba47 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 357

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

Not notable aviation incident. Runway excursions are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails notability for a stand alone article. Recommend including a summary of the incident at Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents. - Samf4u (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not particularly noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re nom WP:GNG WP:NOTNEWS non-notable WP:NOT--Petebutt (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above commenters. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor aircraft incidents on the runway occur frequently. WP:NOTNEWS. Hog Farm (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ji-moon

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

The article solely relies upon a single source and has to be rewritten to attain WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as more sourcing can be found and a rewrite done.TH1980 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the article needs a rewrite, but I've found enough sourcing to believe this person is notable. [14] and the existing source in the article can establish notability. [15], [16], and [17] can be used to further expand the article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per user Skeletor3000. --Garam (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Missvain (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvraj Singh (actor)

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

Fails WP:GNG and the article lacks sufficient content. The references provided here are bare urls which are prone to link rot. Abishe (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The actor does not currently pass WP:NACTOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2020 (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 Formerly Known as the Justice League. (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Buddies

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

Fails WP:GNG/wP:NFICTION. Note: "Formerly Known as the Justice League proved a popular miniseries, and won the 2004 Eisner Award for Best Comedy Series." (unreferenced claim) - OK, but this might justify writing an article about the miniseries. The group as a fictional entity is still not notable, since it wasn't the group that won the award. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Formerly Known as the Justice League, which (along with I Can't Believe It's Not the Justice League) are mere redirects here. The two series have a good claim to notability and deserve wiki-coverage, but the in-universe approach to the fictional team is really bad. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Formerly Known as the Justice League per Sgeureka. -- Toughpigs (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Formerly Known as the Justice League. Dark Knight 2149 20:49, 20 January 2020 (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. NCORP not met Nosebagbear (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Mall

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

Non notable organization without WP:CORPDEPTH & falls short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 14:03, 14 January 2020 (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. Not withstanding any future sources (especially any that can be found not in English), consensus is currently notability is not demonstrated. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Ghulam

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

Non notable film actor not satisfying WP:NACTOR and has no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources neither has subject won any notable awards hence falling short of WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps there are some Arabic language sources that provide significant coverage. I'm all ears, if so! Missvain (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2020 (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 non-notable political party Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand Parivartan Party

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

Not notable political party. Fails WP:GNG. Two references cited are non RS and second is primary. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 00:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:MILL - we are not a web host for every tiny party. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2020 (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. Keeping this page per the argument for keeps. Please consider improving, and if there remain concerns, feel free to contest or renom. Missvain (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of nursing specialties

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

There is no definition of a speciality in nursing, and practice varies from place to place and time to time. There are no articles to match some of the list contents. This is better handled by categorisation. Rathfelder (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. In its present state, it doesn't do anything that Category:Nursing specialties doesn't, other than offer suggestions as to new articles to create. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "redundancy" to a category is not a valid deletion argument per WP:NOTDUP. Nor do we delete anything based purely on "its present state" rather than its potential. The suggestions that this should be deleted because it has WP:REDLINKS are also completely off base. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I cant see any potential for useful development. It's an arbitrary list with no definition. How could it become useful? Rathfelder (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you claiming it can't be defined? And how then would it be viable as a category? But in any event it would seem to be based on a clear and usual meaning of "specialities" given what's in the list. How else would you classify "cardiac nursing", "dental nursing", etc.? I'm just not seeing an issue there. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not aware of any definition of nursing specialities. I'm not suggesting that there arent any. In fact my impression is that all nursing is specialist. That's why I think the list is unhelpful. The question of what constitutes a speciality is pretty subjective. It certainly varies by time and place. And some of these roles are not confined to nurses, though nurses may do them. Of course the same issues arise in categorisation, but I think they are easier to deal with there. Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - A "nursing specialty" is a specialty in nursing (see also specialist #2 (medicine)). This really isn't that difficult or controversial. Can you show a history of edit warring or confusion on what belongs there and in the corresponding category? Most of the entries are defined in their own articles' introductory sentencing as nursing specialties. And the list is helpful because it indexes articles together by a shared characteristic, per WP:LISTPURP. postdlf (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        What does that achieve which is not better done by a category, other than listing red links to articles that dont exist? Rathfelder (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nursing template puts them in a section called "Specialties and areas of practice". Search Wikipedia for nursing specialty [18] and see how many of these articles use the term "nursing specialty" in them to describe what they are. This is a real thing, and that's what its called. And the rules are clear that you can't delete a list simply because you like categories better. Dream Focus 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good list. Certifications exist for all sorts of nursing specialties, for example certified nephrology nurse and certified nurse educator. Lists can complement categories. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - consensus isn't quite clear, so I thought I'd add on to confirm that speciality definitely could be defined with some work, and I'm not convinced the absence of certain ones would suggest the entire list is pointless. Categories can't be used to eliminate lists. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2020 (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. Please consider expanding and cleaning up. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty of God in Christianity

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

This is a monograph by a user with virtually no other contributions. It reads as a personal reflection or essay, and much of it is synthetic. Its function appears to be to argue, rather than document, a specific theological view. PROD removed by the single purpose account. Guy (help!) 09:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:ESSAY but the topic is notable. I'm tempted to argue for WP:TNT, but deletion is not cleanup. Maybe draftify it? b uidhe 09:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, I'd be OK with that but it was already moved out of Draft once. Guy (help!) 23:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is foundational to systematic theology and is discussed by most systematic theologians, but too often in passing, as a premise, rather than as a separate topic. God's sovereignty is a foundational premise in theology proper, biblical theology, harmartiology, soteriology and theological anthropology. Sovereignty is a generally recognized attribute of god in Christian writings. The Holman Bible Dictionary has an excellent article under the entry "Sovereignty of God" which covers material very similar to that covered in this article - basic definition of sovereignty, sovereignty as related to god's role as creator, sovereignty and human freedom, sovereignty and suffering. The article topic has been getting greater recognition in Christianity - John Piper just finished a 600 page book to soon be released on sovereignty and providence. If concerns relate to particular provisions in the article, please advise so that corrections can be made.PTSaputo (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fully understand the concerns about this. There are a slew of these kinds of Christianity articles written as essays with limited sourcing and limited room for expansion. But as above, deletion is not cleanup. This is actually one of the better ones I have seen, and PTSaputo is correct that the issue is an important point in systematic theology. Yet Wikipedia is not a systematic theology, and the article needs to be rewritten to look more like an encyclopaedia entry. WP:TNT could be the way to go, but deletion is probably not. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy, TNT is deletion. But I'm up for moving it back to draft subject to perhaps some input from an appropriate WikiProject Guy (help!) 23:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I was less than clear. What I meant is that basically blanking and rewriting the vast majority of the page may be the way to go, but actually deleting, in my view, is not (because it is very definitely a notable subject in Christian theology). Draftify is a solution, but things get forgotten in draft. I'll see what other arguments are made before modifying my position on that. For now, I am still going with keep. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Please also look at Attributes of God in Christianity. A merger is possible, but I don’t think it is called for. For instance there are articles on Divine providence and Immanence among others. — Sirfurboy (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments above; just tag it with multiple issues for improvement and list it at WP:WikiProject Christianity as needing work. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a clearly notable topic as explained above and in the references used but it needs work to remove synth and opinion which is more likely to be carried out in mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I assumed WP would already have an article Sovereignty of God but that turns out to be a redirect to a short paragraph in Attributes of God in Christianity. I have just edited that article to make this one a "main" article for it. This is concerned with a significant issue in Christian theology. The article is written from a Protestant POV, but I doubt the Catholic or Orthodox view would be significantly different, though no doubt both would tend to cite other theologians. If there is a defect in that respect the cure is to edit it adding additional sources and view points, not to delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2020 (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) 09:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool University

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

I believe this fails GNG. No detail on organisation, referencing covers assertion about nature, but no substance on the operation. While a mention of an organisation of the alleged nature could be seen as a public service, that is not Wikipedia's function. SeoR (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator says, a public service warning against a purported university is tempting but outside Wikipedia's scope. This "institution" was mentioned in investigations alongside an associated Manchester College of Professional Studies. The 2009 exposé is replayed on p3 of this 2011 Verifile report but I don't see that as enough to pass WP:DEPTH as an event, nor does it meet WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2020 (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) 09:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wisepowder

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

The "Hong Kong Satellite Television" links read like press releases, not independent reporting. The scholarship articles are not independent, and they seem to have received no significant attention. Looking for further sources proved fruitless for me. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also it had no relation to HK but China.

The wiki creator ThoughtEngrossed (see Special:Permalink/935710884) use lots of online articles with wrong |publisher= and |work= values (filled a name of TV Channel operator, but is not the valid value for "work"), faking as the publication from more famous media.

sxhkstv.com is not the website for "Hong Kong Satellite Television" (and the audience of that TV station was in fact Mainland Chinese). The website is for a company 阳泉市香江紫荆影视传媒有限公司 instead .
Another web article used in the wiki article, is re-published at southcn.com, probably copied from "北国网" according to attribution, but i can't located the original article at 北国网 (lnd.com.cn). southcn.com is the official site of Nanfang Daily , but also acted as news portal website and re-publisher (Chinese news portal notoriously copy and paste content from other site). The e-paper of the newspaper is located at epaper.southcn.com and everything else apart from that subdomain had a heavy discount as a RS. While 北国网 belongs to the publisher of Liaoning Daily, but it had the same status of southcn.com: the site also act as re-publisher. epapers of Liaoning Daily Newspaper Group including Liaoning Daily are located in epaper.lnd.com.cn instead. So, it may has a scene that the article re-published two times and the second copy and paste had the wrong attribution. But the trace of the original publisher of that article vanished at the stop lnd.com.cn anyway.

Yet another citation, is from ChicagoNow, which is a blogger hosting website. Self-publishing source is not a reliable source and it only had routine mention of the company.

After chopping them, no reliable source to indicate notability and even with WP:Before steps, no articles seem passing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Matthew hk (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2020 (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 not established Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Street Film Awards

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

I can find no independent reliable sources discussing these awards, and no sources are offered. No indication this is a notable event or its awards are notable. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2020 (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) 09:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anubrata Mandal

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

District level politician. Fails WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable party politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete subject doesnt have significant coverage thus fails general notability guidelines. The subject fails notability guidelines for politicians as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill local party official. Serious BLP concerns. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanmay Bhat

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

Non-notable actor and comedian. Virtually no sources on the subject exist. Andise1 (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wot? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and countless others. ∯WBG^converse 08:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – clearly passes WP:GNG. Wham2001 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – Totally passes general notability guidelines. Just a quick search on Google News and in Google Search and it's pretty evident. Missvain (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, passes WP:GNG, and has a large following of fans. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2020 (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) 09:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prameela Sasidharan

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

Local politician. It fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chairperson of a municipality is not an office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL — it falls under the local level of office, where the inclusion test is not "everybody who exists", but "people about whom we can write a substantive and very well-sourced article that effectively contextualizes their political significance". But this article is not doing that. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails our general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete subject doesnt have significant coverage thus fails general notability guidelines. The subject fails notability guidelines for politicians as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:MILL - we have deleted articles about mayors, judges, and county attorneys from far larger local governments just this week. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Notability not established. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2020 (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) 09:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M.P. Sayed Mohammaed Koya

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

Losing candidate in election. It fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidate for office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this neither demonstrates preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy nor sources a credible reason to treat his candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NPOL, and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2020 (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) 09:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. T. Raghavan

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

Losing candidate in election. It fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. (But as an aside, it is not correct to say that "unelected candidates are not notable"; they csn be and there are numerous examples of such in Wikipdedia. But if the only claim to fame is that they are unelected candidates..... ) Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidate whose only "claim to fame" is being a candidate. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while an unsuccessful candidate must either (a) already have been notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons independent of the candidacy, or (b) be referenceable to such an unusual depth and volume of reliable source coverage, far beyond what every candidate in every election always gets, that he's got a credible claim to being much more special than the norm. This article, however, is showing neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NPOL, and WP:SNOW. Also fails my own standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (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) 09:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D. Kuppuramu

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

Losing candidate in election. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this neither demonstrates preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy nor sources a credible reason to treat his candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable person

Being state president of a political party's internal org chart still is not a reason why he would get an encyclopedia article. He has to hold office in a state or national legislature before he gets to be considered automatically notable — and the only other way he gets an article any earlier than that is by being the subject of a substantial volume of press coverage to get over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Likely yet another creation from the BJP's promotional editing staff. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and seems to have close connection with the subject as mentioned by GPL93. WP:COI. Abishe (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NPOL, and WP:CRYSTAL. His promotion to a higher party office is entirely speculative and possibly spam. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like BJP IT guys are tied up creating/maintaining pages who doesn't qualify WP:NPOL. No assertion of Notabililty rather seems a puff. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2020 (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. As in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Paschke, many "keep" opinions here amount to "he was a moderately senior Nazi official", which on its own isn't all that much in terms of strength of argument. But there are more sources-based "keep" arguments here, and considerably better sources, which makes it more difficult for me to dismiss the numerical strength of the "keep" side. Sandstein 15:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Bonatz

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Chief of B-Dienst, the Kriegsmarine naval intelligence operation during during World War II.scope_creep^Talk 07:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't satisfy any of the 8 heads of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - So an organisation of 80000 men who conducted extensive operations from World war one onwards and was heavily involved in all intelligence aspects of the Kriegsmarine during world war and is mentioned in more sources than your can shake a stick at is not notable. scope_creep<su p>Talk 07:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where is a WP:RS that B-Dienst was "an organization of 80000 men? What was Bonatz's rank? Does this satisfy WP:SOLDIER point 5: "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, an army division or higher, a Commonwealth air group, United States air wing, Soviet/Russian aviation division, or other historical air formation of equivalent size, generally two levels above a squadron)"? Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dude, you have not done research,, apart from the most cursory examination of the articles and have no understanding what your talking about. It took me full 18 months of work to enable me write the B-Dienst article, after I was show an academic article that was to be published on it and decided to make a go at creating at article on it, which was extremely difficult. He was an intelligence officer most of his life. There is many many Gbook references on him. scope_creep^Talk 08:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        This is an AFD about Bonatz, not B-Dienst. Bonatz does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. From my quick read of the B-Dienst page and specifically the section Chronic personnel requirements, it appears that its peak strength was 275 which does not satisfy WP:SOLDIER point 5. 08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Although just below flag rank, I think his role makes him easily notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going with WP:SOLDIER: Played an important role in a significant military event Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which "major battle or campaign"? And what was his "important role"? Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Battle of the Atlantic, head of the unit which broke BAMS and made at least some contribution to the work itself, beyond leading the unit.—eric 19:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've read Battle of the Atlantic, the only clear reference to B Dienst is this sentence "The best source proved to be the codebreakers of B-Dienst who had succeeded in deciphering the British Naval Cypher No. 3, allowing the Germans to estimate where and when convoys could be expected." which is unreffed. Then there's the section Germans break Admiralty codes which is also unreffed and doesn't refer to B Dienst.Mztourist (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing much coverage just passing mentions: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] and this source, which has a paragraph on him and quotes him a few times. Doesn't seem like GNG is there so redirecting (to B-Dienst) is probably the best option. b uidhe 10:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your first reference is Captain Heinz Bonatz, Chief Marine intelligence 1970 and you don't think he is notable, even though I know there is at least a dozen NSA documents on him as he is major post war intelligence figure. He is military historian David Kahn [24] talking about him with even more references. scope_creep^Talk 11:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without some serious notability being established. Appears to just be a named individual in the Reich who was reported on in government secret papers. No indication that as a result of the 2008 publication of the papers Bonatz has been subject to further reporting, publication or analysis. His work may be notable, but it would need to again be contextualised. He appears to have been a published author, looks (per some of those provided by Buidhe above and my own searches) to be a reference point for some historians; so it is probable his work has been analysed by historians and / or extend beyond the papers released but that isn't currently in his article to convey notability. Koncorde (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much as per Koncorde.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonatz was director on a major world war 2 organisation. What worries me is the inherent bias in this approach taken with these Afd's, that while is OK for folk like Turing, Dilly Knox, Braithwaite and so on are abe to have articles, but their diametrically opposed numbers on the German side aren't allowed to have articles. It strikes as slightly unfair and a disservice to Wikipedia, affirming WP:BIAS. More so because, while Bletchley Park wasn't bombed during the war, most of their members went back to work and wrote reams of stuff after the war, which was easy to access by historians, whereas these folk were bombed out (quite rightly so) and leaving almost no documentation available, except the two books he wrote after the war. There is none of the types of documents that provides sources for example, the Bletchley park article. The first book that David Kahn which he wrote is on B-Dienst. There is sufficient to make him notable. He is not some apparatchik that just turned up, he was working during the whole the interwar period. He is notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its called wp:n, if he was so notable I would be seeing a lot more than I am in the way of sourcing. IN all the examples you give there are sources about them, not their work, not the department they worked for, about them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove the notability through reliable sources then do so, otherwise this is just original research and your own pet project. B-Dienst being notable does not confer notability to everyone associated with it. This is not bias, we're asking for the same level of support. Koncorde (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By my count User:scope_creep alone has created 48 bio pages about German cryptanalysts and signals intelligence personnel, of which I have put up 7 for AFD. I'm not sure how many pages exist for people who worked at Bletchley Park etc., but I don't believe that there's any WP:BIAS here. Mztourist (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Soapbox alert) Not on our part, but there may be a (off Wiki) cultural bias in sources towards things like Bletchley and against anyone who worked for the NAZIS. But we cannot do anything about that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or possibly redirect to B-Dienst#Heinz Bonatz. As the summary in B-Dienst indicates, he didn't seem to have much of an effect. Just occupying a mid-level post doesn't satisfy SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Head of B-Dienst is enough, regardless of how much or little he did there. I would certainly not consider it a midlevel position. ANd when in doubt, I accept the decision of the deWP, which has an article. Their standards are highere than ours for biographies (there are some WPs that may give preferential treatment to adminsitrative of military figures in the corresponding countries that we would not consider notable, but for the deWP I think that even here their standards are higher. In fact, for German military history in general their standards are higher not just of for inclusion but for article writing and o f freedom from disputes and lack of influence of any desire to magnify the accomplishment of WWII officers DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lewin, R. (1980). Ultra goes to war. p. 226. establishes notability by tying to prewar and early successes of B Dienst. Commander Heinz Bonatz, at the head of the B Service, had in fact been studying the Royal Navy's signal traffic for years, and by 1939 had produced a document entitled "The System of British Wireless Communications." The Germans thus held a commanding lead. tho does not clearly attribute everything to Bonatz. Also significat coverage in Garrett, R. (1978). Scharnhorst and Gneisenau: The Elusive Sisters. and many passing mentions. Meets both WP:SOLDIER #4 and WP:GNG.—eric 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Head of B-Dienst is a notable figure (easy WP:PRESERVE + WP:NOTPAPER case). Also good arguments by DGG and EricR. I am getting very uncomfortable about the series of simultaneous AfD that the above nom has made with very short rationales? Britishfinance (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to B-Dienst#Heinz Bonatz – notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter what unit he led; I don't see NSOLDIER as an alternative to BASIC/GNG, and I don't see two independent in-depth reliable secondary sources about this individual. All we about this guy (which is basically his resume) is better included in the B-Dienst article. – Levivich 13:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Its pioneer and present chief, Lieutenant-Commander Heinz Bonatz, had started systematically studying British naval wireless communications as soon as he joined the German Navy in 1934. The characteristics of the transmissions, their customary pattern, periods of special intensity, mode of delivery, wave-lengths most often used—such details, collected over the years, in the end presented a 'fair enough' insight into British signalling procedure and technique. Bonatz wrote all his findings in a secret brochure entitled 'The System of British Wireless Communications', with the aid of which the monitoring service began to achieve results soon after the war broke out. Bekker, C. (1977). Hitler's naval war. p. 146. This Afd is setting a very high bar for both WP:SOLDIER and especially WP:GNG. There is plenty for a very nice article.—eric 15:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  If the RSes talk about the subject in the context of talking about B service, and all the RS material we have supports a paragraph or maybe two about the subject, then I think it serves our reader better to talk about the subject in a paragraph or two in the article about B service. It has nothing to do, really, with standards, or rank, or anything like that. It's just about: what material do we have, and where's the best place for it? I don't think it's in a stand-alone. – Levivich 18:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our current guidelines seem unduly slanted towards field officers. The ranks of people in intelligence operations has traditional been much lower than people of corresponding importance elsewhere, e (except possibly in Russia).Ican only speculate why, but I think perhaps they have been usually regarded with a certain contempt by regular field officers as being essentially civilians in function, not fighting in actual combat. (An analogy I know a little more about is the way that for many earlier centuries gunners were civilian specialists, as were surgeons.) We should go by historical significance, not by rank or size of unit alone. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article makes little references to his books, which get referenced in several other books, such as: 'The Invisible Weapon: Telecommunications and International Politics, 1851-1945'. He gets several paragraphs in 'Power at Sea, Volume 2', including P105 In 1939, B-Dinenst's commander, Heinz Bonatz, produced a document entitled The System of British Wireless Communications based on nearly 5 years of intensive study, goes into more detail on his work on Page 118 and Page 204. I don't see why we would Redirect to B-Dienst, when none of his books or these sources talking about his work are mentioned in that article? Britishfinance (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Then add them into the B Dienst page as User:Levivich suggests above.Mztourist (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that makes sense (he is probably also a potential case of NAUTHOR given his notable and referenced works on a specific niche area); I would be mre with EricR that this could be a bigger article. Does not make sense to me to merge this. Britishfinance (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2020 (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 that notability is not met, either via political notability or GNG Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rantidev Sen Gupta

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

Fails WP:GNG. It also fails WP:NPOL as he is a losing candidate in election and it fails WP:NJOURNALIST too. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this neither demonstrates preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy nor sources a credible reason to treat his candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rantidev Sen Gupta is not known for politics at all so the issue of election is not applicable. Sen Gupta is notable enough in the Indian field of journalism. He is a Bengali writer and editor with national importance. Pinakpani (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there are zero sources covering him in the context of being a journalist; there are just sources that say he's a former journalist in the process of not being about that, which is not how you make a journalist notable under our notability standards for journalists either. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Pinakpani (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails general notability guidelines. I welcome non-English language sources for consideration, of course. Missvain (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2020 (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 15:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangaru Kodalu (TV series)

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

There is nothing about the show anywhere. When searching for this on Google, it only brings YouTube videos. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wikipedia isn't a hosting space for non-notable nonsense. Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I did a deep dive to find more about this television show. It fails general notability guidelines. Of course, if non-English language reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly exist, I'm happy to re-evaluate. Missvain (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's a bit of a split over which exact PROF criteria is preferred, but there's clear consensus that the subject is notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otfried Deubner

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Professor of classical archaeology at a noted university. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Professor of which "noted university" and for how long? Mztourist (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has a concomitant de Wikipedia article with many additional sources. It is worth noting the subject worked as a diplomat after the war, specifically to the Vatican. There is many Google sources, detailing him as a diplomat in a secondary career attached to various embassies.
- What do you mean by "concomitant de Wikipedia"? His diplomatic rank and career don't meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NACADEMIC because he never had a named chair or met any of the other criteria. He seems to have a brief entry in the two catalogues mentioned in the dewiki article, but significant coverage is not determined. Briefly mentioned in this 2016 book but I'm not seeing much else. Lean towards deleting. b uidhe 10:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an English book, try searching in German sources and more will turn up. scope_creep^Talk 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His most famous work is Das Asklepieion von Pergamon 1938, which describes the excavations of a Asclepeion in Pergamon and is a seminal work completed just before the war. That work is used in a whole number of sources, in the dozens up dozen, indicating its significance. There is more. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure Was he a professor (in US usage, i.e. non-notable) or the professor. Seems the former. Also, appears to have worked in the diplomatic service, but not in any notable role, such as ambassador. Which leaves the book - is that sufficient? Emeraude (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the low-level academic positions. Professorship is claimed, but is also says that a few years later he commenced a job as a school teacher. Low-level positions in diplomacy also. Geschichte (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rejecting an offer of an endowed chair is an interesting career move. If he had accepted it, he would likely be notable under WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, back to Deubner's book Das Asklepieion von Pergamon, its held by around 99 libraries, pretty good for a 1938 book on such a~~n esoteric~~ subject, that may reflect its influence ... and the standing of its author? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A reasonable presumption is that any article on an individual in the German WP is certainly sufficiently notable for the enWP--biographies, including academic biographies, is a field where they are much more knowledgable and consistent than we are here. (this does not apply to every field, but the only field I gave encountered is companies where they seem to have some article based only on primary sources that they would accept but we would not) As for WP:PROF, Being notable enough for aqn endowed chair is as notable as holding one. DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Coolabahapple: Not esoteric. It is a book about a German archaeologist, digging up a Roman health temple in Greece and writing about it in German in the 1930's and it then becoming a standard work on that subject. His three other books are similar standard works.scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Provide WP:RS that supports these assertions. Mztourist (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi scope_creep, have struck out word from my "comment", apologies if seen as inappropriate/incorrect. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per DGG. For what it's worth, WP:ACADEMIC criteria are a fickle matter when it comes to the first half of the 20th century and earlier. A quick Scholar search of his works will show you that he has been cited numerous times, and one can safely assume that those numbers Google's AI reached would be significantly increased by actual citations from undigitized articles back in the day. That is one of the criteria, and I'll pass DGG's Chair argument as he explained it satisfactorily. Now continuing with his influence in the field, the fact that he's mentioned in several books, such as https://books.google.com/books?id=7C1WDwAAQBAJ, or https://books.google.com/books?id=49wdCgAAQBAJ&, or the fact that his books themselves are discussed in other books, should again be positive indications, and therefore support his notability claim. Finally, as people have established previously, if one searches German sources (stop being so Anglocentric!), even more results appear (like https://books.google.com/books?id=7C1WDwAAQBAJ this, as late as 2005). So don't be hasty and judge 1930s academics with 2020s eyes. I therefore think he is notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per good arguments by DGG (de-WP and NPROF#5 angle), and also WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. I can't see a real reason to delete this. Britishfinance (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PK650 and DDG.—eric 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the subject has a de.wiki article which seems convincing for notability: Deubner; there's also a plausible pass under WP:NAUTHOR. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's easy to get hung up on the institutional criteria of NPROF, but the fact that Deubner's work is still cited and discussed half a century on (see e.g. PK650's references) is a clear sign that he was a notable scholar per WP:PROF#C1. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2020 (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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf Hentze, which is basically the same in terms of sourcing. The "keep" opinions are based only on Paschke's position as a somewhat senior civil servant in Nazi Germany's signals intelligence apparatus, but they do not identify any notability guideline or other basis in our policy or practice that presumes notability for people of his level of seniority. The only really good argument in notability discussions are reliable third-party sources, and there aren't any on offer here. So I have to give less weight to the "keep" arguments. Sandstein 15:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Paschke

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER, his claimed "firsts" appear to be self-published Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pers Z S. In secondary sources, all that can be found are passing mentions: [25], [26]. b uidhe 07:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Effective head of Pers Z S for much world war 2. scope_creep^Talk 08:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Pers Z S satisfy WP:SOLDIER 5? Mztourist (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well if he was soldier, then perhaps he would, but he wasn't. He was on the German civil service rank of Beamter. scope_creep^Talk 08:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - After the second world war, he was director of the new Unit 114 in the Foreign Ministry, the new intelligence unit of the Bundeswehr. [27] There is more sources available.[28] scope_creep^Talk 08:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not on the page and not clear that meets WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        So your effectively stating due to the article not being updated since I created it, somehow it is not notable. Are you for real!!. There is a mountain of sources on him, now it's no longer in the archives. All the directors of these of the types of intelligence units are notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If there is indeed "a mountain of sources on him" that show notability then you can add them in and presumably the consensus will be to keep the page, that's how AFD works. Mztourist (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I have done more than 2000 Afd. I need no lessons from you. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If that is indeed the case why are you putting up such spurious justifications as these: [29] and [30]? Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the sources that scope creep found on his postwar life count as significant coverage. Both of them just mention Adolf Paschke. I've still seen no sources that would even come close to WP:GNG. b uidhe 09:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin It is worth noting that the nominating editor had nominated 7 articles I created without any discussion, nor attempt to improve them, nor conducting any prior research to determine if they were even notable. The nominating editor has only completed 57 Afd's and has stated in one of the other Afd's that they saw on my talk page, many Afc rejections, indicating that he is targetting me specifically. The Afc rejections were articles that pulled from the NPP queue, moved to draft and then rejected. I posted them to get a second opinion. I consider this targeting me in this manner, vexatious and disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 09:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I followed WP:BEFORE and found no WP:RS that established notability for any of the 7 pages. The number of AFDs I have been involved in is irrelevant. I haven't targetted User:scope_creep who has from the moment I lodged the AFDs assumed bad faith and been uncivil towards me.Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think his role makes him just about cross the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without some serious notability being established in his article. Appears that as a result of the 2008 publication of the papers Bonatz has been subject to further reporting, publication and analysis but it isn't reflected in his article to convey notability. If included with context establishing notability of his work then this is an easy keep. Koncorde (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing much to indicate anything more then a minor functionary.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing shows that he was anything more than a run-of-the-mill wartime cryptanalyst. He gets only passing mentions in books on the subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He does not have an article in the deWP. DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is neither here nor there really, since all Wikipedias are works in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a senior section head of Pers Z S, the article assists with overview information of the individuals involved in Germany's cryptoanalysis efforts. Neils51 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a member of a notable organization does not confer notability on an individual.Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Trappenberg

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has run as a minor party candidate for a seat in the provincial legislature twice; lost twice. Is a professor of computer science. Perhaps notability can be shown in that capacity.NotButtigieg (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Provincial party leaders are not default notable, no other clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - based on outcomes here and changing notability standards, a Green Party chair of a smaller province is no longer automatically notable. However, in this case, he slides by as a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think provincial party leaders are important. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 04:04, 08 January 2020

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not sold that a losing candidate, and a party leader of 50 is notable. I went to look at the professorship but that was a dead link. Otr500 (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party of Nova Scotia. I don't believe that Trappenberg is notable for his academic work. He is not a named chair and I was unable to find any reviews of his book, Fundamentals of Computational Neuroscience. News coverage of his political campaigns is routine and derivative. b uidhe 07:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unlike some of his colleagues in the Green Party whose articles were also nominated for deletion, he does not pass general notability guidelines. (I do not use the politician guidelines). Missvain (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhal Pisase

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

Unknown film. Sources don't give much information about the film. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reviews in reliable sources such as The Times of India, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the film fails general notability criteria as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. It also fails all the criteria outlined in notability guidelines for films. Not just that, it also fails criteria for other evidence of notability. Talking about the review by times of india mentioned in the comment above, criteria states "The film [can be notable if it is] widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The film was neither widely distributed, nor reviewed by two "nationally known critics". Times of India is well known for PR, paid news/reviews, especially regarding entertainment sector. Getting review, or cover coverage in TOI is not sign of notability at all. As the film fails all other criteria, its just another movie that exists. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As discussed at WP:NFILM nationally known critics means critics who write for national publications as they are obviously nationally known, the Times of India is a national newspaper whether you like it or not and the fact that it was a scathing review that gave the film 1 out of 5 stars shows it was an independent review, imv Atlantic306 (talk)
  - still, that makes only one review. Not two. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do the reviews have to be in English? It's possible there are sources in Hindi, for example. Toughpigs (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as long as they are independent, well reputed, and/or nationally known, language doesnt matter. I did a thorough search, I couldnt find anything usable. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The two sources are all I could also find, too. Those are "multiple" sources... Missvain (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are certainly some ... issues with some of the arguments, but there is no support for the proposition to delete the article. Editors should discuss whether the material can be presented differently, e.g. as an article about the media franchise. Sandstein 15:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sumuru (character)

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

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG/WP:PLOT. Non-notable fictional character. I think this was deleted through prod then undeleted? I can't follow the history much, but no serious rationale has been presented anywhere I can see, so let's take this here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless someone can find something beyond the IMDb page listed as a source there, we should delete the article on the 2003 film of the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion? No way Here we have a character by a very well known (though not PC) English author who appeared on a 1940s BBC radio series, six 1950s novels, two European co-production films in the 1960s, one German film in 2003 and someone decides it's not a well known character???? And for the PC Brigade, doesn't Wikipedia desire more female characters? (i.e. Please Keep)Foofbun (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just posted a reason for keeping an article and someone has deleted it as 'an interruption'???? Is this fair and balanced Wikipedia procedure??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foofbun (talk • contribs)
  - I believe he meant your header formatting was disruptive to the display, not you yourself. Changed the formatting for you. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you VERY much. I didn't know. Happy New Year!Foofbun (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Special:Undelete/Sumuru_(character), there was indeed a WP:PROD-WP:REFUND cycle in the past month. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Sumuru (franchise) or something. The character may not be notable as such, but the works she appeared in may have a claim to notability as a group. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually thinking about this as the franchise may be notable, so maybe changing the focus of the article from character to the franchise would be the right solution here. Perhaps someone should try to rescue this. Where is the rescue squadron when needed? Ping User:Andrew Davidson, what do you think? Can this be saved? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable being covered in sources such as Mystery Women: An Encyclopedia of Leading Women Characters and The Encyclopedia of Super Villains. There's a detailed page which is now in the Internet Archive. The usual policies apply including: WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:SOFIXIT. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, so my view on this matter is nuanced, and I think it would behoove keep !voters, delete !voters, and any potential closer to ask this question: are there enough sources to verify and discuss, without engaging in SYNTH or other OR, the fact that this character is so obviously a racist/imperialist stereotype in the vein of her creator's other, better-known, works? If not, then it violates NPOV for us to maintain a standalone article on her -- we can't point out the single most noteworthy fact about the topic because we don't even have enough sources for that. Certainly no sources currently cited in the article, and it is obvious that the above sources cited by Andrew are not ones he has actually read or intends to use for the improvement of the article, but rather the results of a quick Google search. (The lostpages.net page is not apparently a reliable source, but does not also apparently go into detail on the orientalism matter anyway, while this source obviously includes less than a half a page on this character; this source consists of nothing but plot summary and a total of 24 words of real-world criticism at the end, which has a something to say about the apparent views of Rohmer and his readership toward women, but nothing worth a whole article.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems to be a notable fictional character.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jack Upland: I would like to see this saved somehow, but I have to point out that WP:ITSNOTABLE with no argument (WP:NOTAVOTE) is not an argument, but a baseless assertion. WHY do you think this is a notable topic? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination provides no evidence in support of its assertions – see WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per WP:V, the burden to produce assertions lies on the part of the editors who want to add/keep content ("No, you have to prove the moon is NOT made from green cheese..."). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST: Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 70: British Mystery Writers, 1860-1919, p267-268 discusses Sax Rohmer's Sumuru radio show & novels within the context of his life and work. There's some commentary in Screen enemies of the American way : political paranoia about Nazis, Communists, saboteurs, terrorists and body snatching aliens in film and television in the chapter "Sexual Politics and the War Between Men and Women". Harry Alan Towers: The Transnational Career of a Cinematic Contrarian has a discussion of the Sumuru films with real-world analysis of the portrayal of female villains, comparing Sumuru to other examples. Serial Fu Manchu: The Chinese Supervillain and the Spread of Yellow Peril Ideology and The Mystery Story also have some material on Sumuru. 1940s-1950s popular culture has had a lot of time for critical appraisal; there's almost always good sources for articles like this. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 15:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert von Denffer

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

Totally non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article has German Wikipedia equivalent. Part of the aristocratic Denffer family of Germany. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason to keep, notability is Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. Mztourist (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a soldier, he worked for the German civil service, i.e a Beamter.scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The lead states that he "worked as a cryptanalyst in Referat F, the Mathematical Referat, as part of the Inspectorate 7/VI, that was the signals intelligence agency of the Wehrmacht, before and during World War II. He would later work for the General der Nachrichtenaufklärung, the successor organization to the In 7/VI, specifically undertaking research in general theory of cryptography." Even if not a soldier he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Part of the German aristocratic Dennffer family that has been notable for more than 300 years. scope_creep^Talk 08:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        This is getting circular: Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is worth noting that Herbert von Denffer has his own coat of arms de:Herbert von Denffer. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable. Mztourist (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you have a coat of arms, your automatically notable, as he is part of German nobility. That was the reason I created the article in the first place. That is the last time I will be talking to you. scope_creep^Talk 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please provide the WP policy that states "When you have a coat of arms, your automatically notable". Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing more than an obscure cryptanalyst and "actuarial mathematician". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis of the deWP article. They are much better to judge 1notability in this field than we are--and it's not tha tthe are particular kind to their own historical figures--unlike some WPs they have in general higher standards for all biographies than we do, but that they have a better understanding of what makes a notable career in most fields, DGG ( talk ) 10:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG - I also think de-WP has a higher bar than en-WP for BLPs, and this individual is German. The three refs (and the links in the authority control) show clearly that this individual's bio is being recorded and archived on several important databases for his niche. Britishfinance (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure where this deWP is better than enWP approach comes from. I would note that the 3 refs on the deWP page are all English sources, 1 is a very brief mention on the Mathematics Genealogy Project Department of Mathematics North Dakota State University (the same as the first ref on this page) another is a blog called CryptoCellar Tales, so not RS at all and I can't open the third one. Do you really think that is adequate sourcing for the deWP page? What are the "several important databases" you refer to? Mztourist (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is listed at the German National Library, the Humboldt University of Berlin Archive, and the Mathematics Genealogy Project in the US. Anybody familar with de-WP knows that they have a much higher bar for BLPs than en-WP, and this subject is German. Britishfinance (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are minor passing references not SIGCOV. You keep saying that "Anybody familar with de-WP knows that they have a much higher bar for BLPs than en-WP", if that is true why are there only 3 refs all in English on the deWP pages one of which is a blog? I would also note that the deWP page was created in September 2018 whereas the enWP page was created in August 2017. Mztourist (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you take a look at the German BLP of Herbert von Denffer? I notice that Brown University also have kept his works in their archive here' and the Yale University liabrary here Britishfinance (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes of course I looked at the German page, that's how I knew that all 3 refs were in English and one is a blog. So 2 universities have a copy of a book by him, are you saying that is enough to satisfy WP:GNG? Mztourist (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw some mentions in Google Scholar, in particular one published by Taylor and Francis. The available sourcing is slim, but enough.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our current guidelines seem unduly slanted towards field officers. The ranks of people in intelligence operations has traditional been much lower than people of corresponding importance elsewhere, e (except possibly in Russia).I can only speculate why, but I think perhaps they have been usually regarded with a certain contempt by regular field officers as being essentially civilians in function, not fighting in actual combat. (An analogy I know a little more about is the way that for many earlier centuries gunners were civilian specialists, as were surgeons.) We should go by historical significance, not by rank or size of unit alone. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above he apparently didn't even have a military rank, he just "worked as a cryptanalyst in Referat F, the Mathematical Referat, as part of the Inspectorate 7/VI, that was the signals intelligence agency of the Wehrmacht, before and during World War II. He would later work for the General der Nachrichtenaufklärung, the successor organization to the In 7/VI, specifically undertaking research in general theory of cryptography." No RS has been provided that he was in charge of any unit so I don't believe that your comments about field versus operations officers is really relevant. Just working for a notable organization doesn't confer notability. In relation to your comments above that deWP "have in general higher standards for all biographies than we do, but that they have a better understanding of what makes a notable career in most fields" I think that faith is misplaced as I keep pointing out 1 of the 3 deWP refs is a blog. Mztourist (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm not giving much weight to Scope creep's defense of the article, given that they are currently blocked indef for harassing others about AfD nominations such as this one. And we have no serious counterarguments to the policy-based concerns that this is basically original historical research based on primary sources. Sandstein 15:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Hentze

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Chief Signals Officer of the General der Nachrichtenaufklärung during much of World War II. This was a secret organisation that was unknown to the allies, but nevertheless present for much of the war. Documentation that verifies his existence was only realised by the NSA in 2008. scope_creep^Talk 07:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of WP:SOLDIER do you believe he falls under? Mztourist (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think his role makes him just about notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing any coverage in a single reliable secondary source. The article needs to be nuked because it is entirely based on primary sources in contravention of WP:PRIMARY policy. b uidhe 10:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are secondary sources not primary, created by the American TICOM and British CSDIC units after the war. All facts were verified to the best extent of the individual unit and only facts that could be verified were included in the documents. They went considerable lengths to verify certain facts, sometimes spending months looking for certain individuals. There was two main reasons for this, 1. they were looking for Soviet agents, 2. They used them to define a response to the fact that they thought their own encryption was broken during the war, which happened in part. So in some instances, they went to extraordinary lengths to verify certain facts to ensure they military communications were secure. They considered them so important and so secret that most of the NSA document were locked up until 2008, and the vast majority of documents related to this, are still locked up. So sources do exist on this dude, and many more particularly on the GDNA. They are absolutely secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 11:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that those are still primary sources, because they are based on those agencies' original research for a particular practical purpose. I don't think that they help in establishing notability, but if you disagree RSN seems like the right venue for that question. b uidhe 11:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree and have to say that they are secondary sources, in that they are actively interpreting and investigating primary sources of information, providing analysis and then publishing their own documentation collating this information. In short: Just Reporting = Primary. Analysis = Secondary. Whether this makes it notable for a biography is a separate issue as the historic records are really not intended to establish notability. In fact as secret documents they are intended to not be notable. It might be that the unit is notable, and in the future analysis by further reliable sources may elevate such a person. Koncorde (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without some serious notability being established. Appears to just be a named individual in the Reich who was reported on in government secret papers. No indication that as a result of the 2008 publication of the papers Hentze has been subject to further reporting, publication or analysis. His work may be notable, but it would need to again be contextualised. Some of the information may be relevant to General der Nachrichtenaufklärung if it isn't already included. Koncorde (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these article aren't even finished. I have two FOIA request outs for the last 2 years and still waiting for it. scope_creep^Talk 13:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So original research too? If we're relying on us seeking out data then we are becoming the source. Koncorde (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the case. This is a misunderstanding of original research. All article writing requires research in the sense of seeking out reliable sources. We often go to libraries to find sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source". A FOIA is not a published source (unless, like with recent Trump impeachment requests, they are subsequently covered in secondary sources). Accessing a library is accessing previously published freely accessible public records. Accessing public records is generally something we may do only for the basic facts, and where possible it is better for us to utilise reliable contemporary secondary and tertiary sources. We don't typically go seeking out records to write our articles where the source of records is itself unpublished. Koncorde (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another article on moonstone whose only notability is that they were just another nazi.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yet another example of cryptanalystcruft unsupported by substantial reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He wasn't just another Nazi. It is a senior position in the biggest intelligence agency at the time. scope_creep^Talk 15:34, 15 January 2020 (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) 09:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Falter

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

Totally non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG and WP:Soldier Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a soldier, he was a German civil servant. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead states " initially working in the English Referat of In 7/VI, the signals intelligence agency of the Wehrmacht, before and during World War II. He would later work for the General der Nachrichtenaufklärung, the successor organization to the In 7/VI, specifically undertaking analytical research from the summer of 1944 in Group IV" and so it is a valid assessment criteria, but you are welcome to add any other criteria that you think justify his retention Mztourist (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER per the article and my search. b uidhe 12:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately doesn't stand out among tens of thousands of phil.dr's in Europe. Geschichte (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails SOLDIER, ACADEMIC and GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2020 (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) 05:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asraful Hoque Sium

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

Fails WP:GNG. He didn't receive any notable award. He did not get significant coverage. Even he did not hold any historical record.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I think wp:too soon also. Whole article was COI editing also. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2020 (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) 05:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Kebria

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

The two sources are given in that article:

LinkedIn profile and
ABC Radio (the previous workplace of RJ Kebria. At the time of article creation, he was working there.)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MILL. Radio DJs are almost always not notable, and I don't see how this one is special. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2020 (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) 05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charpoka Blood Bank

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

All are routine coverage. If we translate of these sources, all of those will say "Chharpoka started their journey." Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Fails WP:RS, all source given in the article are promotional. (also, I might be wrong but this might be paid article. We Bengali wiki comunity recently found that a number of paid sock farms are active from Bangladesh.) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Roads India Assistance

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

This article started out as a blatant ad and was slowly stripped down. Google search for sources returned only press releases and lacks reliable sources to meet the guideline for notability of companies. Citing (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2020 (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.