< 28 July	30 July >

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) 01:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Book Of[edit]

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

Was draftified in order to give editor time to potentially provide sources. They did not, simply moving the article back into mainspace. Searches were difficult due to the generality of the name, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage. There's also the fact that this seems to be simply a promotional article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. JustJared announced that Gavin Leatherwood is shirtless on their July cover (had to remove the link, apparently JustJaredJr is blacklisted), and that's about all I could find, other than ads and their own site. It is an unfortunate name for web searches, but there doesn't seem to be notice or coverage of this publication yet. Schazjmd (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find significant coverage of either the magazine or editor Irvin Rivera (although there are few photos by him online there is little in depth about him or his work). No obvious reason why this is more than just another unimportant online publication: not all magazines or websites are notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't source it. Please ping me to reconsider if you can.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would have supported draftifying it, but since that option was already used and I don't see significant coverage, I'm !voting delete. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the text is stricly promotional and the article entirely sourced to its subject. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajib Hossain[edit]

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

Non-notable biography by editor with narrow and promotional body of work. The cited sources are (A) churnalism: The Sangbad, Bhorer Kagoj #1, Purboposh Chim BD [permanently dead, but based on title and date appears to duplicate Poriborton #2], Poriborton #1, Daily Vorer Pata, and Poriborton #2, (B) the record label of his one album, and (C) two permanently dead links of unknowable quality: The Report 24 and Bhorer Kagoj #2.

If the two dead links were to original reporting, then, given the claimed length and timing of his career, one would expect to find some non-dead, non-press release coverage. But the article has been tagged for notability for two years, and searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script name, found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BIO. Worldbruce (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete who fails WP:MUSICBIO. not enough to establish notability Singer, Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. fails WP:GNG. He did not receive any award. Even, i didn't find any notable album.--Nahal^(T) 12:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article moved to /dev/null -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Screenfetch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Product (generally viewed as needing to meet NCORP) fails to satisfy notability. There are sources available, as was noted in previous AfD, but fail to meet WP:RELIABLE and/or WP:INDEPENDENT Nosebagbear (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not wp:notable There are hundreds if not thousands of little scripting tools like this for Linux, Unix, and other operating systems. A few are notable (just barely) but the vast majority are not. This is clearly not. There are no reliable sources in the article and I did a Google search and all I found were refs in Linux manuals, tutorials, etc. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is a Forbes Senior Contributor Jason Evangelho article where he says that Screenfetch is "one of his favorite command line apps". There is also an article on Fossbytes with a significant coverage of the tool which states that it is "one of the best Linux utilities that can be used to display cool system information on your terminal". --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes "contributors" are not reliable. czar 03:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd spotted that review but, like Czar, decided that as it was a contributor (senior or otherwise) wasn't reliable - I've seen them rejected before in AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and MadScientistX11's reasoning above. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Premier Arena Soccer League summer season[edit]

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

Discovered this while classifying a WikiProject Football articles, I don't believe this league has enough coverage for its seasons to pass WP:GNG. All of the sources are either blogs or primary, and the Central Division played... two games? SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really sure how to treat arena soccer leagues as a presumption of notability since there are no leagues on WP:FPL. The article certainly looks like it fails WP:GNG. Page is full of deadlinks and to links that don't address notability concerns. The one page that isn't dead goes to an archived announcement about one team's schedule. The rest of these articles should probably be evaluated as well, maybe at WT:FOOTY. Jay eyem (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails as per nom. Barca (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Having said that, I think the userspace copy should be deleted through WP:MFD as WP:CSD#G4 applies to recreations, which that would not be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yujian Zheng[edit]

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

Associate prof and former "hostel warden", run-of-the-mill academic CV. Only award noted is an internal university award. Can't find any substantive independent sources on Google, either in English or (as far as I can tell) Chinese, none cited in the article. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPROF. (There are other academics named Yujian Zheng so difficult to establish stats.) —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 20:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 20:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 20:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 20:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article author created a copy of this article in userspace explicitly to circumvent the deletion process at User:Objectivesea/Sandbox/Yujian Zheng (see edit summaries at [1], [2]). If the consensus here is to delete, then the identical userspace copy should be speedy-deleted per WP:FAKEARTICLE/WP:G4. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 18:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no proof of notability whatsoever except receiving a non-notable local award. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per nom. Citability appears to be minimal, I did not find any published reviews of the subject's works, and nothing else appears to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hibbert[edit]

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

Most "notable" for portraying The Gimp from Pulp Fiction... A ~5-minute film role in which he doesn't speak and his face doesn't appear. Absolutely no one can name the actor who played The Gimp, and even if they could, this would be BLP1E. A handful of other minor acting roles and a two-year stretch working as a staff writer for MADtv. Also, he was married to a somewhat famous person (Julia Sweeney). I see no evidence of independent notability here. The Gimp might be notable enough for its own article, but that doesn't mean that that actor who portrayed him is. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as it is a neat, well written article but the subject does not pass WP:NACTOR with minor roles only, he needs some prominent roles to attract coverage in reliable sources that would qualify him for a Wikipedia article. Also, his writing credits are not sufficient for WP:Creative as he is one of many writers of the MAD tv series, writing on 19 episodes whereas the top listed writer wrote on 229 episodes. thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is notable and should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4001:7c40:41de:9ab3:dd99:58f1 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 109 citizens, approximately 10% of whom have !voted to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic of Verdis[edit]

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

A self-proclaimed micronation, only sourced to its own press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article got picked up by a couple other publications, but that's all I can find in Croatian. Fails WP:GNG. Probably relevant to briefly mention on the Croatia-Serbia border dispute article, though. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, at least one of the sources on the page [3] is marked (MENAFN - PRLog), flagging it an a press release. But the point is that this recently declared country had drawn very little attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the page Free Republic of Verdis lacks an AfD template.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I restored the template, which had been removed by an IP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Fails WP:GNG Believe it is a hoax and info/sources are published by the creator as this subject in draft page have been deleted many times and all creator are sock - see here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete micro-nation which lacks notability. Not sure I agree it merits a short mention in another article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a specific mention of the micronation from the Croatia–Serbia border dispute article, merging it with another micronation, but I've kept the citation, even though it's Buzzara. SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's legit no reason to why it should be deleted. they've referenced it and it is notable enough if you search it up in multiple languages. theres many more micronation articles which have less references than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.29.20 (talk • contribs) 06:18, July 30, 2019 (UTC)
Delete not a notable micronation, references appear to come from press releases (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are many other pages on Wikipedia that have been allowed with press releases and sometimes no references at all. This has press release references along with normal media references, therefore there is no reason for it to be removed. Many micronations are referenced by their own website, whereas this one has normal articles from the media. It's considered notable as journalists have been willing to take time to write it (on RTL) and that article had been on trending for a good month. Buzzara RTL is one of the largest news sites in Croatia. There's no reason for deletion. Their government website is https://verdisgov.org/ - They're serious and they have been gaining a lot of attention, just look around and you'll see. It has mainly been popular in Croatia and some other countries including Nigeria, USA and Australia. Some examples: https://www.nairaland.com/5238083/europes-newest-country https://buzzara.rtl.hr/virealno/3500391/liberland-20-kako-jedan-cetrnaestogodisnjak-stvara-drzavu-izmedju-hrvatske-i-srbije/ https://likaclub.eu/cetrnaestogodisnjak-osniva-novu-drzavu-izmedu-hrvatske-i-srbije/ - This has gained more attention than many micronations already on Wikipedia. It's clearly obvious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.29.20 (talk) 17:56, July 30, 2019 (UTC)

Buzzara's basically the Croatian buzzfeed, two of their four top stories as we speak are about pets, the lead story is "Stupidest questions asked by Croatian tourists." RTL is fine, but Buzzara is the "What? And finally!" part of the site. And the other article links back to Buzzara. Not trying to get into an argument since this will likely be deleted anyways, but getting on Buzzara and Buzzara only isn't something anyone should be proud of if they're trying to be taken seriously. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a referenced and essentially trustwory article. There's no reason why the article should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.29.20 (talk) 18:27, July 30, 2019 (UTC) — 120.146.29.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

120.146.29.20 Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "there's other similar stuff in Wikipedia" is never accepted as an argument in AfD discussions. -The Gnome (talk)`

Merge all content which can be sourced to Croatia–Serbia border dispute - this will probably be a short section. The article in itself doesn't establish notability and it's a stretch to say that the sources discussed above meet notability requirements (although maybe there are more in southeastern European languages). The article on the border dispute is a very logical place to include a mention for a subject about which there isn't much to say. (A redirect would almost be sufficient but the current article doesn't mention Verdis at all.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)w[reply]
Comment: For a hoax subject, no merge should be performance - see link above I provide. A micro nation declaration should be recieved WP:SIGCOV with independent, reliable sources. This subject has has been created in draft many times and all of the creator are sock and they are all banned. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean what's a hoax and what's just a non-notable micronation seems like a mighty fine line and I'm not quite willing to say it's a hoax. But I agree with you that inclusion of information about this doesn't belong anywhere. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. Île flottante (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's pretty noticeable imo https://instagram.com/verdisgov/ - and their president is pretty big online, commonly known as doeke or swedenaviator* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.101.96 (talk • contribs) 21:55, July 30, 2019 (UTC) — 49.199.101.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The page you’ve linked to us blank. Île flottante (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Try again sorry. Typo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.101.96 (talk • contribs) 23:17, July 30, 2019 49. (UTC)
  - Right... an Instagram page with zero posts and 19 followers is going to convince us. Meters (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure you mean 109,000 followers. They only post stories though. When they do normal posts, they only keep them up for a week or so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.101.96 (talk • contribs) 23:32, July 30, 2019 (UTC)
  - Followers can be purchased so this really isn't indicative of anything. Île flottante (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can confirm these aren't purchased. They advertised. I found Verdis through ads — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.29.20 (talk • contribs) 22:11, July 31, 2019 (UTC)
Delete Yet another self-proclaimed micronation with no independent reliable sources to show notability. Meters (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read anything above of the independent sources? There are multiple, although most are in Croatian. There's also its own sources though that are truthful with a lot of notability, especially with its creator being quite known online, especially on YouTube and Instagram. His names online are Doeke and SwedenAviator. He has stopped creating content though as he primarily focuses on Free Republic of Verdis now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.29.20 (talk • contribs) 23:25, July 30, 2019 (UTC)
  - Not going to waste time discussing this with you. Please sign your posts, and stick to one IP. (hard to believe that two SPA IPs from the same place who post within minutes of each other are really different editors). Meters (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ever heard of working together? user started first edit on the day the article created and make has made few or no other edits outside this topic— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.101.96 (talk • contribs) 23:36, July 30, 2019 (UTC)
      - Sure. It's called WP:MEAT Meters (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, appears to be an internet publicity stunt. Daß Wölf 02:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How the hell is it a publicity stunt? You cannot accuse something of being a publicity stunt when it is clearly not. Read https://verdisgov.org/ — Thonkingman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:17, 1 August 2019‎ (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG --SalmanZ (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Scroll up. You will see it's clearly notable. Thonkingman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and account created on August 1, 2019 after the AfD is nominated— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thonkingman (talk • contribs) 11:45, August 2, 2019 (UTC)
Delete as subject lacks verifiable Wikinotability, per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of parochial and private schools in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and partially duplicated. We don't have lists of schools by metropolitan areas. Apparently the "list of schools by state" list for DC hasn't been created, and that would be a good addition. The schools in Maryland and Virginia are already covered on those respective state lists. John from Idegon (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Wait? I'm confused. You just told me that the information on the page "Outline of Washington Area Catholic High Schools" was a duplication of this "List of parochial and private schools in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area" page. So all I did was add a template and changed the name to be representative of what was already written. Now you're saying it must be deleted. (Undid revision 908439707 by John from Idegon (talk)) Llakew18 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plus do you know how small DC is and how the Metro Area Works. This place is so darn small that people who live in one jurisdiction go to another just for school. Especially when it comes private schools. And its not only the rich and upper class who do this, even low-to-middle income families do this. This may sounds like a paradox but that's just how the Washington Metro Area (DMV Area) works. The DMV area is different from other parts of the country and this page should authentically reflect that, which it had already done in the past until this "deletion" incident happened. Whoever started this article page in the beginning knew how things are in reality.

And this proposed list of schools by school districts (or cities or states) does not work for Private/Parochial Schools in the DC metro area, it only works for public schools. For example, the Archdiocese of Washington Catholic Schools covers both the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Another example is the Washington Catholic Athletic Conference that covers two different states and a federal district that includes the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. They're not confined to one city, one county, or one state like other parts of the United States. Llakew18 (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Llakew18 (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Llakew18 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Hello, I was not the creator of this page. I created the page " Outline of Washington Metro Area Catholic High Schools " and was told (by User:John from Idegon) that the page was going to be deleted and if there was any good information still on the page, to merge it with the preexisting page called " List of parochial and private schools in Washington, D.C. " which already had parochial and private schools from other parts of the Metropolitan area on the list before I even edited it. I only added a few things and then changed the name to " List of parochial and private schools in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area " so it can be representative of what was already on the page even prior to my own edits. I did not create the current page, I only changed the name. Llakew18 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence 1: "curprev 18:43, 29 July 2019‎ Llakew18 talk contribs‎ m 72,057 bytes 0‎ Llakew18 moved page List of parochial and private schools in Washington, D.C. to List of parochial and private schools in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area: more inclusive naming undo"

Evidence 2: "curprev 18:37, 29 July 2019‎ Llakew18 talk contribs‎ 71,868 bytes +65,868‎ Information Merger from "Outline of Washington Metro Area Catholic High School" to this page as requested by User:John from Idegon has been done. undo Tags: Visual edit, PHP7"

Evidence 3: "curprev 18:46, 29 July 2019‎ Llakew18 talk contribs‎ 6,110 bytes -65,947‎ deleted "Notable Alumni" list as requested by User:John from Idegon undo Tags: Visual edit, Replaced, PHP7"

(All of theses are found on the Revision history: List of parochial and private schools in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area: Revision history) Llakew18 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not indiscriminate, since it has specific inclusion criteria. Enough of the things on the list have their own articles to be a valid list. Dream Focus 22:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - was a bit confused when I nominated this. Actually, all that needs to happen is the BOLD page move be reversed, content added since removed and an RM started.John from Idegon (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanna Santhekadur[edit]

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

I don't see that this individual meets the criteria of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:PROF. Sources given don't indicate that his books have won any awards or were reviewed, and the science award he won is not a major one. Google search for the name shows that he's published as a scientific author, but nothing that has garnered particular attention. Also possible conflict of interest. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources in search results. All sources on the current article are either self-published or unreliable. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - associate professors are rarely notable. Pinging DGG in case I'm wrong. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacking in acceptable resources. Barca (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. by our usual standards. 3 papers with 100 or more citations. This is sufficient to show influence in their field, and 100 is the level we've been consistently using for biomedicine, the most heavily cited field. This article was written (by the subject) in ignorance of our WP:PROF standard, without the papers or citations being mentioned, but I have added them. The only reason it's a week keep instead of a keep is that he is the principal author for only the one of the most-cited papers--judging not just by author position, but by where the work was done at that stage in his career. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect to Triveni Sangam is tempting, but given the probability that this is a hoax (a search for the title on Penguin's website comes up blank), I'm going to not do that. Even redirects must pass WP:V, and this may not. If somebody can come up with sources that pass WP:V, this can be reconsidered. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nivik[edit]

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

Greetings,
The article was created in 2010, and it starts with: according to Hindu mythology, the Nivik or Nivek is the confluence of three rivers: the Ganges, the Saraswati, and the Yamuna."

I can not find any other source on Google web, books, scholar that has any details about "Nivik" (not counting mirror sites)

The article has one source: "Hindu Mythmakers: Ancient Gods of the East".Google has no information about the book (or on WorldCat)

The author Rob Pikelniak is unknown too.

Possibly this is a hoax? Or am I missing something? Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Titodutta (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Titodutta (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Triveni Sangam. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Uncle G, yes, I know about Triveni Sangam. That's the term generally used for the place in Allahabad. Is Nivik related to it anyhow? Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a strangely obscure hoax given that nothing exists for the term outside the article and it cites a non-existent source. @Titodutta: I assume Uncle G was just noting that Nivik appears to be describing the same thing as Triveni Sangam. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 18:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Ignacio Carubini[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as the player has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. His two appearances in the Europa League were not matches between two teams from fully professional leagues. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carubini has presences in Primera B Nacional and the Klaksvík is a professional teamDym998 (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Look at his career here https://www.transfermarkt.com/leandro-carubini/profil/spieler/525274 Dym998 https://www.futuroscracks.com/en/player/leandro_carubini/photos/3857/ (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC) here is also the match against Boca Juniors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpenj5xNm5g Dym998 (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Faroe Islands Premier League and the Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio are not fully professional leagues. Transfermarkt is not a reliable source and does not verify your claims. Also, the game against "Boca" appears to be in the Torneo de Reserva, a youth football league for reserve players. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok however, he played in the first B nacional with San Martin http://www.fichajes.com/jugador/j251802_leandro-carubini Dym998 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC) http://abrazodegolradiolp.blogspot.com/2016/12/central-cordoba-es-mi-casa.html see also this Dym998 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources have no indication that he has appeared in the Primera B Nacional. Also the second link is a blog. BDFA has no record of an appearance in the league. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

read on the blog when he says they take him to the first team in January Dym998 (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC) he also played in Serie b of Peru which is a professional league in San Simon Dym998 (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To pass WP:NFOOTBALL he must make a league appearance, not just be a part of the first team squad. You also have no sources to indicate he appeared in the Peruvian Segunda División, Soccerway has no record of him appearing in 2015. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

look at this too http://deportesluminar.blogspot.com/2015/04/san-simon-de-moquegua-2015-empezo-la.html there are also his photos, then here the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Ix29gru8E Dym998 (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to pass WP:NFOOTBALL he would of had to make a league appearance for San Simón, not just be a part of the first team squad. You have not shown he made an appearance in the league, and Soccerway does not have a record of him appearing. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bro i saw league games and he was there so it means that soccerway is not updated correctly Dym998 (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though you have not provided a reliable source to support this. Unless this can be sourced the article fails NFOOTY. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I cannot locate any sources which confirm he played in the Argentine Primera B Nacional with San Martin or in Peru's Segunda with San Simón (he did play in a pair of pre-season friendlies). Jogurney (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how can i find the games? Dym998 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC) http://deportesluminar.blogspot.com/2015/03/mas-jugadores-para-san-simon-2015.html Dym998 (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC) http://deportesluminar.blogspot.com/2015/04/segunda-division-2015-se-jugara-con-14.html Dym998 (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing i've seen leads me to believe he passes WP:GNG. Echoing the XFD creator, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Josalm64rc (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Comments about the nominator aside, consensus exists that there is adequate coverage in reliable sources to pass notability criteria adequately. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Humphrey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:N and other notability guidelines. It is probably better suited for a site like Wikia, or another fandom. Wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of information," it is an online encyclopedia that does not need this kind of article.

Procedural keep The account who created this nom, Weird dan (talk · contribs), has this nom as their only contribution; outside of forgetting to sign the nom, that they seem to know how to work AfD already is a big red flag to me, and the nomination comes of as an WP:UGLY case of I don't like it. Please expand on the reason for nomination and declare any past accounts you may have, Weird dan, or else this is a WP:SPA account designed only to delete this article (which we wouldn't do in full any ways, as List of Gossip Girl characters exists). Nate • (chatter) 16:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely a troll account from somebody who doesn't like the character. lmao KingSkyLord (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article could definitely use work, but there appears to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to satisfy WP:Notability. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neosexual[edit]

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

This article was prodded last year but someone objected. This neologism totally fails WP:GNG and WP:NEO. The first source is a blog; the second and third are duplicates of each other. A google search finds (1) Wikipedia and mirrors, (2) a couple social scientists who coined it independently with totally different meanings, and (3) a random newspaper dating column and a copy of it. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crossroads1. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDICTIONARY —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a cellular biology meaning, relating to the parasexual cycle. Actual science, and utterly unrelated to the content at hand, of course. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Watts Jr[edit]

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

WP:N not well-established and relies heavily on a PR, coatrackie, potential BLP vio ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:AUTHOR. I ran proquest newspaper searches on his name with and with "jr", with keywords "prison" and "drug dealer" and found nothing. Launching a writing career while serving time for drug dealing is admirable, but we need sources, and those now on the page do not suffice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding much in my BEFORE (I also search for "John Boy Watts" which seems to be the form he's running with). I couldn't verify he authored 39 books as our article currently claims (e.g. Amazon - usually accurate for contemporary books - doesn't show anything close to that). The two books listed in the article seem to be self-published.Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being friends with Ice T and writing a lot of books while in prison (while its good he apparently turned a new leaf) doesn't grant him auto notability (ecspecially since his publishing company isn't notable). Josalm64rc (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not met at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a fairly deep search of this subject and the subject's works, I could not find WP:RS. In addition the books look to be self published. This also is starting to look like WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Narayan[edit]

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

Insufficient establishment of notability. He created a single Indian TV show and he produced one other thing. Big deal. There are tons of guys like him in every TV market. I can't find any significant coverage of him. Here are some sample articles from Google News: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 15:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hamme[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who made a total of 2 substitute's appearances (totaling less than 90 minutes of play) in France's fully-pro Ligue 2. Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage in English- and French-language sources is routine (database entries or transfer announcements). Jogurney (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 15:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 15:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 15:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 15:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG massively, so technically scraping by on WP:NFOOTBALL does not matter. Giant Snowman 07:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NFOOTBALL. The criteria in the policy/guide does not reflect consensus. Until it is rewritten I have to vote that the player played in a fully pro league and satisfies the requirements. The only wiggle room I see is the word "Generally" in number 2 of NFOOTBALL. 2. Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – searches not coming up with any significant coverage to meet GNG. – Levivich 03:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It should be obvious that (a) the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources is fundamental to wikipedia and moreso in the case of biographies of living persons, (b) there is no coverage in reliable sources of this footballer at all, and (c) making two substitute appearances isn't some kind of free pass around the requirement for reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: To an ivoter like myself who uses WP:POLICY to guide, it appears that a handful of editors on these Footy AfDs have decided to come up with their own delete rationale which is not based on any policy. For instance: saying a player must meet both NFOOTBALL snd GNG to have an article is counter to policy. The actual policy is the subject must either meet GNG or the subject specific NFOOTBALL. My question is: why have we not codified this change in notability for WP:NFOOTBALL so that I can vote according to policy? Until we make an official change the votes on these AfDs just seem like Jury Nullification. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not say that. It says a person is “presumed” notable if they meet NFOOTY. A presumption is not a guarantee. The GNG is the most important guideline because it ensures our articles are verifiable: a core wikipedia principle. It is doubly important for biographies of living persons. —Mkativerata (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

So the question: if there is an un-codified delete rationale, why aren't we changing the policy. Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: “presumed”. If a person meets NFOOTY but there’s no coverage in reliable sources, we are entitled to, and in most cases should, rebut the presumption. That’s why we have AFD: to discuss; not to rule. —Mkativerata (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the next sentence after what you quoted in WP:N is: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Also see, WP:NBIO#Additional criteria (... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.), WP:ATHLETE (... the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.), and a many past AfDs, most recently [11] and [12]. – Levivich 04:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not cited policy. This is an simply information WP:NBIO#Additional criteria and here it is complete. People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. ....a handful of editors who vote on these Footy AfDs have determined that NFOOTBALL subjects must pass additional standards - this is not in any policy that I can find. There are many examples of the contradictory policies/guidelines however on this subject I cannot find one. Additional hurdles are occasionally applied to actors. If an actor has not been in the news, some editors determine that they do not qualify. The actual policy for NFOOTBALL is clear, and all here agree that the subject passes that subject specific criteria, yet ivoters here and at other AfDs have set up additional hurdles. I think we should modify NFOOTBALL rather than ivote against policy. I will not waste any more of the editor's time on this, it is just my reading of policy. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under what definition of "policy" is WP:NFOOTBALL a policy, but WP:ATHLETE is not a policy? – Levivich 17:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Wales B rugby union tour in North America[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

These are not senior rugby union tours. No caps were awarded by Wales, and the matches against the United States, Canada and Spain are not counted as test matches by the WRU. – Pee Jay 14:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Wilson (director)[edit]

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

Unnotable individual. Won a non-profit called IDA's documentary film award. IDA's own article is written like an ad. I BLPPRODDED this under the belief that imdb is not sufficient as a standalone source but it was removed. Therefore, I am nominating it here. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his own website [13] claims that he has won multiple notable awards, including Emmy's. However, I have been unable to verify that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a BLP lacking any reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kelly (musician)[edit]

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

Notability, not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not show him passing any criteria for the notability of musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable as a musician and I don't think the coverage is sufficient to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Keep has the numerical majority, but the arguments offered for it don't seem especially convincing even after two relists, so I'm going to split the difference on this one. RL0919 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Matchmaker (2018 film)[edit]

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

Was deprodded with a rather lengthy rationale (which actually doesn't have a basis in WP guidelines), but no improvements. Winner of some minor awards, but meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit disingenuous to ask for edits when the critique is that the subject is a priori not notable. My rationale was this (lengthy or not, it is my rationale and should be considered): "I think you are missing the fact that this is a short film - short film are not generally commercially released, their importance is inherently determined by 1. the festival circuit, 2. awards, 3. the cast and creators. This film has a highly notable cast, won awards, and has notable screenwriter and director, and would/should be listed in their respective filmographies." Um, less than two lines, not so lengthy after all... So let me then go on a bit: Notability guidelines are guidelines, not congressional legislation to be interpreted by the supreme court. There is no claim that the guidelines are exhaustive. They give some firm criteria for inclusion, but no firm criteria for exclusion. A film that won awards, was widely selected by popular film festivals, was made by notable filmmakers, and acted in by notable cast is IMO notable, and if there is any room for doubt it should be decided on in favor of inclusion. It isn't a homemade film or student film or some other negligible work, and moreover, it is very likely that such a unique film on romantic relationships among the elderly will be screened and re-screened over the years, and studied and included in academic research. TMagen (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are other ways that notability could be established for a short film - per WP:GNG, if independent reliable publications had written decent reviews of the film, it would certainly be notable. I'm not sure about some of the author's other arguments for notability. Certainly, notability is not inherited - it doesn't matter whether the cast and creators are notable. I don't know how would determine notability from the festival circuit - unless the argument is that every short film screened at a notable film festival is automatically notable, which would also seem to be covered by WP:NINI. That leaves the question of awards - if independent media picked up and reported on the film winning the awards, I'd agree that it made them notable, but I'm not seeing that. I've come down on delete, but could be swayed if anyone can dig up either a couple of proper reviews of the film, or significant coverage of it winning the awards - I looked, but didn't see anything. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add as an afterthought that TMagen's point about the film being studied and included in academic research would certainly make it notable - as soon as independent sources are written about it, it will pass GNG - but that doesn't appear to have happened yet from what I can see. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to look up the reference to notability being inherited, since I didn't read the justification that way... And it turns out I was probably right, because this was not the argument. The justification, as I see it, is that ALL the makers (writer, director, main cast and others) are notable (not just notable - famous, some described as legendary), making the film one that stands out, not that "if the poet is notable any poem she writes is notable". Also pointing out that the caution linked to in the argument confirms that this is not a content guideline. Similarly, the film festival justification has nothing to do with inheriting from the festival's notability, but rather pointing out that it is an official selection at a rather large number of festivals. That is a testament to notability for a short film. These are not festivals at which directors pay to screen, but rather in which they compete to get selected.

In addition, there are independent sources about this film. No, they aren't the New York Times, but then, that isn't required. I'm sure there are more:

Plus many of the reviews in the film festival context are independent reviews, not just the distributor's blurb. I also agree with TMagen's point about notability guidelines being very clear that they are not comprehensive regarding inclusion, and that the guidelines give examples, and an article can be notable for additional reasons. I think that when a film has this much going for it, it does not fall into any categories of "What Wikipedia is not", and is supported by references, there needs to be a strong reason to delete it, and there isn't one here. Tempest 88 (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I'm not convinced on the strength of those sources - they look like part of the publicity drive for the film.

TV Writer Sy Rosen talks about his short film 'The Matchmaker' - this is an interview with the film's writer - a primary source, and very much part of him 'doing the rounds' and publicising his work.
Comedy short-film premiers in Renton mobile home park This is a report in the local press about a visit by the film's writer, with accompanying screening of the film, to a retirement home. It scarcely mentions the film itself, it's about the visit of a famous person to a local retirement home. Not significant coverage - not really coverage at all.
Alliance of Women Directors This is literally a directory listing for film's director. Not significant, not independent.
Age Friendly Discussion Groups A local free newspaper for the over 55s reporting on its own award. Not that the film won the award - just that there will be a free screening of the film at the awards ceremony. Note - the film's writer also writes a column for this newspaper. Not significant coverage of the film, plus not independent due to the writer's association with the paper.
Television morning show Local TV station interviews film's writer. Primary source, same as the first one.
Sy Rosen Is Coming to Town Local newspaper reports on visit of film's writer (who writes a column for the paper) to the town, including interview with writer and a few paragraphs puffing the film. Not independent, primary.

If any actually independent, secondary sources can be found writing giving this film significant coverage, I genuinely would be willing to change my opinion - I've got no axe to grind against this film. All that I can find, and that has been presented so far, is coverage in very minor local press about the publicity drive for the film - no-one seems even to have written a proper review of it. (I don't consider a blurb connected to the showing times at a film festival to be a proper review - they're selling tickets, so not independent.) I don't need it to be the NYT or LAT, but it has to be actual coverage of the film, written in a paper that isn't associated with the writer of the film, or by a festival which is selling tickets to see it.

At the end of the day, we don't really decide what's notable - independent sources do that, and we follow them. If independent sources haven't written about this, we shouldn't be deciding off our own backs that it's notable, and using a bunch of primary/dependent sources to write an article. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OK Tempest, you won me over! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Tempest. We should keep this article. KingSkyLord (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been open for a while now, and while I recognise that the nom and I are in a minority here, I just want to point out FWIW that there haven't yet been any actual policy-based arguments in favour of keeping this article, or any independent secondary refs identified that give it significant coverage. I just had another look to see if I could find any that would allow me to change my vote, but I'm still not seeing them. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Marrero[edit]

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

Non-notable political staffer and former candidate for a municipal position. Does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG. There are also SPA/COI concerns, as the photos included in this article are all the initial editor's own work.

Previously nominated for PROD by me, dePROD by brand new editor LorenzMa, who added a citation to a mere mention in a newspaper article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable politcal staffer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable publicist. Simply being named as a spokesman is not enough to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOL and there is nothing here to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 15:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN . Couldn't find anything to show he is meets WP:GNG. Josalm64rc (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Shila[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still no evidence of notability as per the last AFD, most if not all of these sources existed then, as did the award nomination which also did nothing for notability. I don't know if it's WP:TOOSOON or what, but she still fails WP:NACTOR as per the sources below and analysis in the last discussion.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://m.theindependentbd.com//post/135778	These are basically the written equivalent of sound bytes	?	Nothing substantial mostly an interview.	✘ No
https://dailyasianage.com/news/107000/shirin-shila--has-her-hands-full-with--films		?	I don't consider other sources rehashed to meet any of the criteria of independent, in-depth or significant coverage. This has the exact same title and is more or less the same. It's a rehashed press-release.	✘ No
https://www.jagonews24.com/m/lifestyle/news/78943			Per mar11's findings last go-round	✘ No
https://m.ntvbd.com/entertainment/244653/%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%9C%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%96%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE		?	Per mar11's findings last go-round, this is 40% copied from other press releases	✘ No
https://www.prothomalo.com/entertainment/article/801727		?	It's an interview from the subject herself, so in no way is this significant coverage.	✘ No
http://www.ntvbd.com/entertainment/42787/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4-%E0%A6%93-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF-%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C%E0%A6%BF				? Unknown
http://www.ntvbd.com/entertainment/42787/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4-%E0%A6%93-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF-%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C%E0%A6%BF	Interview mixed with a press release	?		✘ No
http://web.dailyjanakantha.com/details/article/182257/%E0%A7%A7-%E0%A6%8F%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B2-%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF-%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9A%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%9B%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%9C%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%A0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE/print/	Press release/film announcement	?	see above	✘ No
http://www.ntvbd.com/entertainment/43651/%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%93-%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A1%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B2-%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BE	This appears to be another press release masquerading as an article	?		✘ No
http://www.bhorerkagoj.com/print-edition/2016/03/30/82277.php	another film announcement	?		✘ No
http://web.dailyjanakantha.com/details/article/366151/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%82%E0%A6%97%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%A4-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%80-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AB%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BE/print/		Their editorial staff is a single gmail account, this doesn't have the required integrity we require for RS		✘ No
https://m.risingbd.com/entertainment/news/272541/%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AB%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%A4%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BE				? Unknown
https://www.jagonews24.com/m/entertainment/news/445814	Labelled press release			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Praxidicae (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 08:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 08:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 08:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references I have added all are collected from National Level dailies (Prothom Alo, Janakantha, Bhorer Kagoj, The Independent, The Asian Age) and television's website (NTV) except risingbd and jagonews).The owners of jagonews (owner PRAN-RFL Group) and risingbd (owner Walton Group) are notable business group in Bangladesh. As far as we know, those who have acted multiple notable films in notable roles, they are notable. For her first film Hitman she was nominated for 'Best Newcomer' category in a major award ceremony of Bangladesh. She has notable role in that film. The main star of the film was Shakib Khan (National Award winning actor) who can be called the biggest superstar in Dhallywood right now without any doubt. Her next film was Khoniker Valobasa where he has acted with Joy Chowdhury. Her third and fourth films are Mia Bibi Raji and Mon Jane Na Moner Thikana. Mon Jane Na Moner Thikana was a multi-starrer film. In the link of Janakantha (Janakantha is the sixth most circulated newspaper of Bangladesh.) that I have provided in the article her name was listed in the fifth position among the list of actors/actresses . He was placed after Mousumi (National Award Winning Actress), Pori Moni, Razzak (National Award winning actor, known as 'King Hero Razzak'),Ferdous Ahmed (Another National Award Winning Actor). The film was made under Impress Telefilms. In her film Mia Bibi Raji with introducing Sumit. Misha Sawdagor had done the negative role who is a National Award winning actor.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter who owns them, they're interviews and press releases and not a single one is actually independent coverage OF her. Praxidicae (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When a person works in multiple notable films in notable charecter, the person will be notable according to Wikipedia. In this article of Prothom Alo about current condition of Bangladeshi Film Industry (Prothom Alo is the second most circulated newspaper of Bangladesh.) her name was mentioned in the same sentence with Zayed Khan, Airin Sultana and Mishti Jannat.(In that article total 19 names of actors and actreesses were mentioned.)--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.She has acted in notable films, a rather limited number of them, but she was not the lead and there is no evidence her roles were notable. Her name was mentioned in a long list of actors, that is not evidence of notability. I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding of notability guidelines, she needs independent and reliable coverage which the article does not show.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Hitman, she was nominated for Meril Prothom Alo Awards with Mishti Jannat, Sabila Nur and Tanjin Tisha. The category was 'Best Newcomer Actor/Acress'. If she didn't have notable role in that film, she wouldn't be nominated for the award. If any notable British magazine writes article about current condition of British politics, they can mention the names of Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbin in the same sentence. But, they will not mention the names of a local politician and a national level politician in the same sentence. In this article of Bangladesh Pratidin (Bangladesh Pratidin is the most circulated newspaper of Bangladesh.) about the release of Khoniker Valobasa, a picture of the film was attached. In that photograph she was with an actor.In this article and in this article, it was metioned that, she was the heroine and Joy Chowdhury was the hero in Khoniker Bhalobasa. According to this source of bdnews24.com(bdnews24.com is in the 21st position among Bangladeshi website alexa ranking.) and this source of Prothom Alo (Prothom Alo is the second most circulated newspaper of Bangladesh.) she has acted as twin sister of Pori Moni in multi-starrer Mon Jane Na Moner Thikana. And according to NTV (national level Television's website) she was heroine and acted with introducing Sumit in Mia Bibi Raji. Misha Sawdagor (National Award winning actor) had acted in the film too.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recommend creating a Bengali language page for this actress, but English references do not support notability. PhobosIkaros ✉ 22:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Language does not matter for deleting an article in English Wikipedia. There are many articles on English Wikipedia, where you may not find their notablity in English sources, but according to their own languages' sources, they are notable.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shirin Shila Nominated Meril Prothom Alo Award --— Delwar • 21:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being nominated for an award does not make anyone notable. Praxidicae (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable person. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a person acts in multiple notable films' significant roles, the person will be notable according to Wikipedia.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject is notable. Possible name or content changes can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Czech diaspora in Israel[edit]

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

Unreferenced article, seemingly pure original research GreyShark (dibra) 12:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this would be an interesting topic, there are a couple of interesting news stories on the web. I would be inclined to keep if the list of names was removed and an actual article created. Govvy (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But as long as that is not the case, I support the deletion nomination. By the way, it was decided in a large Rfc that we don't usually have a collage of people as image in the infobox of articles about ethnic groups. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can be sourced. A list of notable people in Category:Israeli people of Czech-Jewish descent meets WP:LISTBIO - discussed as set, notable members. The list of settlements probably also passes SAL.Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewiz, do you realize that all of the article contents fail to meet Czech diaspora criteria (neither ethically as all entries are not Czechs, nor nationally since Czech Republic is a recently created state)? Note that there is no other article of this kind referring to Jews in Israel as diaspora of other countries.GreyShark (dibra) 20:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olim/immigration per country articles could be created (and we do have some - e.g. Ethiopian Jews in Israel). Czech vs. Czechoslovakia is a title issue (and I will note that the Jewish commmunity is usually discussed on Czech or Bohemian lines - the short lived (Divided again during the Holocaust, finally divided in 1993) Czechoslovakia is a less relevant division for the Jewish community. I could see the title changing - e.g. Czech Jews in Israel - however the topic is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Czechoslovakian Jews in Israel. Lack of sources and switching from list to prose can be addressed. The relevant category for this kind of article is Category:Israeli Jews by national origin, which includes many examples. Although the proposed title includes the generic Czech diaspora, from the content it seems clear that it is discussing Jews. ~~I wouldn't go with~~ I don't prefer Czech Jews in Israel because most or all arrived during a time when this was not the country of origin name. Still, there also exist Slovakian Jews; and while being forced to create Slovakian Jews in Israel at some point might be a bit excessive, this is also a viable option since current articles in WP support this division. Havradim (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rename Czech Jews in Israel. Legit topic, needs better coverage of the several waves of aliyah from the Czech lands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a source for "Czech Jews" in Israel? Sounds like an anachronistic attempt to rebrand Ashkenazi Jews from Bohemia and later Czechoslovakia. None of them probably identify Czech.GreyShark (dibra) 16:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Greyshark said what I was thinking, I don't think the title Czech Jews in Israel would work. Govvy (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no real opinion on the deletion issue, but if we want to give a more geographically/historically neutral name for the area we could use Czech lands, which applies whatever the current country is called. Something like Jews from the Czech lands in Israel. Maybe that doesn't parse very well. Jdcooper (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Slovakia is not a "Czech land".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My hesitation is that Czechoslovakia is not invented until 1918, by which point Zionist movements had been flourishing in Prague and Bratislava for 2 decades, and up until which point the Czech and Slovak regions, while both Hapsburg possessions, had not been ruled as a unit. Nor is it the identity of Jews in central Europe in the first half of the 20th century simple. Among secularists in Czech communities, most notably Prague, some Jews became enthusiastic Czech nationalists, while others hoped that the Hapsburgs would hold it together. In economically undeveloped, agrarian Slovakia nationalism had not really arrived (except Hungarian nationalism,) and the Jews of Bratislava were Habsburg Jews, but not particularly identified with German, Hungarian or Slovak nationalism. This makes the whole question of how to describe Jews from Central Europe difficult. One option would be to have separate pages according to modern national borders, Jews from Slovakia, Jews from Czech lands. There is no perfect solution; if there was, Metternich and Castlereagh would have found it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Re-title Czech and Slovak Jews in Israel. I guess you could also add Bohemians in Mandatory Palestine while you are at it, but let's keep it simple. XavierItzm (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - considering the population of ethnic Czechs in Israel being negligible and perhaps just a few dozen Jews from Czechia, there is a real problem of notability for such an article. We cannot create an article on 20 people with no real notability, no sources and no content. Most of the current contents of "Czech diaspora in Israel" article have nothing to do with Czech diaspora (instead emphasizing Jewish diaspora), speaking of pre-Czech Republic history of Czechoslovakian Jews and Bohemian Jews from Austro-Hungarian Empire. It is a little bit like naming Anatolian Greeks who fled Anatolia on Turkic conquest as "Turkish diaspora".GreyShark (dibra) 14:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a title issue. The Jewish community of Prague was rather large, and there are at the very least tens of thousands of greater-Prague (or whatever you wanna call it - hewiki rolls with "Czech Jews") Jews (and descendants) in Israel - including several wikiNotable ones.Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark, this is why I suggested Bohemians in Mandatory Palestine. Could simplify to Bohemians in Palestine, perhaps? XavierItzm (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would probably fail COMMONNAME, as Bohemians in Israel (and Tel-Aviv in particular) more commonly refers to those who practice (or are ascribed to practice) Bohemianism than those from actual Bohemia.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the name of Category:Israeli people of Czech-Jewish descent, and naming this page Israeli people of Czech-Jewish descent would work, as would Israeli people of Slovakian-Jewish descent (that would mostly be folks ffrom Pressbug/Bratislava). One problem is that many of the pages involved note only that the individuals named came from "Czechoslovakia".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are trying to go in the wrong direction here. The aim of the page Czech diaspora in Israel is similar to Dutch people in Israel and Kurds in Israel. It has nothing to do with Jews of certain origin (Jews are Judean diaspora, not Czech, Dutch or Kurdish or anything). The fact the whole page is describing people like Tzvi Ashkenazi from 17th century Habsburg Moravia who settled in Ottoman Syria and later Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth implies this content a pure original research in regard to modern Czechia and Israel, so trying to fit it to another title is a futile thought.GreyShark (dibra) 09:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemians and Moravians in Ottoman Syria has a nice ring to it. Perhaps the page ought to be temporally divided, so old European émigrés to Syria Palæstina might be Bohemians, etc., and the Promised Land would be called Syria, Palestine, Israel, etc., etc., as per the pertinent time to each European immigrant. XavierItzm (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "ethnic Czech" and explain why being "ethnic Czech" (whatever on earth that may be) is mutually exclusive with being Jewish. Do you advance the view that to be Czech you have to be "ethnic Czech" as well? Are Czech citizens of Ethiopian, Mongolian, German, Romani, or Vietnamese descent not "truly Czech" under this understanding? Czech is a nationality and a culture, not just an "ethnicity", and I am highly disturbed by the attempt to racialize Czech identity and exclude Czech Jews and other Czech minorities from a concept of Czech cultural or national identity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This particular editor has making numerous racist edits involving Jewish-related articles, destructively removing information regarding Jews in the diaspora. His particular racist angle seems to be that a Jewish person cannot be an "ethnic Czech" (whatever that is) or a Czech at all, that a Jew cannot belong to a diaspora culture, ethnicity, or nationality. Seemingly, there is no such thing as a "Russian Jew" or a "German Jew" in this editor's perspective. This is a highly biased point of view, one which many Jews wouldn't even agree with. I suggest that he or she stop vandalizing articles to push his/her controversial, racist worldview. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Marine Corps Intelligence. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Corps Intelligence Command[edit]

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

Reason HerrBlaumeise (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC) The information is not verifiable.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can find a couple of weak sources, e.g. [14], [15]. I reckon the best solution is a merge with Marine Corps Intelligence, to include this history of this earlier organisation. Hug^syrup 11:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Marine Corps Intelligence. An odd first contribution for User:HerrBlaumeise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Ware[edit]

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

Biography of a person who does not meet WP:GNG and doesn't fall within any of the more specific notability categories - the most applicable one is probably WP:NAUTHOR but that is also not met. All sources are primary and I cannot find any secondary sources that discuss her in any significant depth or detail. The title would be a plausible redirect to the article about her husband (Joseph F. Ware Jr.) which mentions her, but there is no content in this article that would need to be merged.

Note also that the subject of the article has asked to have it deleted; that's not sufficient reason if clear notability exists, but again, I don't see that notability does exist independently of her husband. bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and insufficient standalone sourcing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. TheEditster (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I don't see a need to redirect to Campus_of_Virginia_Tech#Joseph_F._Ware,_Jr._Advanced_Engineering_Lab. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any notability measure that the subject passes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete putting up the money to found a specific lab setup in a university is almost never alone sign of notability, and that is all I see here. I would say this article should be speedy deleted because it seems to really violate the privacy of the non-public figure living person who is the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT #1 as the nominator has withdrawn in order to carry out the redirect. Any issues/objections to the redirect - take them to the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Hug^syrup 10:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Bray Poetry Award[edit]

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

The info on this page is actually incorrect (awards are biennial, and the one listed is 2010), the link is dead and the award is covered at Adelaide_Festival_Awards_for_Literature#John_Bray_Poetry_Award. Can I just convert this into a redirect? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can, or at least you could have - it didn't need to come to AFD for you to do so, but now that it's here you've arguably made things a bit harder for yourself! If I were you, I'd withdraw this nomination and close it as Speedy Keep under WP:SKCRIT criteria 1, and then boldly implement the redirect as you suggest it. (As an aside, dead links and incorrect info are not a reason for either deletion or redirection. However, I can find little to no coverage for this, so the proposed redirect makes sense to me. Let's just avoid waiting this out for seven days for no good reason) Hug^syrup 09:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks Hugsyrup. (I was actually in the process of doing that when I had second thoughts, not being sure of the procedure in this kind of case.) I'll have to follow up your advice when I get back to my computer shortly, because my tablet doesn't make it easy! Yes, it's more that it's such a minor award, part of a group and more likely to be kept up to date on that page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Sorry, but I still can't seem to find instructions on how to withdraw it... Is there something I need to do here? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll close this for you as you've said you're happy to withdraw it. Hug^syrup 10:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Ideami[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Javier Ideami (2nd nomination)

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

As far as I can tell, the subject is not notable. On Google or Google News I cannot find any substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. The article was written by Ideami himself and reads as self-promotion. The previous AfD was withdrawn (for what are to me unclear reasons) and did not actually establish notability here. GooseUser (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GooseUser (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 11:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 11:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page is promotional. I cannot find good sources in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a self-promotional article (the subject deleted their admission of this on the talk page). Does not meet notability criteria. I searched on Google Books (subject has a self-published primary source book which does not count); nothing on JSTOR, NYT, Google Scholar, etc. The exhibitions and festivals and awards are not notable or come up 404. The "companion" article Ideami seems to be a mirror of this one, and perhaps should also be nominated for deletion. There are no notable museum shows, museum collections, in-depth reviews, etc. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity article, failing basic criteria for BLP notability, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotion. Probably written by himself. (No surprise—it was.) Trillfendi (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source Financial[edit]

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

There are a few sources that are reliable, however they doesn't seems to be referring to business or covering them in-depth. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A number of the articles used for references here are directly and specifically about Source Financial and the work its founder, Michelle Smith, is doing. See here and here and here. And then the news specifically related to recent partnerships here and here. These are reliable, independent sources and seems to clear WP:GNG. Longliveliterature! (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately none of these sources pass WP:SIGCOV. The FlairIndex and WSJ are based on interviews (not secondary/independent coverage), ThinkAdvisor is not about the company (WP:INHERITORG), the NYT is a passing mention and the InsuranceNewsNet is a Press Release. Pegnawl (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vast majority of sources are about the founder Michelle Smith and mention her business only in passing. There are some that focus on the business, but they appear to be either mere listings or "business-as-usual" type reports/churnalism. Some seem "bloggy", so probably not sufficiently reliable. I don't see a strong base for GNG or NCORP. As it is this article fails both IMO, however if substantial editorial coverage about the company can be identified, it may just about pass. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient in-depth coverage to meet the criteria of WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2003 in Australia. And to the other respective yearly articles. Sandstein 07:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2003 Australian incumbents[edit]

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

Are these list articles useful? There are 6 of them for Australia, covering 2003 through 2008. Nothing links to them and they are mostly redundant snapshots.

Other lists in this set with similar content:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2003 in Australia, 2004 in Australia, 2005 in Australia, 2006 in Australia, 2007 in Australia, 2008 in Australia - which largely duplicates the content of the nominated articles. Anything not included in these articles can be merged there. Bookscale (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge per Bookscale. I'm not sure all the content needs to be merged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that there are also sets of these for the UK (1976–2006) and Canada (1867 and 1979–2010), as well as for international organizations (2003–2017). Raymie (t • c) 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2003 in Australia, I guess it can be merged there. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on what nominator states: "Are these list articles useful?" - yep, if you're interested in OZ political history, "There are 6 of them for Australia..." - you're right, thats not enough as we could have one for each year or have say lists covering a period of years, "Nothing links to them" - incorrect, they link to each other, and the relevant "[Year] in OZ" article, more links could be added from each person that is listed if required, "and they are mostly redundant snapshots" - they are historical snapshots so of course they can be said to be "redundant", from what the nominator has stated this looks like a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT ie. no WP policy/guideline based reasoning provided for deletion, only criticism of the articles, anyway, with that little rant out of the way, agree that these should probably be merged to the relevant year in Oz articles as although there may not be any sources available (so no WP:GNG), it is the sort of information expected to be found on WP, and the added information will not cause those articles to be unwieldly. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately this discussion boils down to the very simple question of whether there is sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant keeping the article. The two sources which were at the forefront of the discussion were the Nintendo Life and Super Play articles, which as User:FOARP and User:David Fuchs demonstrated, do not provide the level of coverage required to establish notability. The !votes in favour of keeping the article argued primarily that the lack of sources was not an issue (or rather, was to be expected) due to the age of the publication, citing the essay WP:NMAG. However, this essay does not trump the notability policy, which requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable independent sources. The consensus, as I interpret it, is that the few sources available do not represent this level of coverage, and consequently that the article does not – in its current state – meet the requirements for inclusion.Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Brain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines for periodicals, as it has not received significant coverage from a reliable source. The vast majority of the sources are random blogs and archived magazines. Also, why is this article a good article nominee? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails WP:GNG. Might be an ok source to use, but not notable for an article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ed g2s. This was in the pre-web era. Its web footprint is thus small. The quality of the magazine far exceeded the scale of its distribution, so it was never widespread. However small and obscure doesn't mean non-notable. When, a decade later, "Do you remember Electric Brain? (and, to be fair, Super Play)" was a shibboleth within the Future offices for "Are you really an old-school gamer?", then that's having had the sort of long-term, mythic influence which is the hallmark of a fanzine worth recording. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - The issue here is this is a WP:DEFUNCTNEWS publication, so the essay-level criteria of the notability guidelines for periodicals should be applied with caution. Whilst I'm not sure it was as ground-breakingly early as Andy Dingley makes out (1989 was hardly the dawn of the games era for anyone who played 8-bit), it was an early publication and you shouldn't expect support in academic journals or whatever. If a couple of supporting references in RS could be found I could see myself voting keep. Problem is, there ain't none. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not early as a games magazine, my point is that it's pre-web, so it didn't make much of a footprint on the web today, hence easily visible for WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there still has to be some RS sourcing... and there isn't FOARP (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the RS are Nintendo Life, Super Play, at least. —Flicky1984 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But they didn't give significant coverage to *the magazine* FOARP (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article hasn't changed since the original deletion nomination, so I don't know on what grounds this is being relisted. ed g2s • talk 12:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The close wasn't Keep, it was no-consensus. The grounds for deletion are the same as before (fails WP:GNG) but there will inevitably be different editors up in the mix so we can't assume the same result will occur, and though I don't want this article to be deleted I can't see any way of keeping it given the lack of WP:SIGCOV in RS. FOARP (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Andy Dingley and Ed g2s. Justification being WP:DEFUNCTNEWS and WP:NPERIODICAL (Non-contemporary periodicals). Reading the page, the magazine has ties with notable people, publications and organisations, had a longer run than many of its contemporaries, heavily influenced Super Play (FOARP see the cites in the article about how the Electric Brain coverage of Japanese-import-gaming was a bug influence, resulting in poaching of Jason Brookes), and was home to the first English translation of a now historically significant interview with Shigeru Miyamoto. Anyway I think that's more than enough to warrant a keep. The only things against this magazine I can think of is that it had regional distribution in the UK so anybody from elsewhere likely didn't encounter it at the time, or since, and of course the fact that it was pre-internet and so it has a small footprint online. Neither of these would mean a delete for me. I'd encourage anybody reading this to also read the previous AFD from where I gleaned this information. Over the course of the first AfD the article was improved substantially, so I'm at a loss as to why this has been relisted. —Flicky1984 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But we still need RS coverage *of the magazine* to pass WP:GNG, which we don't have. We have listings in various archives, blogs, reprints of articles etc. I too am motivated to keep this article - but not to the point of ignoring the need to have RS WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that this situation is more nuanced. A quick refresher shows we have at least 2 RS in SuperPlay and Nintendo Life, plus WP:DEFUNCTNEWS and WP:NPERIODICAL (Non-contemporary periodicals), as well as the ISSN and the holdings at the British Library. I’d also say that we have WP:NOTTEMPORARY in that the publication received significant coverage at the time of its run, shown in the various historic magazine scans, and - for me - that is enough for WP:SIGCOV and would seem to negate your concerns. —Flicky1984 (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is significant coverage *of the magazine*, The only article on Nintendo Life that even mentions Electric Brain is their re-print of the Shigeru Miyamoto interview which simply mentions that it was from Electric Brain without discussing the magazine any further, although in reality this was just a Famitsu article that Electric Brain had translated (and so not really an indication of notability). The Superplay article is not about Electric Brain, and gives it only the briefest mention: "Readers may remember Onn Lee's previous fanzine, Electric Brain, which acheived national newsstand circulation after being bough out by a company called Space City Communications, SCC went into liquidation 3 issues later alas, but we're happy to see that Onn hasn't lost his enthusiasm for the games scene" (see page 19 here). It is very hard to see this one-sentence mention as significant coverage of the subject. At most this is simply evidence that Electric Brain existed, not that it was notable, and existence does not prove notability. The ISSN and the British Library holdings are also not an indication of publicity because they hold many records that are not, by themselves, notable. FOARP (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't agree the sourcing provided meets WP:SIGCOV. To discuss the sources brought up above, the Nintendo Life article is talking about Super Play, so the subject in question is Super Play, not Electric Brain; the article does not appear to mention Electric Brain at all, if I'm not mistaken. The claim Electric Brain was the final name for the multi-platform magazine, and with it came a publisher and high street distribution is cited to the ISSN portal, which does not support the assertion made. I find the reference to Electric Brain in Super Play #23 pretty minor (it's mostly talking about Onn Lee and the new magazine). Weak references to assert its notability includes random "wanted" ads from a user-submitted part of other magazines. WP:DEFUNCTNEWS is an essay and has no power to invoke here, and even then there's been no substantial demonstration of its legacy such an evidence-based keep would require. It's great all these people keep turning up to talk about how important it was, but at present the article doesn't prove it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Props for taking the time to review the sources. Just a few counter points... There are two Nintendo Life cites, each alongside the references they support. The first, cited in reference to Jason Brookes, is about SuperPlay and how they took the Otaku vibe from Electric Brain (EB) by poaching/employing him. The second, cited under Shigeru Miyamoto Interview, is about how EB had the first English translation (by 20+ years fwiw) of a now historically significant interview. The reference in SuperPlay #23 is a very effusive if somewhat short history of EB and its editor, which shows the esteem in which EB was held at the time and IMHO supports WP:NOTTEMPORARY (and, sorry to disagree, I think WP:DEFUNCTNEWS); it also confirms that EB had national circulation which I think is a better reference for that than the ISSN (good point) so I will make that edit. —Flicky1984 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does being the first EN-language mag to translate an interview that was done by another mag indicate notability? How does an article that mention Jason Brookes (not Electric Brain at all, just a guy who wrote for them) indicate that Electric Brain is notable? How does a one-sentence mention of Electric Brain in an article about something else amount to significant coverage?

I get that people want to keep an article about this mag. If someone were to propose my childhood favourite, Crash for deletion, I'd be voting to save it, but there just isn't enough in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources -at least in as much as what I have been able to find and see in the article- to sustain the notability of this article. FOARP (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment in the previous AFD. --Izno (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lamm[edit]

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

Not notable outside of his companies, lacks in-depth references. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks in-depth references only a few mentions. - Best Blake44 (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phanindra Sama[edit]

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

Lacks RS, fails WP:GNG, most of the sources are for his company. Created by WP:UPE. Meeanaya (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best - Blake44 (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though he founded redbus.in, the platform was sold to Ibibo Group in 2013. Only then the brand was expanded to other countries. Therefore, the claims made in this BLP are unfounded. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Serie A (rugby union)[edit]

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

The season articles fail WP:GNG as a quick look gave me no hope with most of the links showing Serie A in the football sense. HawkAussie (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Jain Tinu[edit]

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

Non-notable non-elected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources do not establish independent notability. The prod was removed by the blocked author or one of their socks using an IP address. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet inclusion criteria at this time. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability criteria. Regards, --Titodutta (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheEditster (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Training director of a political party's youth wing" is not a claim of encyclopedic notability at all, and he would have to be referenced a hell of a lot better than this to clear WP:NPOL #2 for serving on a city council. What is it with all these articles about minor Indian political party apparatchiks? Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG --SalmanZ (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per @Bearcat:'s question. Recently a now-banned editor admitted to being an employee of the Bharatiya Janata Party's IT Department and that it is part of his job to update BJP member's articles, although I'm sure that they also have created a decent number of these as well. It's very possible that most of these articles on non-notable BJP party members are part of a wider promotional initiative. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abu Zaid Al Damanhury[edit]

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

"Little known" scholar according to article. Speculation about what happened to him but no substantial coverage in WP:reliable sources. Not Notable. noq (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Not notable" on purpose is "notable", even much more famous scholars lack WP:reliable sources. Did you make an effort to improve it? I just added a new citation. Someone else might pick up from where it is left.--هیوا (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For a little-known scholar he certainly picks up a lot of references in Arabic (search under ابو زيد الدمنهوري). Many of these are to websites concerned with Islamic scholarship and I'm not sufficiently familiar with this domain to know which may be reliable and which not. He seems to be something of a bete noire among orthodox scholars so his name is certainly invoked a lot. Mccapra (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While the article is not well sourced as of now, it does seem based on the extensive sources already provided that the person is at least notable. We just need to put more legwork into finding the sources to include here. I'll take a look later today and see what I can find. Michepman (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps هیوا can explain what they meant, but I think the "little known" part is not meant to be a statement about prominence, it is just saying that he was censored so heavily that many details of his life are unknown. It's perfectly compatible with notability if that's the case. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's exactly my point. I am not sure if making that clearer gets this article saved by those nominated it? هیوا (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Simoes[edit]

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

Notability concerns. This model doesn't appear to be the subject of substantial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A model that is hired by fashion agencies recognized for advertising campaigns by multinational clothing and fashion companies from different countries in different continents, in addition to appearing in articles for international fashion magazines, I believe his career is encyclopedic. See references and official accounts on social networks (Instagram, Twitter, Facebook). --Igallards7 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG lack of references. Best - Blake44 (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - terrible sourcing. Even "elite" models are not necessarily notable. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Bequia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

((Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/((SUBST:Flag of Bequia))))

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

Does not appear to be notable at all. Only source provided (and that I can find that is not a Wikipedia mirror or flag shop) has wikipedia-like administration, in that users can provide their own content without venerability. Garuda28 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bequia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE. Closest is what appears to be a blog. FOARP (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only source provided itself cites The Flag Bulletin number 218 as its own source, and indeed a quick check shows that this flag is described on page 7. Before anyone leaps to accusing Whitney Smith of being unreliable on the subject of flags, I point out that what The Flag Bulletin actually says is that the Grenadines have no official flags of their own, and this is very much an unofficial flag, ironically the Flags of the World page pointed to by this very article noting that it is merely sold as a souvenir to tourists. I do not see how we can build an article about the official flag for this island when there isn't such a thing. Moreover, it seems that the infobox on Bequia is quite misleading. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and children[edit]

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

This article is vague, poorly cited (with a lot out of primary sources), of very limited practical use and subject to repeated vandal attacks, judging by the history. There are no other articles about other religions' attitudes to children, there are main articles related to a couple of the sub-sections, and the whole thing looks pretty pointless to me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t really see a valid reason for nomination here. “Vague” is not a reason for deletion. “very limited practical use” is not a reason for deletion. “Subject to repeated vandal attacks” is most definitely not a reason for deletion. “There are main articles related to a couple of subsections”? Great! A topic related to other topics, about which more can be said.

As to things that might be reasons for deletion: ‘a lot of primary sources.’ The only primary source is the Qur’an, and since plainly the origin of Islamic thinking on children us going to be derived from that source, it makes sense to cite it in relevant places, just as there are direct scriptural quotes in Incest in the Bible. I agree that the article could be improved by reducing them and making greater use of secondary sourcing, but it does not rely entirely or predominantly on primary sources. In some cases the creating editor may have mistakenly favoured a primary citation over a secondary ref. For example, ref 7 is pretty clearly covered by ref 12, while ref 13 to a text in the qur’an is also clearly from a secondary source. These are just mistakes of editorial inexperience. Finally ‘poorly cited’. Aside from the qur’an there are thirty refs to secondary sources, illustrating the notability of the topic and the range of scholarly writing on this topic. Definitely one for improvement, not deletion. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article has a purpose in describing Islamic teaching on children. The nominator says "There are no articles about other religions' attitudes to children", but one could apply a reverse policy to the policy of "Wikipedia: Other Stuff Exists" here. There is a category "Religion and children". There may not be articles on, say, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism or Hinduism and children, but that just means we could start some. Vorbee (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Yes, there are other articles – see religion and children, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (this is obviously a legitimate subject), but please remove all claims referenced directly to Quran. This a primary source that should not be used here. Secondary sources please. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable topic that shouldn't be deleted. KingSkyLord (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a perfectly valid Family law article. I don't understand the reasons for the nomination. Removal of primary sources can be done with ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC) P.S. Palestinian law was similarly subject to edit-warring, and the subject of sanctions, but that's not a reason to delete; neither is this article so poorly written as to be blown up. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 03:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Los 20+[edit]

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

Article about a music chart in Guatemala that cites no sources and as it stands does not meet WP:GNG Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 03:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Outstanding Farmer Association[edit]

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

No significant, in-depth coverage for this NGO. Neutrality^talk 01:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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