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

The result was delete. Tone 17:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth–Yale football rivalry[edit]

Dartmouth–Yale football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another in a series of entirely-unsourced Ivy League football "rivalry" articles dating to March 2016. WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Currently there are zero supporting citations, so fails GNG. Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage").

Non-GNG callouts:

• site:newspapers.com is good for sourcing significant historical coverage
• site:nytimes.com is another
• Modify as helpful, but neither returned much for me.
• site:dartmouthsports.com yale rivalry returned some contemporary non-football matches (primary source issues aside)
• site:yalebulldogs.com dartmouth rivalry did not return much UW Dawgs (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With no sources provided, notability cannot be established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's not a contemporary rivalry by any means, but this article shows it may be a historical rivalry: [1] That being said, there's precious little else I can find, and the article is unreferenced as it is. SportingFlyer talk 12:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Ken Gallager: might be able to help find sources. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources have been provided to establish that this rivalry is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ashe[edit]

Jennifer Ashe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I find nothing whatsoever on this subject except IMDB, and since that's not a reliable source, it's a clear WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR fail. John from Idegon (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fifteen episodes of As the World Turns isn't much for a soap opera, and the rest of her credits are insignificant. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Initially tried to A7 it, was (politely) corrected based on the claim of notability. Comatmebro (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Salas[edit]

Helen Salas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:BIO1E. John from Idegon (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G4 (Regular) Delete I don’t see this as a 1E situation as she competed in two pageants 3 years apart, but regardless she doesn’t pass WP:BIO, no significant coverage in third party sources. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @CJinoz: Not a comment on the discussion, just pointing out that the content is different between the current and deleted versions. To be honest, the deleted version was far more developed than the current one (not to mention it was 3259 bytes - about 64.6% - larger). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that, I admit I overlooked that nuance of G4, although I would have assumed the content was similar enough, apparently not. I was surprised that the nomination didn't mention the previous deletion, I made the mistake of trying a friendly heads up on the nominator's talk page and got my head bitten off. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  22:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Salas meets and surpasses the notability index. Not only she won titles of significant distinction, but also gained notoriety afterward. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌
• Caballero1967, you might wish to reconsider your words here. There is nothing whatsoever in the source you proffered that indicates she's done anything to gain "notoriety", which, in case you didn't realize it, is a charged, negative word. All your source (btw, a passing mention that has no bearing on notability) verifies is that indeed, she has never won a state level pageant, which, even if she had, would also not show notability. Your words are very close to a BLP violation. John from Idegon (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you're incorrect there, she won Miss Nevada Teen USA, competed at Miss Teen USA 2004 & made the top five, assumed the Miss Nevada USA title and also made the top five at Miss USA 2007. That still doesn't mean she meets BIO but just a correction to your statement that she "never won a state level pageant". Also @Caballero1967: it wasn't Salas who gained "notoriety" it was the original winner that year Katie Rees, Salas just took over the title after she was dethroned. Article states that clearly in the only sentence about her. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  22:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @John from Idegon: Wuao! Thanks for your spirited (and perhaps condescending?) chance to expand, and @CJinoz:, for pointing to Salas’ winning of titles (which should have included the 2004 one). Btw, according to some, Salas’ notoriety in the article derives from the circumstances that led to her enthroning (a weak argument for me). Still, I think the stub article needs serious help.

• In short, 1) she holds two prominent titles (2004 Miss Teen Nevada and 2007 Miss Nevada); 2) the way she won the last title set her apart and generated buzz (e.g., “Rees was replaced by Helen Salas, who went on to earn the fourth runner-up spot at Miss USA.”); 3) her amorous experiences catapulted her again to the top of the media buzz (i.e., International Business Times and Daily Mail), plus other minor mentions. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌

• Just holding titles isn't enough to establish notability, we need significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and gossip stuff doesn't really hit either point. "Buzz" does not equal notability ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  21:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @CJinoz: I used “buzz” in a more general way than you did. And the 2017 consensus on the Daily Mail (which you linked) also notes that when combined with others, it may actually be used as a reliable source. Nevertheless, for me, the argument for deletion is faulty because there is actually significant coverage here and from reliable publications (e.g., Review-Journal, a reliable source according to this discussion).

The most important point of the argument: the news of the affair and manner in which Salas won the 2006 Miss Nevada title crossed various national and language barriers, with more examples than I care to show at this moment. And, to add to her exceptionality, she won, not one, but two titles, which generated its own media. The first point alone should satisfy WP:N and more. The rest of the buzz, is just that: buzz, in the way you used it. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌

But you still haven't provided evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you can provide that I will happily change my vote. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  01:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete short of winning Miss USA, contestants are only notable if they have some other reason to be notable, which Salas lacks, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the level of her awards does not grant inherent notability; therefore to have notability she must have significant coverage in multiple reliable publications. Since she does not, she fails the notability test of the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2018 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Her Majesty's Government Can Seriously Damage Your Health[edit]

Warning: Her Majesty's Government Can Seriously Damage Your Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album, there is no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. The editor whose username is Z0 09:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because this article could be merged and redirected to Discharge (band). No comment on notability at this time. There is, in particular, a review on AllMusic: [2]. James500 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Don't see how deletion will help. Suggest merge if better argument can be provided for deletion but that can be done without the AfD for now. desmay (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the added sources. What did nominator find when they went to the library? Sam Sailor 19:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info Prod Research[edit]

Info Prod Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very small and old article, only source is a dead link, not exactly notable. 9563rj (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Old and unsourced article. (The article has "prod" in the title! Funny) AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelia Dahlgren[edit]

Cornelia Dahlgren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced BLP about someone who participated in Swedish Idol in 2004. I can find little about her online, even about her more recent alleged recordings. Prior to her 2015 digital download album, Balun, the recordings that are more easily searchable ("That's Why I Need Ya", "Army of Men") show she was a 'featured artist' on someone else's track. This all seems to be a 'smoke and mirrors' promotion of a musician that hasn't had any success in her own right. Time for it to go, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per participation in Idol. Per acting work. Article could need some more references. But that is no reason for deletion. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was eliminated in the 3rd week of the ten week finals and there's no evidence at all of a notable acting career. Articles about participants in reality TV are routinely deleted. Sionk (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find any independent sources at all. No claim to notability in the article, and very far from meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG --bonadea contributions talk 16:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Popshop or Idol 2004. --Bensin (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not enough independent notability to pass WP:NMUSIC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Summers[edit]

Erin Summers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I do not think this individual meets WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest who has also created the article Wogrammer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Less than half a dozen passing mentions, and nothing in depth on subject. Doesn't nearly satisfy WP:GNG. ShunDream (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person has done research that contributes to the field of computer science, is a leader at a large tech company, and founded an activism organization. Her work has been cited by academic journals as well as many news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techhistwriter (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person seems to have notoriety in computer science and virtual reality, and has founded an organization that reaches many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.23 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not all about signing keep votes. You might sign 200 keep votes but 2 delete votes can still get this article deleted so there's no point having random accounts sign keep. ShunDream (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly suspicious that both the ip and Techhistwriter have since ceased editing.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- fails WP:SIGCOV, as the article's sources only mention the subject in passing. Working on a larger, more notable project does not always indicate shared notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG, and does not inherit notability from her company, which is not notable either.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just passing mentions on subjects and nothing significant. Fails WP:GNG. ShunDream (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not suspicious, life happens! Respectfully, if you open several of the articles, they directly mention Erin Summers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techhistwriter (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck-through second vote; you can comment multiple times, but can only vote once.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Will try again with better sources, inspired by how it takes even nobel peace prize winners several tries (and maybe winning an actual nobel peace prize) to get accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techhistwriter (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Cops[edit]

Paranormal Cops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seeing the article and then cleaning up the dead website sources, it has currently 0 ref sources and I am not even sure it is notable at all. Maybe this should go to a draft? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete How sad this is. I keep hearing from people "anyone can edit Wikipedia" and while it is true, not everything edited stays on Wikipedia. Someone obviously has gone to some trouble to try and write this page, and you (Jovanmilic97) to clean it up. But they are missing the basics, what citations can you offer? Can you prove it is notable? It's frustrating to see people treat Wikipedia as a website. Not having to offer evidence is so crazy. This is a show that has existed since the Internet (2010) if you have looked and can't find anything, then the citations aren't there. Therefore it needs to go. Hopefully people like Scaryspoofy1 will take heed and not waste their time. Though now I see that Scaryspoofy1 is a blocked account (It looks like because Scaryspoofy1 didn't understand non-free images and kept uploading them) and wrote this page in 2010. We have a lot of cleaning to do. Sgerbic (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The deadlinks should not have been removed. Per WP:KDL they remain the source of the information even after going offline. Besides, most of them can be retrieved through the Wayback Machine or some other archive (but they don't amount to much [3][4]). SpinningSpark 04:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Atkinson[edit]

Greg Atkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable author lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. A majority of the references are work product. reddogsix (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep is notable within the Christian community and a published author and has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. Shows in Google Scholar as being cited, is regarded as an important figure and passes WP:AUTHOR. --Barbarabcarneiro (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:PROMO, he has gotten a little coverage, Baptist News Global: ‘Secret church shopper’ reports quality of welcome determines if guests will visit a second time. but not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. However, because Greg Atkinson is such a common name (there's a chef in Seattle named Greg Atkinson who may well be notable enough to have a page,) that somebody may be able to source it. Feel free to flag me to reconsider if you think you have been able to show WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (I was flagged on my talk page and invited to revisit) Noting that the The Joplin Globe, the daily paper in the city where he is pastor of quite a large church (3 churches, a couple of thousand member - a sort of smallish megachurch). This is local coverage, WP:HEYMANN, I'd particularly need to see WP:SIGCOV of some aspect of his career in publications not located in Joplin, Missouri. User:Barbarabcarneiro, if can find such sources and want to make a really persuasive argument for notability, it would also be a really good idea to remove the WP:PROMO from the page. This includes both the ADVERT tone, and a good deal of the content. A good rule of thumb is: if you can't source it to WP:RS (2 such sources per fact or accomplishment are preferable,) it doesn't belong on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• E.M.Gregory I'll work on rewriting it later today. Could you please check the new sources? I've added two from Baptist News and one from Christianity Post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarabcarneiro (talk • contribs) 17:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Christian Post is a WP:RS. it is one of the first places I search when an Evangelical pastor or author turns up at AfD. however, the article you added is not a reported piece of journalism, it is a blog post. Like Forbes, CP hosts columns (iPost) by unpaid writers. These are not RS and do not establish notability. The Forbes story in the article looks PRIMARY to me. CP published a 2007 reported article that quoted Atkinson.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• E.M.Gregory here are two that mention him as a Christian leader and influencer: https://www.christianpost.com/news/new-website-connects-blogging-pastors-to-utilize-experiences-40381/ and https://www.christianpost.com/news/mushroom-eaters-media-savvy-churches-can-expand-god-146-s-kingdom-25921/. Are these worth adding? I'm still working on editing to remove WP:PROMO but it probably won't be until tomorrow. Barbarabcarneiro (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• in re: notability, what is really needed is stuff like profile articles, reviews of his books in WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV of his books in feature stories, and INDEPTH coverage of his career or of some aspect of his career - especially in books or scholar.y journals. Also, he has founded a couple of organizations, and headed a large church, Forest Park Carthage. The thing is, writing books and articles, leading a large chursh, founding an organization like exPastors.org is important work, but it is not WP:NOTABLE unless there is WP:SIGCOV of it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory sorry to tag you again, but I keep finding new stuff and appreciate your input. I believe these could help as well (https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2017/december-web-exclusives/ct-pastors-top-17-articles-of-2017.html voted as one of 17 of the top posts of 2017 for Christianity Today, http://ipost.christianpost.com/post/going-digital-for-his-kingdom listed as a speaker for a conference on Christian Post) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarabcarneiro (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article as it stands has a highly promotional tone. It should be deleted and the creator should start again from scratch. Deb (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to this, there is, I believe, a conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, an advert for his books, many of the book links were removed but I can't escape the conclusion this is a coi promo. Szzuk (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this team meets notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Pro Soccer[edit]

Madison Pro Soccer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

premature. Not yet active, just proposed. Insufficient references at this point DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator, article has been expanded and meets WP:GNG. The team is more than proposed, as the sources show, and will begin in less than six months. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets GNG. GiantSnowman 12:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is under the wrong category for the Afd as its meant to be under Games and Sports instead of organisation Not Homura (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG from the references provided. SportingFlyer talk 05:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To elaborate, it's received multiple stories in reliable independent coverage in madison.com, Soccer America, Wisconsin Public Radio, and isthmus.com. SportingFlyer talk 08:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see this article passes GNG guidelines at all. Majority of sources are Primary sources which are conflict of interest. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources being used are independent of the subject, only 4 of the 21 sources are from the team themselves. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are some primary sources in the article but there are enough secondary sources to get this past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madison.com , madison365.com and madisonprosoccer.com are primary sources which are 14 of 22 citations. That's over half the citations. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madison.com (The Wisconsin Press-Journal) is clearly secondary. Madison365.com is timing out, but there are enough other sources (NPR, Soccer America) that get this over the line easily. SportingFlyer talk 23:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: there is no rule that says a certain percentage of the sourcing cannot be WP:PRIMARY (in fact, primary is very useful for WP:V in some cases), just that WP:GNG must be met with independent coverage from multiple reliable sources of significant coverage. Multiple can be two or three if a variety of independently sourced coverage is demonstrated, and all the rest could reliable primary with no affect on notability of the subject. However, if you wanted to argue WP:NOTNEWS for WP:TOOSOON as the initial articles were simply the same announcements of a minor league team, that would be different. Although, with the announcement of coaches and such, there is some presumption of notability here. At the very least it would be a redirect to the league page until more sources turn up. Yosemiter (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - more than enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, as per users above. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are enough secondary sources to pass GNG. This AfD is a waste of everybody's time. It's clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2018 (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. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of games using procedural generation[edit]

List of games using procedural generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of video games identifying them by a trivial aspect of the game. Many of the items on the list have links to unreliable sources which don't actually mention this aspect of the game. The only contributor to the list has objected to the redirect, asking for input from other editors. Bradv 05:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. So many things wrong with this list article but to sum it up it fails WP:NOR, Steam Store references are not reliable independent sources. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That a game is using procedural generation is a notable feature because it distinguishes it from those which use pre-generated textures etc.. As such, this is a notable topic for a list. See [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] for examples of RS explicitly discussing procedural generation when it comes to certain games. Problems with inclusion and sourcing can be handled by editing and do not require deletion, although entries which have their own articles in which the procedural generation aspect is mentioned and sourced don't need a source in the list anyway. Regards SoWhy 09:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim to notable entries, remove all the store links, and reliably source every use of "procedural generation". It should not contain anything that Category:Video games using procedural generation does not, and the category implies there should already be a reliable source in that article discussing procedural generation in that game. It's common to talk about games where procedural generation applies to large portions of the game, like roguelikes and such. But it equally applies to minor parts of the games, like repeatable quests in Skyrim[10]. This distinction is why I think this list can serve as a supplement to the category if we get rid of the useless columns, like platforms, and actually fill out the notes about what the procedural generated content is for each game. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable feature, usually specifically mentioned in game coverage when present. Phediuk (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove all entries with non-valid sourcing, such as a Steam store page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All items in the list currently seem to be sourced to their Steam store page, with the exception of Runescape. If we remove all such games without replacing them, we just end up removing the entire table, right? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You say that like it's a bad thing. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be a bad thing to have a "List of games" and it doesn't mention any games at all. May as well delete it at that point. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The topic is notable and increasingly more important as more and more games are using PG. The list covers much more titles than the brief sketch in Procedural generation, which serves only as an introduction. For those saying the category is enough, it's noteworthy that lists have advantages over categories, such as browseability. Other users and I have been expanding this list over the years since its creation to include more games and encourage the creation of articles about red-linked titles. I agree with all of you in that there are issues with the list, but I also agree with @User:SoWhy in that those don't require deletion and can be fixed with editing. - Alumnum (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic/feature is notable but the article needs some improvements as other editors have mentioned them already. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Currently, this page practically copies the procedural generation category of the Steam store, which is no what Wikipedia is about. I can't find any good listicles of procedural generation games, making me question whether this is a good set to have an independent article for like this. I do not see what this list currently brings to the table that the category doesn't already have, as there is barely any prose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Maplestrip: Have you looked at the links I provided above? This Gamasutra article for example discusses procedural generation listing seven different examples. Regards SoWhy 08:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, my apology, there are some, yes, but not that many. The other Gamasutra articles you linked are all about individual games, which is why I overlooked it. I do see some opportunity for such a list, and may be thinking of this deletion discussion in part as TNTing a list that has no validly-sourced content (per Dissident's comment above, really). I suppose I'll switch to a neutral, but I hope that someone will actually use these sources to create a proper encyclopedic list... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not questioning that procedural generation is not an encyclopedic topic, but its mostly just a facet of the game's design, like open world and there, we don't have a list, just a category (List of open world video games redirects to the category). Unless we're going to spend time to describe how procedural generation is used, the current procedural generation page is sufficient to call out typical uses, and a category sufficient to document those. (I'm also concerned about Steam store pages as the principle source. That something is procedurally generated should be coming from secondary or third-party sources). --Masem (t) 15:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unless we're going to spend time to describe how procedural generation is used" I think that's the only reason to have this list in addition to the category. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant on a per-game basis. Some games this will be straight forward, but not for most others. --Masem (t) 19:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I also meant on a per-game basis. If there isn't a reliable source that mentions what procedural content the game has, then that game shouldn't be on the list (or in the category). Assuming we remove redlinks, then I would also assume all of these will have at least one review that mention at least something like "game X has randomly generated Y". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but remove most of the red-linked entries. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep definitely can be improved. But several columns should be removed, especially the "Notes" column. wumbolo ^^^ 21:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you remove the Notes column, that makes this even less useful over a category to list the games. --Masem (t) 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better to be less useful than filled with WP:IINFO like List of cooperative video games. wumbolo ^^^ 22:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • While my first inclination would be to also say that should be a category too, the fact that there are discrete ways to talk about cooperative games that we know sources routinely cover (# of players, local vs Internet, split-screen vs shared) makes a table like that a tad bit useful (But do note, even with that table in that state, it has a lot of room for improvement). For procedural generation there is no easy way to discretize the types of procedural generation use into nice clean segments, and certainly not anything driven by sources. --Masem (t) 22:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable but needs improvement. I would add yes/no "X" columns for what is procedurally generated (ie map, terrain, characters, objects, sounds/music, textures,…) I would leave small notes column for other aspects. Category is not sufficient, many missing. Redlinks okay if adequately sourced (multiple). Wonder if a cutoff date would be good because so many games use it now. StrayBolt (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this list is using a definition of "procedural generation" which is FAR too broad. If this article is kept, it needs to massively restrict its scope. Any game that uses SpeedTree, for example, is minimally using procedural generation, but certainly not in a noteworthy or meaningful way. I would honestly nuke the list and start over to really examine whether each entry belongs here. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This was pretty much what I was thinking: if we want this list to exist, it should only consist of games that have a notable usage of procedural generation. I mentioned WP:TNT above, because right now the list has nothing of the sort. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A possible solution would be purging all red-linked games, but that would remove the encouragement to create those non-existing pages. The Steam Store references are just a simple proof that those games do exist (without them, anyone could write anything and claim that it's a game's title). It's not the ideal way this list just should be; it's just a stimulus that more pages be created. - Alumnum (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, anyone is welcome to add better sources. Again, Steam is just for we to be sure that each game in fact exists. - Alumnum (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is that these games use procedural generation, not that they merely exist. WP:V requires a reliable source. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reiterate that procedural generation should not merely be present, but that it is *meaningfully* present. That a game procedurally generates trees and rocks might be true, but it's not interesting or noteworthy. To expand on Masem's point, procedural generation is a programming technique. Its use, in itself, is not a defining feature of a game, just as a game using ray tracing or sprite graphics or for loops is not defining. A "list of games using procedural generation *to aid gameplay*" might be worth maintaining. A list of games that procedurally generate rocks is not. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Way too broad. Procedural generation is a technique used to generate all sorts of content across multiple genres. Ubisoft for example use procedural generation to populate their open worlds.[11][12] If you want to narrow the scope to procedurally generated levels, you should create a list for that specific use case, such as List of roguelikes. - hahnchen 14:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have not seen a commitment on the part of Keepers and list authors to scope in this list to a level that does not degenerate into an indiscriminate one. Nuke this instantiation but without prejudice against recreating a semantically substantive version in its place (I'd want to see a proof of concept before supporting that). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of coverage of procedural generation as a notable feature of games, and of specific games. This just becomes original research. Note the requirements for lists. Also other problems mentioned above. --Bejnar (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2018 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bafana[edit]

Bafana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't pass NFILM/GNG. First two sources are the producer (food for film is a subsidiary). Third is a deadlink and looks to be a listing. The fourth is an interview with the filmmakers, and contains 3 short paragraphs devoted to this film. Not much else found in BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as The South African which does not appear to be an interview and is long enough for significant coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  One reliable source (which seems a bit PRish) with all of 3 paragraphs on this movie is far from SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Married to the Enemy 2[edit]

Married to the Enemy 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, no reviews or anything of the sort. Just a cast listing - could be considered promotional, as it doesn't seem to be encyclopedic in it's current state. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Married to the Enemy, and include a text for the sequel in the article. HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Redirecting to Married to the Enemy would be wrong because that movie article also fails WP:NFILM.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Venancio Serrano[edit]

Venancio Serrano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined PROD. It was a BLPPROD but Serrano died in 1970 (the article talked in the present tense). Obviously needs a lot of work, but I suspect that a person that has a warship, a military camp and a major road named after them, and was the most highly decorated of a war [13] may well be notable. Bringing here for discussion. Note: I've added the link above to the article; the previous source was fairly useless. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - You said it all: his many decorations as a soldier would be by itself enough to establish notability. With that said, the article does need clean-up and more sources should be found, but AfD is not clean-up. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I dropped in another ref so he now has two from the phillipine daily enquirer. Szzuk (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosuranemab[edit]

Gosuranemab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

too early for an article. except a name (tho the structural formula is in the reference) No information provided about state of any therapeutic trials. No information about why it might be "designed for the treatment of progressive supranuclear palsy and other tauopathies" I question whether it is appropriate to have an article until there is some actual published information.

Nominated separately in case one of the group might be notable. Thete are other similar articles. I think it better to discuss a few of these before dealing with the others. Perhaps itm ight be better to simply have a list. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nothing in pubmed at all. Not even primary sources. (search) Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frovocimab[edit]

Frovocimab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

too early for an article. except a name (tho the structural formula is in the reference) No information provided about state of any therapeutic trials. No information about why it might be "designed for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia" I question whether it is appropriate to have an article until there is some actual published information.

Nominated separately in case one of this group of articles might show notability DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nothing in pubmed at all. not even primary sources. (search) Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David[edit]

Patrick Bet-David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not seem to satisfy any of the WP:NBIO criteria. Obsidi (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete if one looks for high quality independent sourcing, they are lacking (I have tried off and on for the past few months). There is lots of low quality sourcing, as is common for people who make their living on social media. This article has been under intense promotional pressure for a long time, which is how I came to work on it. I think we should delete, since notability is marginal and it is not worth the community's effort to maintain NPOV, given the long term promotional pressure. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I had to go through two or three screens on Google of his videos for Entrepreneur magazine, and found nothing usable in the associated Forbes bio, but I did find and add two independent sources that enabled a bit of information about his company: that it's now based in Dallas, having moved from LA, that he runs it from his home, and that he hires "green" agents and trains them himself, rejecting people with much experience, I believe are useful data points and far better than the laundry list of products the company sells. Both sources have been impugned when my edits were reverted, so a little more about them: one is a summary of his biography/business in association with presentations he gave at an insurance convention (not an interview, and I took only facts about the business from it, leaving out for example the numbers of agents in 2009 and at the time of the article; the other is indeed somewhat breathless for what it is, which is a local-interest news story. Neither is stellar, but they are not pure promotion and are sumilar in this respect to the Denver article that was already in use, and far better than his own blog/website, which we are using. This amount of coverage I believe makes him squeak by, so I argue for keeping the article, and I have reinstated my edits because more third-party sources is an improvement and because adding more facts about his business or other aspects of his career can only help offset the promotionalism inherent in lists of websites he's started and their stated aims and products he aims to sell. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  For future reference, please clearly identify what sources you're referring to.

  My mistake, the insurancenewsnet.com is not an interview, but based upon one, what's not just grabbed directly from his self-description for the convention. Such publicity has no encyclopedic value, and trying to pry basic information from it without a better source is problematic for any article, but extremely so for a BLP. This is what WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAP are for: to prevent us from assuming some local, in-world publicity is worth noting in an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment My improvements have now been removed, so I suggest this version better reflects available sourcing. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So why argue "weak keep" if there's no consensus for inclusion of the sources as required by BLP? --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Because I disagree with your disqualification of the sources: see my characterization of them above. I improved the article; you removed the improvements on grounds that I regard as spurious. BLP is a red herring here: you gave as your reason for removal that the sources were promotional. I apologize for further cluttering this AfD by responding, but the two sources are important for assessing notability, and that is the issue here. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how ignoring BLP improves anything. I think it important that AfD's take into account our content policies, in the case BLP's requirement for high-quality sources. ArbCom applies. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. (He seems a thoroughly good guy – my !vote is no reflection on the subject himself.) Maproom (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vegetation classification. Tone 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetation type[edit]

Vegetation type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A concept in ecology. This is a dubious kind of stub created in 2014 by a now-blocked sockpuppeteer and not substantially improved since. I'm no specialist, but I get the impression that other articles such as Biome cover the concept better, making this a WP:CFORK. Really, a very basic concept in biology sourced to "Introduction to California Plant Life"? Sandstein 17:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Vegetation, where this is discussed with some sources. This is an obviously notable topic that plays a role in satellite observation, climate modeling and vegetation modeling. But the nom is right, this stub doesn't really discuss the the topic well and has poor sources. Until a better article is written, readers would be better served by the discussion of vegetation type in the Vegetation article. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 17:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect possibly to Vegetation classification which covers similar ground, although the other suggestions are also possible. Hzh (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect definitely, where to - multiple candidates; another sensible one would be Plant community. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:48, 4 October 2018 (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. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW. Notability has not been challenged here by anybody, and arguing to delete on the basis of a speedy deletion criterion when the page would never be speedy deleted under the same criterion is not going to get us anywhere. I think this nomination was made in good faith, but honestly, unless there's something shown to be significantly wrong with these pages besides the creator's block evasion, I doubt the community will support mass deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Maria Archila[edit]

Ana Maria Archila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined speedy. G5 - created by a blocked sock of Cirt who was previously topic-banned from editing articles that are largely focused on political biographical information, and the subject of this article is heavily involved in politics wumbolo ^^^ 15:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've not checked the page's notability, but I disagree with the rationale that the nominator puts forward as Gandydancer makes a substantial contribution in this edit. (Disclosure: Sagecandor has contacted me via email about this issue, but I would !vote delete if I thought it was the right outcome.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: G5 was premature as the article was brand new and obviously any newly created article is going to be disproportionately edited by its creator until it's had time to season for a bit. And that's happening now, as other editors are expanding and copyediting it. She's also been notable prior to the Flake incident and the article should be kept, blocked creator aspect aside. JesseRafe (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @JesseRafe: please comment only on the validity of the G5. See from WP:CSD, When applicable, the following criteria may be used to delete pages that have survived their most recent deletion discussions: [...] G5, creation by banned or blocked users, subject to the strict condition that the AfD participants were unaware that the article would have met the criterion and/or that the article creator's blocked or banned status was not known to the participants of the AfD discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 16:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: well-sourced article on which more than one editor worked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nearly all of non-Sagecandor additions were overwhelmingly changed since. There is barely any trace of them left, as Sagecandor did major improvements to prose after the other editor edited the article. wumbolo ^^^ 17:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Wumbolo - I quickly became aware that the current information for this bio would involve a considerable amount of time to read current articles, do the wikilinking, and such so I added a few sentences as a beginning but noted that it needed improvement, which I planned to do if others had not already done it. I agree with the changes that were done to my edit even though it involved deleting it in entirety, but not the way it was done. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm willing to bet that it would be hard to find a woman in America that does not know of the woman in this bio. I'm surprised to find that anyone would suggest that it be deleted. I'm thankful that someone took the time to write it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I think Gandydancer is overstating the subject's recognizability, this is a well-sourced article. Regardless of the creator's history, removing this content would be a net-negative for readers. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible Budget Coalition[edit]

Responsible Budget Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages and is not a platform for promotion. I cannot locate any references that are intellectually independent and in-depth on this organization, failing both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The existing references are mostly PRIMARY sources. This organization does not appear to satisfy the criteria of GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required by the GNG. Repeated references to its own website is meaningless.Sandals1 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2018 (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. To copy from Vanamonde93 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Maria Archila, which I feel this also falls under:

I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW. Notability has not been challenged here by anybody, and arguing to delete on the basis of a speedy deletion criterion when the page would never be speedy deleted under the same criterion is not going to get us anywhere. I think this nomination was made in good faith, but honestly, unless there's something shown to be significantly wrong with these pages besides the creator's block evasion, I doubt the community will support mass deletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump 101[edit]

Trump 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I originally tagged this for speedy deletion but it was declined, so we shall discuss here whether this falls under G5. My explanation is that this article was created by a blocked sock of Cirt who was previously topic-banned from editing articles that are largely focused on political biographical information wumbolo ^^^ 15:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: No, it doesn't count under G5. For a start, the history shows about a dozen users other than Sagecandor have edited it, and I also took it through an unsuccessful GA review, in which I spent a few hours reviewing the article, making suggestions and carrying out some of them myself. (Disclosure: Sagecandor contacted me about this issue via email, but the page is on my watchlist and I would have made the same comments anyway.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bilorv: I wouldn't say those technical fixes and minor additions count towards WP:G5's substantial edits by others. wumbolo ^^^ 16:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You wouldn't say spending a couple of hours on a GA review, and subsequently implementing some of the changes, counts as a non-trivial contribution to the article? If so, we have very different opinions. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Reviewing is just reading the article and saying what's right and what's wrong, something like writing a professional review of a Wikipedia article. But that isn't a "substantial edit". wumbolo ^^^ 16:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The intent behind G5 is more important than the wording used. In any case, this and this are substantial edits. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bilorv and amount of secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article looks okay to me, seems well sourced with decent reception which passes WP:GNG guidelines. Govvy (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bilorv. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azize Esra Gursoy[edit]

Azize Esra Gursoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional stub for an apparently non-notable academic. The "several awards" were not discoverable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete writing and being a reviewer for publications is what academic researchers do. The article does not demonstate that Gursoy's contribution is significant in the field, or show any other way she meets the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither the article nor my own google search shows the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. A search through Google Scholar shows her papers are very lightly cited, with most not cited at all. This makes me believe that her published papers are insufficient to show WP:NPROF is met, especially in the medical field. Nothing in the article makes any supported claims to show she meets any notability criteria. Being an Associate Professor is not grounds for notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Krishn[edit]

Radha Krishn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Future proposed TV series - Not aired - Notability not asserted. Work of several deleted socks. Was PRODded before and PROD tag removed by another sock so to AfD we go. Alexf^(talk) 14:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- WP:CRYSTALBALL. I think we can wait for its television release, for now It is WP:TOSOON. FitIndia ^Talk 15:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.I think according to Hindu mythological religious significance of the series in India,it will get much public attention in the future days and will become significant topic for an article, so its better to keepthe article so that the article can be developed in futureVinodbasker (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

Note: : As indicated above I assume you do not have a crystal ball to know this in advance, so why not wait till it becomes notable, and it is written about in reliable sources? -- Alexf^(talk) 20:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PERNOM. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Username Needed: Alex is the nominator, hence he said "as nom" —usernamekiran(talk) 01:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON ^{[Username Needed]} 12:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete doesnt have significant coverage in reliable sources. Whenever it passes WP:GNG or WP:TVSHOW, the article can be recreated. But it is too soon now. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is far from the depth or persistence coverage. Userify the article. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that is not going to be deleted, because the article source are provided their reliability and notability asserted and also that is currently aired on Star Bharat on Monday to saturday in 9 mp. I know that the show created by many sockpuppets users but they are created the in different names Radha Krishna (TV series) ,Radha Krishn and Radha Krishna (2018 TV series) , but the show current name is Radhakrishnan, is confirmed by hotstar (official website)

So it is the reason that i don't think it will be need to deleted, it is should be kept, thank you. The citty (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trueful[edit]

Trueful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable biography. Apparently a musician, songwriter, dancer, producer, actor - you name it - but searching turns up nothing of note. The two references given are actually one, and they don't mention him. His claimed part in Easy A is not listed by IMDb. Extra perhaps, so not notable. The article is extremely badly written (admittedly, not a reason for deletion) and appears as a vanity project or someone writing about a pal. Emeraude (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HOAX? is this a pun on Truthful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username Needed (talk • contribs) 12:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. No appearances on notable music charts, and no significant critical attention. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Bisht[edit]

Lucky Bisht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable producer of some non-notable films fails WP:CREATIVE and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 12:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- No inherent notability attached to a producer of non-notable films. FitIndia ^Talk 15:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, no sources other than LinkedIn or IMDb, so fails WP:GNG. --John M Wolfson (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manveer Gurjar[edit]

Manveer Gurjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined BLPPROD as there were sources in a previous version. This has been converted from a redirect to an article and back multiple times. I do not see sourcing as adequate to support an standalone article and since they have been on multiple shows do not see that Bigg Boss 10 is the best place to redirect. ~ GB fan 12:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. FitIndia ^Talk 15:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and considering the history of reverting from the redirect, salt as well. Nothing to support notability requirement. If anything, set as a redirect to Bigg Boss 10 and permanently protect, but as GB fan says, there isn't a single really good target so delete is the best option here. Ravensfire (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There seems to be a hell of a lot of coverage on google news for a non-notable person. The nominator doesn't mention doing a WP:BEFORE search at all, and [14] [15], [16], [17]. A lot of this is tabloid style stuff, but people can be notable for that kind of thing. The thing that surprises me is that if I can find all these English sources in a few minutes of searching, what sort of other coverage is out there, and what sort of coverage is out there in Hindi? I think that the Delete !voters here need to have a look themselves. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Sumitomo[edit]

Hiroshi Sumitomo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Boilerplate rationale adapted from my previous AfDs of similar photographer articles (such as Keizaburō Saeki), which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion, but have improved and de-orphaned quite a few more when sources have been available.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. I have also checked the Japanese name. The English transliterations turned up nothing. The Japanese characters brought up trivial Google book results, but nothing of substance.

He is name-dropped on one page, without elaboration, in the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing in any other article.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudicing any conscientious attempt in the future to create a worthwhile article. Sumitomo gets one page (188) within the 328 book. Although my impression is that he's less than averagely noteworthy among the 328 photographers, I think that a short article could be written about him and that this would benefit the encyclopedia. However, as he's a Japanese photographer who's not at all trendy, the chances that anyone would create such an article are slim indeed. Meanwhile, the presence of this substub is mildly annoying. ¶ PMC, as your efforts to clear en:WP of Polbot-generated junk continue, you may find the list Japanese photographers useful. Although it has subsequently undergone occasional tinkering, no real effort has gone into revising it since around 2009, and therefore its classification of the en:WP articles into "BGSS", "OK" etc is unreliable; however, it should still be useful as a guide to who is written up in which reference book. ¶ If I were to revise that list (and no, I have no intention of doing so), I might augment it with some other reference works and lists of notable photographers. One is Kōtarō Iizawa's 『日本の写真家101』 (i.e. 101 Japanese photographers, ISBN 9784403250958), my copy of which I happen to have in front of me: Sumitomo isn't one of the 101 and doesn't appear in the book's index. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I always appreciate you weighing in on these - it's nice to have someone with knowledge of the area commenting. For what it's worth, my attentions are mostly focused on the ones in the Feb 09 orphans category, so once those are dealt with I'm unlikely to return to the topic. Your list is a good resource to be aware of though, I wish I'd seen it sooner. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pity you're no sticking around, PMC. There are so many Japanese photographers who merit articles. Well, for your or anyone else's benefit: There's another handbook to Japanese photographers, and this time with potted bios in English as well as in Japanese. It's 101: Only One Photo Collection = 『101 フジフィルム・フォトコレクション』 (published by Fujifilm in 2016; no ISBN but it's here at CiNii). And sorry, Sumitomo isn't in it. - Hoary (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there's no evidence any of his work is in a major collection on view. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Tautfest[edit]

Erik Tautfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A German professional darts player currently ranked at 2596 in the DDB ranking system. Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:NSPORT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete No significant independent coverage to meet the GNG. Nothing shows he's very notable in the darts world.Sandals1 (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable darts player. It is high time we cut down on articles on totally non-notable sportsmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting belle[edit]

Fighting belle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This film does not appear to meet notability criteria per WP:NFILM, and does not appear to have significant coverage on film review websites. Also appears to be written like a WP:PROMOTION.—Madrenergic^talk 10:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nominator, the coverage is insufficient to meet WP:NFILM. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hänsch[edit]

Christopher Hänsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A German professional darts player currently ranked at 780 in the DDB ranking system and who has never advanced beyond the quarter finals of a major tournament. Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete No significant coverage and no significant accomplishments as a darts player.Sandals1 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2018 (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. Time to close this. Consensus is near-unanymous that Motl passes NPROF and NACADEMIC and NWHATEVERELSE. Future nominators are strongly advice to consider all the relevant guidelines for notability; most string theorists rarely get the kind of coverage that GNG may require, but that is precisely why we have all those authors things beginning with N. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luboš Motl[edit]

Luboš Motl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS citations. Please will nominator explain what steps he took to follow WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Hi Xanthippe. Could you elaborate on your technique here? The subject of the article has written what seem to be a large number of papers, but I don't believe google results alone establish notability - not even in the specific page you've linked, which states Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily passes WP:NACADEMIC based on citation counts (2,700 according to GS) in a low-citation subfield of physics. Notability further strengthened by substantial coverage in the NYT article (2nd ref) and numerous mentions in first-class popular and scientific journals. Further strengthened by French coverage of the book on Bogdanov brothers, further strengthened by sources in Czech, further strengthened by various controversies (unfortunately not well covered in RSs) surrounding his departure from Harvard and his blog. Rentier (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: Hi Rentier. Do you have any personal connection with the subject of the article? PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: None whatsoever. Rentier (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:PeterTheFourth, really--that line of questioning is unwarranted. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: Could you provide links to the sources in Czech? I'd like to check those out before I weigh in here. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 13:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Týden: [18]
2. Novinky.cz: [19]
3. Some interview: https://technet.idnes.cz/higgsuv-boson-motl-0ao-/tec_vesmir.aspx?c=A120704_203648_tec_vesmir_mla
4. Some interview: https://ekolist.cz/cz/publicistika/rozhovory/lubos-motl-klimaticka-zmena-svet-neohrozuje-alarmiste-ano

These are supplementary, the real reason for keeping this article is WP:PROF. --Rentier (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Xxanthippe's point tips me over the line. I have added the article to the Wikidata item, revealing there are half a dozen articles on other versions of Wikipedia (I presume a bot delinked ours after it was recently deleted as an expired PROD), but regrettably there is a dearth of usable sources there, even plugging in the internet handle he sometimes uses, "Lumo" or "LuMo". I find scads and scads of blog coverage, and he's still being consulted by the press: The Economist, 2016, on Czech name change, РИА Новости (Russian), on mathematics. But I have been unable to find out what he's actually doing to update the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn and vanity article.Tip.Stall (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• LOL so Sarah Jeong gets an article that doesn't even mention the only thing she is famous for, her racist #cancelwhitepeople, while this guy, with more publications, is threatened for deletion. His point is literally proven correct, men with a higher impact, are discriminated against, even here at AfD. Per nominator, being a professor even at Harvard fails GNG. Keep being sexist/racist wikipedians. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC) — 71.197.186.255 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

LOL indeed. Just compare this with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sabine_Hossenfelder Rentier (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those wondering what's going on, this nomination seems to have stemmed (indirectly) from a twitter spat over this talk given at CERN last week. SmartSE (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck this. This is a deletion discussion, not a platform for editorializing. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Eight papers on Google Scholar with 100+ citations, five of which are clearly very highly cited. The comparsion with Sabine Hossenfelder is not completely unreasonable. Still gaining 100 citations per year despite having published nothing new since 2007. He's also fairly regularly mentioned in or quoted by the media, in publications as diverse as The Economist, New Scientist, Wired (magazine), Time (magazine), and BBC News. I get that people don't like him, but that's not a valid deletion argument. Fundamentally nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (3rd nomination). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment His citation profile doesn't look that great for a string theorist, honestly. That's a field which can rack up the counts and the h-indices (Ed Witten is the record-holder, after all). Comparing Motl to, say, Barton Zwiebach, the latter has 41 publications that break into the triple-digit range on Google Scholar. Motl has 8. Clifford V. Johnson has 19. Tom Banks has 46. Matthew Kleban and Marika Taylor both have an h-index of 27, versus Motl's 18. (Hossenfelder, mentioned above, works on generally less-cited approaches to quantum gravity that are not string theory and also has an h-index of 27.) Remember, the point of WP:PROF is not to judge whether someone is a respectable academic doing competent work, but to judge whether they stand out from the average. So, while there may well be a #C7 pass here, I'm hesitant to say that there is a #C1. It would help if the various controversies Motl has thrown himself into were documented in reliable sources, not just blogs and wikis. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other people from Category:String theorists who are roughly contemporaneous with Motl: David Berenstein, h-index 36; Raphael Bousso, 45; Thomas Faulkner, 24; Steven Gubser, 72; Sergei Gukov, 40; Veronika Hubeny, 37; Amer Iqbal, 24; Shamit Kachru, 67; Shiraz Minwalla, 41; Asad Naqvi, 21; Horațiu Năstase, 30; Nikita Nekrasov, 51; Yasunori Nomura, 52; Richard Thomas, 27; Anzhong Wang, 38. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think comparing h-indexes is the right way to test whether the publications of someone who stopped publishing 11 years ago are of similar impact as the publications of someone who is still publishing. What's relevant is the peaks, not how many more moderately-well-cited papers he has (or in this case hasn't) continued to crank out. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even by the "how high are the peaks" standard, Motl just doesn't seem to stand out to me. Berenstein has 17 papers in the triple-digit range, Bousso has 16, etc. Even Thomas has 10, and he skews more to the math side than the physics. I can see a WP:PROF#C7 pass, but not a WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In case anyone else was wondering, the "OSVČ" on his Google Scholar profile apparently means self-employed in Czech, and his publication record stops in 2007, the last year our article records him as being an assistant professor. Normally, academics who flame out at that level do so too soon to have achieved academic notability. But the lack of notability in those cases is not caused by their having left, but by not having achieved enough before they left. In his case, he has achieved enough (in highly cited publications) to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Once notable, always notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I agree with XOR'easter that the spirit of special notability criteria for academics is not to include everyone who has a seemingly high number of citations in their publications, it's to recognize people who are notably influential in their field. On its own, the number of citations is of limited use. An important note in the criteria is that Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. And yet these very metrics are being used as the basis for retaining this article. XOR's comments also suggest this level of citation is not particularly remarkable in this field. I was concerned that that the NYT article was the only source providing substantive coverage of Motl, but the context around the interviews from Czech sources and pattern of recognition of his expertise between The Econonmist, РИА Новости, and other sources above suggest this should be retained. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Per all above. The arguments for this being a vanity page, or that he doesn't meet WP:PROF somehow, do not convince me. Reyk _YO! 07:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very well known physicist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete honestly the article only describes a good academic curriculum vitae (like other thousands) and only lists the names of his best professors and the main fields of his academic work. Thousands of researchers had good professors and worked on interesting fields of research, but I honestly don't see anything special in just "doing your job well". It seems to me that Mr. Motl wrote this autobiographical article only because he was recently involved in a dispute over gender inequality, and I find nothing special even in this. --Fredericks (msg) 23:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was started in 2004, so the recent Strumia nonsense can't have anything to do with it. Reyk _YO! 08:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing with academic biographies is that becoming a professor at a top institution is by itself an indication of the person having made a significant impact on the field and thus being notable according to WP:PROF. In most cases, this is confirmed by examining citation counts or library holdings. Here, we have scholarly impact bigger than what is typically (actually, I have never seen an academic with more than a few hundred citations deleted) required to survive an AfD, plus extra coverage related to the subject's blog and other activities. Rentier (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assistant professors, even at top universities, are seldom wiki-notable. (According to the strict letter of WP:PROF, even a full professor at Harvard wouldn't be notable by that title alone, although in practice I figure many full professors at Harvard would have done enough to be notable by other criteria.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think the real question here is notability, and I daresay we are talking about Motl's notability as a physicist rather than as a personality. It is true that he is a notable critic on his blog of all theories that are not products of the String Theory program. I've had the pleasure to talk with Ed Witten and to hear Strominger and Maldacena speak, and I assure you all of them are more open minded and fair than Lubos Motl is. I don't know that LM has written any papers lately or made conference appearances that are notable either. But his contribution to framing the Weak gravity conjecture is a solid accomplishment that is sure to be significant in the coming months. Cumrun Vafa recent published a few papers aimed at collapsing the String Theory landscape, one with Paul Steinhardt a long time critic of that problem. So I would weakly agree with votes to keep this entry.

JonathanD (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NPROF. Why are we having this conversation? Is there some sort of political malarkey? —5⁴¹²⁹ 06:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that there is a political motivation behind this AfD, connected with Motl declaring support for Alessandro Strumia and echoing his claim that men are the victims of discrimination too. The HEP community has just issued a statement [20] decrying that view. JonathanD (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I am unfamiliar with WP:NPROF but it seems to me by reading the comments and looking at the references in the article that the subject does pass these requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because you can get a Wikipedia article by being famous or by being infamous. You'd be hard pressed to attend a large string theory conference without hearing the story of Lubos discussed at least once. There's something romantic about the undergraduate prodigy to Harvard professor to raging asshole journey. Connor Behan (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am a mathematical scientist; I have never met Motl in person, but I am familiar with some of his doings. For me, the proposed deletion makes no sense.  TheSeven (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2018 (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 'OWZAT! ...... Not out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty (cricketer)[edit]

Chitty (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG.Trivial pass of WP:NCRICKET. ∯WBG^converse 09:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes WP:NCRICKET. You say "Trivial pass of WP:NCRICKET". Well, trivial, just over the line, barely passes, give me a leg up, or however the nominator wants to label it, "trivial pass" means "pass". Randy Kryn (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Randy Kryn, I agree, definitely. ∯WBG^converse 10:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Though I appreciate the work, and the "pass" comment, I cannot see the notability in this article. In fact, if this article actually "passes," many others should too. No paper trail, no references besides the one of his record (and scanty), and no relevance to other WP articles. This is definitively an example of an article for deletion. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 10:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Passing WP:NCRICKET automatically makes the subject notable, so there is no question about notability. Figures from any sport must exceed a goal-certain which, when met, fulfill Wikipedia notability criteria. Baseball players in America also have a low bar: they must appear on the field in a major league game. Doesn't make them notable in the eyes of the world, but they do obtain sport-related Wikipedia notability by doing so. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The guideline that has been wikilinked by you also states:--The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. ∯WBG^converse 11:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The source is the well-known and reputable work and book by Arthur Haygarth, Scores & Biographies, Volume 1 (1744–1826). That's enough for notability to be achieved. There is no reason for Haygarth to be removed as a Wikipedia source. Please rethink this nom, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As other editors have tried to impress upon you (but in vain), we need significant coverage. Is the word significant so difficult to understand? ∯WBG^converse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Procedural keep. Nominator admits it meets WP:NCRICKET, therefore by extension WP:N: "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Meeting WP:GNG is not required. Harrias ^talk 11:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The linked page also quotes No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline..SNGs are there because it is presumed (and I emphasise on this particular word) that anybody meeting SNG ought to have got sufficient coverage to pass GNG.I've been planning on this nom for quite a long time and my background-searches leads me to believe that there exists not an iota of coverage about this subject.Also, NOTDIRECTORY. ∯WBG^converse 11:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We know that this argument can go around and around, and the community has no willingness to tighten the language. WP:N disagrees with itself. Harrias ^talk 13:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your take but as they say, the community is comprised of very people like you. So,....... ∯WBG^converse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Yes, of course, it is up to the community, as always-- the ones who show up. Few articles I have ever voted for destruction, preferring to ignore those outsides of my area, but this one stopped me on my tracks. The double standards are so obvious that it made me cringe. If this could pass, then those that I have seen deleted for lacking a healthy number of secondary sources but having historical prominence nevertheless should have survived too. If this article is going to stay, I strongly suggest emphasizing its historical significance, of someone who may have been John Chitty. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 14:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I highly doubt it: the bat was from 1729, this Chitty played in the 1790s. Harrias ^talk 19:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, then we can call him Old John Chitty. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having played in one first-class match meets the notability requirement. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC, which is sufficient for notability (as the nominator appears to agree). Johnlp (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why on earth, have I taken this to AfD, if I agree with the above line? ∯WBG^converse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• See the detailed rebuttals, below. ∯WBG^converse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I think I have to clear up some fundamental misunderstandings here. Passing a SNG does not guarantee notability; it merely yields a rebuttable presumption. Furthermore, the fact that WP:NCRICKET was rammed into the SNGs with minimal discussion means that it cannot be considered binding on the community. What we have here is a virtually empty microstub on an obscure cricketer with sourcing so meager that it doesn't even allow the subject to be unambiguously identified. The sole "source" in the article does not contain a single word of prose. This article is essentially a few cells of an excel spreadsheet bloated grotesquely. I could support the creation of list articles where these bare statistical entries could be included. But I can support neither the creation of empty stubs on people whose names we don't even know, nor the continued misleading pretense that "meets my pet over-inclusive guideline = 100% ironclad guaranteed notability". I now eagerly await the usual barrage of abuse from WP:CRIC. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Example text is a very good reflection of the voting trends. Wot I essentially see is that allmost all the keep! voters belong to the project, (which likely is sort of an echochamber). ∯WBG^converse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:CRIN. This guideline does not disciminate between 100, 10 or 1 first-class appearance and works perfectly well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. StickyWicket (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pray, what is the definition of broke? ∯WBG^converse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes Golden Rule. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Accesscrawl, are you trolling? ∯WBG^converse 12:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Accesscrawl: - - This's not the first time, I've seen such irrational ¡votes from you, semblant to outright trolling and will appreciate a reply from you, as to a justification of how does he pass Golden Rule.∯WBG^converse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's interesting that we're declaring notability for an individual who is not actually known to have existed...it's clear that there are multiple contenders for the name, so precisely which one are we considering notable? —5⁴¹²⁹ 13:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the other Chittys will be probably created along lines of Chitty (2), Chitty (3) et al........ ∯WBG^converse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep If you want to change WP:NCRIC or WP:CRICN, then start a discussion or RfC there. According to those guidelines, he is notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Rubbish.Read Blue Square's defence. ∯WBG^converse 12:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - on balance this is almost certainly a delete. The coverage in CricketArchive and CricInfo is purely statistical. It is not significant or in depth in any way, which is the level of sourcing required. The basis of the SNG is that we might assume that there is a good chance that, because the chap played a single first-class match, that suitable sources which are in depth and provide significant coverage exist. On balance I am totally unconvinced that such coverage exists in this case - and, as a result, the SNG assumption that such sources might exist, can not be maintained. For example, the match he played in (England v Surrey XI, 28-30 August 1800) is not covered at all in The Times and the Sporting Post identifies Chitty in a list: For Surrey, Winchilsea, Waller & Chitty vice Mr Wells, Harding & J Hampton; H Hampton played. That's not in depth coverage.

Ultimately we have no forename, no dates, nothing. We can live without an article on him. I know it's not as easy as checking that he played a single game, but ultimately the sources are simply not there for this chap. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for finding another cite in the Sporting Post. Along with Arthur Haygarth's Scores & Biographies, Volume 1 (1744–1826), that gives two good sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• None of which are in depth enough to do anything other than prove he played in the match. That's way, way, way below the level of coverage required to come close to the level of detail which the assumption at the centre of NSPORTS (and all of the SNG) requires. We are literally talking about a name in a list of other names in The Sporting Post and I'm not convinced that the S&B source will have anything other than a name on a scorecard. As I say, I know it requires a little more nuanced thought than "did he play a match", but that's the level of thought we really need to be working at you know. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• By proving that he played in a match the sources guarantee that the subject meets WP:NCRIC. Major league baseball articles have the same criteria. If a player has an at-bat, or plays a position for 1/3 of an inning, or pitches one pitch from a major league mound, they meet the criteria for notability. That's because of "completeness". For many sports everyone who has played at a certain level - in baseball, for instance, it's playing in a Major League game that passes the bar - is Wikipedia-worthy simply because the encyclopedic roster of all-time major league baseball players is only completed by universal inclusion. And who knows, maybe this guy just used one name. Chitty. Like Pelé, or Rivellino, or many others. Chitty. The legend grows. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was wayyyyy off. Turns out that in baseball someone is Wikipedia-worthy if they have played in one game in Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, in the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup, or Olympics, or in the defunct All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, or, last but least, in the ever-popular Union Association. Talk about completeness! Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:SPORTBASIC - the underlying criteria that all SNG should be based on:

A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).

Chitty doesn't come close to meeting that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability per WP:CRIC has been achieved by (and I'll repeat from above) Arthur Haygarth's Scores & Biographies, Volume 1 (1744–1826). There is no reason to abandon Haygarth as a Wikipedia source. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the definition of GNG? ∯WBG^converse 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Haygarth does not deal with Chitty in depth. If he did then we'd know something else about the chap. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or merge to (a single sentence in) any relevant article. This fails even the lowest interpretation of GNG, and failing GNG so completely matters, because if you can't pass GNG, then you can't actually write a decent encyclopedia article. This article fails WP:WHYN: it is not a subject about which enough verifiable information can be found to write an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate, all-inclusive database with a separate record for each person who can be documented to have ever played one game. Think about what's being defended here: The thoughtless "Keep per NCRICKET" votes are asking us to have a completely separate, stand-alone page for someone about whom almost nothing is known, or will ever be known. We literally don't even know whether "Chitty" is his first name, last name, nickname, or only name. This is not a suitable subject for a proper encyclopedia article. Should this player be in Wikipedia somewhere? Sure. Should this player be on a separate, stand-alone page? No. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I do like the fallacy of "only this, this and this is known about him". Yes, at this stage. But until a few days ago R. N. Lee (as he appears on ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive) was just a mystery, just some initials. A few hours of research and piecing together later and the mysterious R. N. Lee turns out to be the bastard child of a millionaire merchant, real name Richard Napoleon Lee. In otherwords, culling these articles is the wrong way to go. New information might exist and has not yet been stumbled about, or will appear in the future. StickyWicket (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking into my WP:ATA#CRYSTAL ball, and I'm not seeing any evidence that more facts will become known about this player during the foreseeable future. If I'm wrong, then you can request a full WP:REFUND at DRV for both of the sub-stub's sentences and my fortune-telling fee. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it's a sourced stub. The page is acceptable for Wikipedia because it uses Arthur Haygarth's work as a source. It is a stub, per WP:STUB, a type of article allowed in Wikipedia. Editor's calling for deletion are disregarding both WP:CRIC and the acceptance of stubs in the encyclopedia, each a reason to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless en.wiki has overnight changed it's motto towards storing of every random piece of sourced information existing in this universe (and other parallel verses, too:-)), I fail to find any remote relevance of your posture. I guess some things don't change and it's the same dubious (and irrational) process wonkery, as I saw at the Meher baba AfDs. Try to retrieve a source that provides significant coverage to the subject and mention it over here. It will convince far many folks to alter their !votes than what you are currently doing to achieve the same goal. ∯WBG^converse 12:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping this page is for the completeness of the subject, which seems the goal of WP:CRIC and other sports, including the baseball guideline mentioned above. He played in a first-class match, he's notable. This is cut-and-dried. In addition you are now getting personal, calling me irrational and including an insulting edit summary, and I'm mentioning this because it isn't assuming good faith, which is a pretty important part of Wikipedia. As for sourcing, as mentioned several times, Haygarth is a perfectly acceptable source. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Haygarth is not an in depth source - which is what we require. It's a trivial mention by using his name in scorecards. If he were one of the biographies (here's a hint: he's not) then I'd be more than happy with Haygarth. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In voting to delete this article I am not asking to remove the info from WP. I am, instead, stating that the meager and apparently insignificant data cannot justify an entry by itself. The info should be included in pertinent pages, and if more secondary sources mention it in the future, then, reopen the entry for him. Regardless of what WP:CRIC would say, the entry simply does not pass the chief index: WP:GNG, even with the vagueness of these guidelines. The article has no significant secondary source, no legitimate connection to other WP pages, and the editors did not even make the effort to justify its existence. The single Haygarth’s citation cannot warrant its notability either. I have neighbors with plenty of more in-depth and more citations than that and we would never think of writing an entry for them in WP.  After observing the support, I have been tempted to change my vote to Keep just because it seems the community wants it. But doing so would just make it hard for me to justify other Delete votes in the future. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌

  If it helps, I've been tempted to change my !vote from keep to delete. I prefer GNG to SNG, but can't get away from the defition of WP:N as it stands. Anyway, as it stands, our uncertain !votes rather cancel each other out, so that's something at least... Harrias ^talk 17:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Harrias: They do not cancel anymore as of this moment, but that should not be the point. We should vote for what we think is correct. In regards to WP:N, I read it as a way to keep relevant information in WP, and Chitty seems like relevant to me, but not in the form of a single stand-alone article. There are more useful and effective ways to keep him here, I think. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌

• Delete While the topic meets the NCRICKET allowance for presumed notability, it is clear that there are going to be no more sources forthcoming to flesh out this article, and even if more did end up coming, we're talking the loss of one line of text, easily recreated when better sources are shown. Both the GNG and the subject-specific notability guidelines are not guarantees of having an article, but presumptions, meaning that they can be challenged as this AFD is doing. If there was more extensive signs of a longer career, that might be reason to keep, but this is a case we should not have an article just because. --Masem (t) 18:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is the problem with most of the below average players who pass the SNG guideline for playing single game or having single award, but the only source for them is either statistical tables or tweet-size profile as well as coupled with misunderstanding of SNGs as absolute defence for inclusion. We have to understand all SNGs are just guidelines to weed out the obvious non notable. After a subject passes that, then they must be subjected to further scrutiny and if found to lack non trivial multiple sources that can help to write objective article on them then they're still non notable irrespective of so called playing so so professional or whatnot. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WhatamIdoing, who said it more concisely and eloquently than I could have. Ajpolino (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the WP:CRIN wars return. My position is still the same. WP:GNG is obviously not met (the reference is trivial and it's unlikely others exist), but "notability" is neither one of the five pillars nor one of the three core content policies. The content is verifiable (to the extent that any historical content is verifiable), and the WP:SNG is met. I have discussed and proposed changes to the WP:CRIN standard for first-class cricketers, but none of those have found consensus. Wikipedia also serves as a specialized almanac; having exhaustive listings of players (even those players who do not otherwise meet notability guidelines) can serve a purpose. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, which is a policy.∯WBG^converse 03:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A specialized almanac's purpose can be served by lists and tables too, not requiring standalone articles for non-notable players. --Masem (t) 05:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Precisely :-) ∯WBG^converse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objections to a merge to List of Surrey county cricket players if somebody else can talk the cricket regulars into it; BlackJack is gone so it might be more likely to stick than when it was tried for Sri Lankan players last year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—a SNG only provides a rebuttable presumption that notability should be satisfied under WP:GNG, but in this case, barring any new sources, that presumption has been rebutted. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SNG is best thought of as a shortcut for GNG not a replacement. Power~enwiki points out that WP:N isn't a pillar or core content policy but it is an incredibly important guideline and deserves some deference. This is one of the exceptions to the presumption of notability that the SNG gives - exceptions that I think are important for maintaining some level of community support for SNGs in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is not a biography. It is in fact a record of one player's performance in one match. If that principle were applied to Wilfred Rhodes as the most extreme case, there would be well over a thousand articles about each of his match performances. As someone suggested earlier, the solution here must be to include Chitty in a list of Surrey players. I would, incidentally, question the status of the match because, by definition, a first-class match is eleven a side. This one was fourteen against twelve. It is debatable, therefore, if Chitty was a first-class player. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let me be clear that I would switch to "Keep" if any source emerges that provides biographical detail allowing for even a very brief biography to be written. If deleted, I support recreation if such a source is discovered. Special notability guidelines exist (with one rigorous exception for academics) to serve as a quick shortcut or rule of thumb for evaluating whether or not the topic of an article is likely to pass the General Notabilty Guideline. This speeds deletion evaluation but there are always exceptions. This is such an exception. Passing a SNG is not a 100% guarantee that an article must be kept, but rather a short-term proxy for an in-depth search for significant coverage in reliable sources. In this particular case, we lack any knowledge about this person other than a one word moniker, and a single scoreless 1800 match appearance. Surrey county cricket teams says the the current team in Surrey was organized in 1845; and the concept of First-class cricket was formalized in 1895. There is no information about the team in the article so how do we know that this was even a match at the highest level? We don't by reading the article. This is not at all an indication that Haygarth is not a reliable source. I can pull any good nonfiction book off my shelves at random. Such a book might provide solid evidence of the notabilty of one, several or many topics. But there will inevitably be passing mentions of many other topics, and those passing mentions do not establish notabilty. All we know of Chitty is an exceptionally brief passing mention and that is insufficient for establishing notabilty or justifying a Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Cullen328 is spot on when he asks: There is no information about the team in the article so how do we know that this was even a match at the highest level? We don't by reading the article. The match is described there as first-class but, as I said above, it was very unusual because of the fourteen to twelve odds. I have access to Scores & Biographies and it is recorded on page 279. The team names are Fourteen of England and Twelve of Surrey. Chitty is twelfth of the Surrey twelve. There certainly were first-class matches and county teams from Surrey long before 1800. If this had been an eleven-a-side match it would without a doubt be first-class, but played to odds it must more likely have been to settle a private wager and should be seen as some kind of exhibition game. Reading what Cullen says about the notability guidelines, it seems to me that Chitty would only pass the cricket SNG if that match is definitely first-class. Even if he does pass that, there is no way that a surname on a single scorecard can be said to justify a biographical article because the GNG is emphatic, as I read it, that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Haygarth is certainly an independent reliable source but can anyone seriously claim that the coverage is significant? Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• To be fair, I have done some work on the article to include all of the additional information that has been discussed in this case. The article now has a couple of paragraphs instead of a single sentence but it remains a very brief report of one player's performance in one match that might not have been first-class. It is not a biographical article. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks more like an encyclopedia article now than the exercise in stamp-collecting that it previously was. As you say, though, it's still not a biographical article because the sources come nowhere near justifying it. I'm also a little skeptical of the last paragraph as it looks like a comment about the notability guideline. I've previously protested editor-facing footnotes used to defend these trash articles so it would be a little hypocritical not to voice a concern now. Reyk _YO! 12:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Reyk, I see what you mean. It was a leading comment, actually expressing an opinion, so I've removed it. Thank you for pointing it out. Reading your last sentence, it sounds as if these miniature articles are a real problem. I only came across this one because I was reading the cricket project page and followed a link. Are there many more like it? Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]