< 13 August	15 August >

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

The result was delete. The sources presented contain at best trivial mentions Fenix down (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hercher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing new since the prior AfD, however the speedy was declined. Issues which were cited in the prior AfD are still extant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 09:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think this is a bit of an unfortunate one since I would agree that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL as things currently stand given that playing for Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. in what was then the Third Division does not meet the criteria set out there. However Inverness Caledonian Thistle are now a notable club having won the Scottish Cup a major national competition and I do feel that Alan Hercher played an important part in their history as a) an original member of the club when it was formed in 1994 b) playing and scoring in the club's first ever league match (which was in itself notable as the first ever Scottish league match played in the Highlands) c) being their first captain. Technically it is probably correct to delete it as the rules stand, and I fully respect the arguments made by other users, but I do think it is a shame is it could easily be argued he played a notable part in the history of a major football club. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunarc: He was Caley's first captain - would there be anything written about him contemporaneously with his playing career? Right now the article is a tweet, a facebook post, and two obits, which isn't enough for WP:GNG, but there have been a couple keep !voters in both AfDs and I'm curious if he was notable during his career. SportingFlyer T·C 08:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: If memory serves there was newspaper coverage at the time, but I doubt any of it is online. I will have look later today to see if I can find anything. Dunarc (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a more recent story about the first match's 25th anniversary and Hercher's role here https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/sport/football/inverness-caledonian-thistle/1814893/arbroath-match-a-fitting-way-to-remember-caley-jags-legend-hercher-says-bennett/. Also as mentioned in this recent match report mentions the club have named an enclosure after him https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49216200 Dunarc (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly also worth noting that there was also mention of Hercher's hat trick on the Scottish Professional Football League's website when it marked the 20th anniversary of the first Inverness Caledonian Thistle match in 2014 https://spfl.co.uk/news/highland-anniversary. This article also might be of relevance https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/sport/big-names-to-honour-caley-thistle-legend-at-charity-cup-match-180834/ Dunarc (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the claim of notability hasn't really convinced anyone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Hovey (producer and actor)[edit]

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

Subject does not qualify for an article under WP:ACTOR, and the references provided here either lack independence from the subject (IMDb, Pintrest), are promotional (PRweb), or are not about the subject. A Google News search turns up 40 hits, most of these related to his résumé, are other Pintrest/ social media hits, or are from photo shoots he appeared in. The WP:INTERVIEWS I found came from sources with no established reporting reputation. I did not find any substantive discussion in reliable independent published sources. Being related to Priscilla Presley does not qualify him as notable. A loose necktie (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Hovey is an award-winning actor and producer with a significant amount of articles and interviews to support his Wikipedia article. He has won several awards for his performances in films including As In Kevin which won him a Best Supporting Comedy Actor Award at the LA Live Film Festival and Plastic Daydream with celebrity fitness instructor Shari Belafonte. Plastic Daydream was directed by Kathy Kolla who has a live Wikipedia page with very similar articles. He can be seen in a new role, Adam, in upcoming feature film Undateable John which was developed by Joan Jett and also features Shannen Doherty. All three mentioned films have significant press coverage and awards that support Hovey's credibility as an actor and producer. His familial relations were mentioned upon personal request, not to make him appear more credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahandos1 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the "LA Live Film Festival" actually means the LA Film Festival (which I am guessing it does not) then the festival itself has no Wikpedia article and likely lacks enough notability of its own to use the winning of an award from them as a qualification for notability. Further, being in an upcoming notable film does not make an actor notable. Even being in that film wouldn't automatically make him notable. And coverage of a film does not mean coverage of an actor in that film. Lastly, who placed the request for the mention of the familial relations and was anyone paid for this? If so, the author needs to make a declaration of conflict of interest on their user page and on the talk page of the article itself. A loose necktie (talk)

Delete Source do not indicate Hovey passes WP:GNG. None of the roles he has had or the awards he has received are major enough to meet any inclusionary standard. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GPL93 said everything I wanted to here, awards not being big enough or the lack of significance of the roles (so WP:NACTOR is not met). Currently, the coverage of his is either in interviews (WP:PRIMARY), blogs/forums or in passing, which makes him fail WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bit player who does not meet WP:NACTOR - the article is spin to make him sound notable, for example the article says he had a role in the film Rebound, but fails to mention that his role was so small it was uncredited - and he appeared in a minor supporting role in only one of the 115 episodes of Unusual Suspects - most of the article references are WP:REFBOMBING to WP:MASK lack of notability - the article is little more than promotional hype - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article moved to draft namespace. (non-admin closure) Josalm64rc (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleluya (En La Tierra)[edit]

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

Albums references consist only of track listings and links to places where this album can be purchased. No discussion whatsoever, and does not qualify per WP:ALBUM. A loose necktie (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Ember[edit]

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

Empty bio of a young, perfectly ordinary beat reporter. No evidence of major stories broken or covered, no journalism prizes, or a career, even, as she's apparently in her mid-twenties. Calton | Talk 22:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible claim of notability. The Politico source has a trivial mention of her and it would be difficult to believe that her wedding announcement in the NYT was independent of her being an NYT employee. Subject is basically a cub reporter, for whom this article is TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article. The subject of this article passes WP:GNG for being the subject of articles for multiple events. When a person repeatedly enters the media as the subject of journalism for different reasons over a period of time then they merit a Wikipedia article. I restored previously deleted citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This person is part of 5 media narratives, each of which appear in multiple third party sources:

journalism appointment noteworthy enough to be reported in other non-press release news stories, including a history of the position
marriage were the narrative is always that she married into Bain & Company
LA Times conflict with Disney and reporting the media leak and subsequent reorganization
this person and her writing critiqued on expertise on United States foreign policy for Central America
this person publishing lobbyist statements but neglecting to note the affiliation

Any one of these is an argument for passing WP:GNG. Will anyone dispute that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first bit is routine run-of-the-mill hiring details. All of the rest are a bunch of minor bits cobbled together in a rather clumsy attempt at coatracking, to build an attack page on a journalist doing her job. --Calton | Talk 22:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something that feels more balanced and substantive can be created. A couple of minor controversies is a dicey basis for an article on a living person. Haukur (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a general beat reporter -- even one employed by a large media outlet -- does not typically meet the criteria for notability pursuant to WP:JOURNALIST. Many non-notable figures have a wedding announcement story in the Sunday Styles section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.9.185 (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being employed by a large company does not make anyone notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just having a job does not make someone notable - the article does not establish notability per WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST - Two sentences does not an encyclopedic article make WP:2 SENTENCES - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suchi Mukherjee[edit]

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

Not notabile. John Vedral (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure promotion. Fails WP:GNG -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many other business persons in the same category, what does make her notable? Fails WP:GNG. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikoo.Amini: yeah, I totally get you. She is not even that hot. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect may be created if absolutely necessary, but this is a highly unlikely search term. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emergency! characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not referenced and reeks of WP:OR. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical fan-wiki material, too crufty and OR-ful for our purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Emergency!#Cast. Not list material but can serve as a redirect. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hey, Emergency! was a great show. I used to watch it as a kid (along with Adam 12). But, yeah, this is fancruft of the highest degree. No objection to a redirect, but not sure it's necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Per WP:CHEAP, a redirect would work out fine. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary because that's an unlikely search term. But as I said, no objection either, and CHEAP is certainly a reasonable argument. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Clear consensus to delete, but I don't see any reason to deny Dheerajmpai23's request for to draftify, as long as they understand they'll need to meet WP:BIO and/or WP:ACADEMIC before it can get moved back to mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Draft:Satyanarayanan Chakravarthy

Satyanarayanan Chakravarthy[edit]

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

Notability is questionable, leaning toward Unremarkable BigDwiki (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BigDwiki (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BigDwiki (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable person failing WP:GNG, specifically WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, with no reliable independent in-depth sources. Article was moved to mainspace without full AfC procedure. Almost all sources with content in the article are short profiles, not independent or not about the subject. The closest ones are the two BuisnessLine articles, but neither is about the subject. The awards received appear to be minor and so not enough for ACADEMIC. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through sources added after the start of the AfD, and none of them are about the subject, but rather various related topics. In three of them the person themselves is giving commentary, making the source primary for those parts. In fourth, it's less than a paragraph of a passing mention. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And the 5 more sources added since are all similarly where the subject has themselves said something about a related project, but there is no focus or in-depth information about the subject themselves. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article relies heavily on primary sources, and verges on the promotional. Awards of any sort are a dime a dozen in academica; they need to be significant awards to count towards notability. I don't see evidence that this individual meets either WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per nom and the comments of Hellknowz and Vanamonde93 above. I am somewhat less inclined to dismiss academic awards outright but several of the awards listed are for young researchers, and don't contribute to WP:PROF notability, while others don's look particularly significant. Citability here is pretty low, especially for the high citation engineering field. The top cited publications in Google Scholar have 69, 61 and 52 citations correspondigly. For someone who is genuinely academically notable in this field, with the research careeer that is almost 25 years long, I would have expected to see a lot more. Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above the article does not show signs of notability. Fails WP:GNG and not enough secondary sources.Alex-h (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as he is a notable person The Search results online did not give relevant results as he is mentioned as SR Chakravarthy in several cases. The Search link in the deletion searches for the exact term "Satyanarayanan Chakravarthy". I have updated with relevant sources (other than primary sources)and have added them in the talk page too. Google Search Results , Publications (1), (2, Research Gate) Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify/Userfy I would like to take some more time to improve the article. I request the admin to be moved to draftspace/UserSandbox as mentioned here to prevent loss of the original contributers. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The weight of PAG based argument is clearly against retention. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viral drink[edit]

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

Not particularly encyclopedic. All the sources aren't about the concept of "viral drinks", which appears to simply be drinks that are popular over a period of time, but about individual cocktails themselves. GPL93 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be a list article, then. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure about that, given that all but a few of the drinks are not notable on their own. I think the best course of action would be to mention that "X drink was popular during Y time" in the drink's own article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does notability work, when it comes to lists; does it suffice for the list items to be notable, or do there have to be reliable sources about the topic of the list as a whole? I would think if a lot of such sources existed, it might allow for the expansion of the article to be more than a list.

What I see happening in some cases is that there will be an article in the press about a trendy drink, that'll compare it to related or similar trends. For example, the flavored malt beverage trend's hard soda component started with root beer and continued with ginger ale, orange soda, etc. But this was part of an overarching trend in which consumers, bored with craft beer, started switching to other beverages that were getting marketed (one of the latest trends being hard seltzer, which in the case of White Claw Hard Seltzer, was driven by marketing inspired by the Smirnoff Ice trend, including the icing phenomenon; Smirnoff Ice itself, by the way, has been described as an attempt to replicate the success of Zima). See, e.g., quotations from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Viral drink for more detail/examples. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be in RfD? It is currently a redirect. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: It appears that the article's creator has changed the name since I AfDed it. More or less I've tried to explain that the article is: A) redundant as we already have articles about Fads and market trends and B) an Original thought, which the original title indicated. However, he thinks that by changing the name of the article to seem like a broader concept or turn it into a list of some sort (which would most likely be WP:LISTCRUFT will somehow get the subject to meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but needs lots of work. The article is now at Popularity spikes of drinks, which is a better article title, but still not great. I think there is some content here and it has been improved since the deletion nomination, but it's quite WP:SYNTH-y. The first four references do actually appear to be about the phenomenon of how drinks are marketed and see popularity spikes, so I think they demonstrate WP:GNG. The latter half of the article is a list and needs clear list criteria as per WP:LSC, but that's achievable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about splitting alcoholic drinks and coffee drinks into separate lists, since those seem to be the main categories I ran into when looking up viral drinks. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of a "viral drink" is notable, and warrants an article, iff there are multiple independent reliable secondary sources that describe viral drinks as a concept, as opposed to the various examples given in the article as it currently is. There are a couple sources in the article that appear to do so, such as Mancall-Bitel and Ng, so I'll give this the benefit of the doubt and !vote to keep it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Entirely synthesis. While a few of the sources use the term "viral", the topic as a whole isn't widely covered. This could be merged somehow with Food trends, Health food trends, and Camera eats first, but the idea that certain beverages become popular is hardly a notable concept. I don't see any sources tying the drinks listed together. Even with the Mancall-Bitel article, a mention could be made elsewhere but that doesn't establish the need for an independent article. Reywas92^Talk

Did you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Viral drink, where there are sources tying together drink trends? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative comment. I've moved this back to the original title. It's generally not a good idea to rename a page while an AfD is running, for the reasons outlined in WP:AFDEQ. It really messes up the operation of the closing scripts, and the potential for confusion is illustrated in the discussion above. After this is over (assuming the article is kept), if somebody wants to move it back to the new title, that's fine. But please leave it where it is until the AfD is over. I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of times, if you keep it under a suboptimal title, it makes it more likely that people will vote to delete. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This concept may be notable, but this is not a good start for an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH without question. No WP:RS anywhere which indicates the notability of a so called phenomenon of a viral drink. Possibly some information here could be used to add to the viral marketing article, but the majority of the information as presented is WP:PROMO... FWIW - northern Italians have been drinking Aperol spritz for 50+ years... hardly a viral drink in that context ... this points to the inherent SYNTH issues of the article - in many cases these drinks have existed for long periods.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Do you see in the article a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources? I don't see anywhere that it says no one was drinking Aperol spritzes before they went viral in the U.S. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no reliable sources (see WP:NEWSORG) of this so-called phenomenon. It is a list of beverages that became popular in the USA at a certain point in time due to advertising. Again, see WP:NOT.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Iron Man titles#Limited series and one-shots. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man vs. Whiplash[edit]

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

Article is not noteworthy at all per WP:GNG, and it contains almost no information. The equivalent amount of information is already present in the marketing section of the Iron Man 2 movie page. I suppose that it could be entered into Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics as well, but that's probably a separate discussion for that talk page. I don't think preserving a redirect is even worthwhile. Then there would be a redirect page for every single title out there. 2pou (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Iron_Man_2#Marketing per WP:CHEAP. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Iron Man titles#Limited series and one-shots. Already listed there. Looking for sources I found one review on IGN and a listicle on comics affected by the MCU, so there might be a weak case for a keep, depending on your view on listicles. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still reviewing sources before I make a final decision, but I want to jump in and mention that Killer Moff's proposed target is the best option so far. The comic is not an MUC tie-in, so Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics is not at all appropriate. The section of Iron Man 2 mentions it, but I don't think characterizing this as part of the marketing campaign is appropriate. Honestly, anyone who was aware of this comic was already buying a ticket to the movie. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Chism[edit]

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

A person that the Warren Commission did NOT interview. Non-notable person even in the context JFK conspiracy theorists. Location (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This person is not notable per se and much of what is out there are JFK-related websites (some of which are obvious copies of this very WP article). Only RS seems to be a NY Post piece in which she was one of many witnesses who recounted their stories on the 50th anniversary of the assassination. Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete affadavit's are primary sources. Wikipedia is supposed to be built around secondary sources. This article is not at all meeting that requirement and needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic hornshark[edit]

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

The existence of this unnamed, unclassified species seems to be based on some self-indulgent speculation by a single author [1] (note absence of details about "genetic analysis" etc.) What the second reference, dealing with a pinniped family, is doing in that article, I have no idea - nor how a discussion of fossils, published 30 years prior to the speculative description of this shark, could in any way be relevant to a species supposed to be distinguished by its skin markings...

Redirected to genus earlier, which was just reverted. On reconsideration, I would now suggest deletion, as this name is just too general and informal to justify a redirect. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Not worth having as it is now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Oman bullhead shark was some years ago a humble Heterodontus sp., but I can find no documentation for this having progressed similarly. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that received a formal taxonomic description [2], and that's what we would need here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a species yet, so not inherently notable. Otherwise lacking notability, as the only other mentions of the shark just refer back to the book cited in the article. When it's formally described, re-create the article. --Nessie (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spokane College of English Language[edit]

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

Non notable local business, unsourced since 2007 Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Unless notable for other reasons, training schools such as this are usually non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not believe this language school meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Barca (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The single non routine source presented falls well short of establishing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alusine Bangura[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Initial concern was that the article failed WP:GNG. Contested opinion stated that the article was made before the TT Pro League was removed from WP:FPL (which it recently was) and thus should remain. I contend that the article does still fail WP:GNG and fails WP:NFOOTY, as the fact that this article was made before TT Pro League was removed from WP:FPL does not mean that it continues that presumption of notability. Jay eyem (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Jay eyem:, He meets notability (besides meeting WP:NFOOTBALL criteria with pro league appearance) with this interview as well as the other sources listed. Also, if all articles that passed WP:NFOOTY had to pass WP:GNG, a lot of articles would be deleted; for example, the Russian Professional Football League players who all have a page. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok one, you don't need to ping me since I am watching the page, two I fail to see how this two paragraph piece is sufficient to meet WP:GNG, three he absolutely does not meet WP:NFOOTY, as there are no international appearances and no appearances in a fully-professional league, and four I would actually be perfectly fine with deleting a lot of those pages that don't meet WP:GNG but meet WP:NFOOTY, but this discussion isn't about them. Jay eyem (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He would meet WP:NFOOTY as the article was created before the TT Pro League was removed. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The exact opposite is true, and this can be demonstrated by a recent precedent to demote certain American leagues from WP:FPL status. Regardless, the article still needs to pass WP:GNG, and more than a brief two-paragraph interview would be required here. Jay eyem (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (the local coverage in Trinidad isn't quite in-depth enough, and much of it relates to his arrest and release; see, WP:BLP1E). Jogurney (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above – Levivich 04:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article does not meet requirements for WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of Blood[edit]

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

I found no notability per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a short description in Regional Horror Films (2012) [3] and something I can only see a snippet of in John Willis' Screen World (1974).[4] A search for "valley of blood mica" yields a few similar snippets. It's not much to go on. Haukur (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NF. Imdb sums it up "No prints of the film have surfaced since its small regional theatrical run and it is feared lost." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Birrell[edit]

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

Many, many issues. Not encyclopedic or notable. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Finding zero reliable source coverage. Purportedly there was a television program about him, and he sells through Saatchi Art, although neither adds up to a pass. Curiocurio (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:BLP. What a horrific mess. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST, no reviews of work(s), none found to be held by/in wikisignificant exhibitions/museums/galleries. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from the fact that this is not written a remotely encyclopedic style, there is nothing in the article to suggest that the subject meets notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I had considered relisting this but in the end concluded it would be pointless. The discussion has been open for two weeks and opinions are all over the place. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog breeds[edit]

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

Possibly expand Bulldog_(disambiguation) ~~a dab~~, create a list ~~or category~~ there already is a Category:Bulldog_breeds but needs to be renamed if it remains or make it so it lists various breeds with "Bulldog" in the name.^{18:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)} Does not to be a standalone article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note to closer - there is only one Bulldog (also known as the British Bulldog, or English Bulldog that is considered a breed, and that is recognized as a purebred dog internationally by notable breed registries, including AKC, The Kennel Club, and Canadian Kennel Club to name a few. What this article is attempting to do involves WP:SYNTH and unreliable sources with anectdotal accounts of history. There are "bully types" but they are not "bulldog breeds" which is how some advocacies attempt to classify them in their quest to ban all bully types, while ignoring the fact that modern purebred dogs (with the exception of the Bulldog breed itself) no longer have any Old English Bulldog in their ancestry, if they had any to begin with at all. The dog breeds listed in the article are either unsourced or poorly sourced, as they are in the main articles. I just started trying to fix the mess that has been created because of misinformation. The dog breeds being referred to in this article as Bulldog breeds have been crossbred over centuries to other breeds and breed-types that have nothing to do with the Bulldog, which explains why the Old English Bulldog became extinct - it was bred out of those other breeds and the only thing that remains is the name because those breeds, such as the American Bulldog, were initially bred to drive and catch cattle and hogs, and don't look anything like a Bulldog. Another parallel to consider: The American Quarter Horse initially came to be by centuries old crossbreeding of the Arabian horse, Spanish Horse, and English-bred horses - we don't have Quarter Horses listed in an article titled Arabian breeds. It's nonsense. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: The nominator deleted everything in the article and is now requesting an article deletion. I believe everything should be put back in the article and the article left alone. Aquatastetalk 21:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)ble Sockpuppet account. Cavalryman (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I only deleted unrecognized, non-notable "breeds", including one that is owned by a single person under the guise of "rare breed". 😳 I just hope editors who are knowledgeable about dog breeds, and what actually constitutes notability and categorization of purebred dogs will weigh-in here because there is quite a bit of article clean-up left to do in this t-area. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be parallel to other dog type articles likePinscher, Schnauzer, and Spaniel, which are names that encompass multiple breeds, just in this case bulldog is a specific breed by itself. Parallel overview sections like Genetics and Origins would be welcome. Reywas92^Talk 21:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After doing a hatchet job on the article, nominator now wants the article deleted in favor of simply a 'category', however the article provides more information than a category can possibly offer. Nom offered the reason "unsourced SYNTH" to delete a section. SYNTH requires two or more sources in order to create WP:SYNTH; perhaps nom meant WP:OR instead. Nom removed several other sections while stating they aren't officially recognized breeds and fails GNG. However, WP:GNG is related to whether or not something gets its own article in Wikipedia, not whether it gets a mention within a related article (See WP:NOTEWORTHY). Nom removed the Alano Español section stating "unsourced and issues with verifiability", however some of the information was sourced in the Alano Español, whose link was provided. Nom has nominated two other articles for deletion today [5] [6] alleging they are not "real" dog breeds because they are not officially recognized as breeds. Nomopbs (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did extensive work on this article in the last four days. I reworked the lede (which was pretty skimpy) and added citations. I added a section "Names and variants" which helps explain why some of the breeds are included on the page whether or not they have 'bulldog' in their name. I standardized the type, size and placement of images. I went over each of the breeds and made sure each entry had just a summary, ensuring each has some sort of explanation or connection to "bulldog breeds". Though much of the page SEEMS citation-less, the Verifiability factor comes mostly from linking to the main article for each breed. Outside-from-Wikipedia citations are mostly in the original articles. All of the breeds have their own standalone articles except one, Bulldogge Brasiliero, which has its complete original text included in the Bulldog breeds article because of an Afd Merge decision about two weeks ago. In this article, I included breeds based on a more neutral point of view of "What is a bulldog breed?" and not the strict definition expressed by nom ("there is only one Bulldog") — and there are more breeds yet to add to the page.

I disagree with nom's explanations for her removing several breeds from this article just prior to nominating the entire article for deletion. The deletions were grounded in nom's arbitrary standard requiring that a breed be barred from any mention throughout Wikipedia unless (a) it is recognized by an official national kennel club, and (b) it is notable. Nom recently proposed this as an idea for a new official standard for all Wikipedia dog articles [7] and I posted my reasons for rejection of the idea here [8].

Vote no to merging with Molosser. Not all bulldog breeds are molosser types and the Bulldog breeds article has value that would be entirely lost if merged into that other article. — Nomopbs (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN which tells us that we don't delete one form of structure to favour another. If category:bulldog breeds is acceptable, then an article about them is ok too. See also WP:BROAD. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Molosser. This appears to be a content fork and was full of OR, though there's been a bit of cleanup. I'm not seeing the need for something separate from Bulldog or the broader family of Molosser breeds. Category:Bulldog breeds is something else entirely, stating "An aggregate of dog breeds with the word "BULLDOG" in the their name. Dog breeds that originate from bulldogs, that do not have the word bulldog in their name should not be included in this category." Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Montanabw has got it right: this is a selection from the lists at Molosser, filled with material from the individual, well-developed articles and with no value added. We do not need individual articles at one end, a list of breeds on the other (and arguably the category even beyond that), AND a partial list of excerpts in the middle. - Random tossing-around of WP:BROAD above ignored as the usual empty one-size-fits-all verbiage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Molosser will not work because not all molossers are bulldogs, and not all bulldogs are molossers. The groups overlap, but neither group is a subgroup of the other. Therefore, merging with the Molosser page is not a viable solution. (Note: A large quantity of dogs listed on the Molosser page are not actually molossers.) Nomopbs (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm inclined to agree with Montanabw and Elmidae on the redirect to Molosser. However, I'm not convinced that an article of this kind couldn't have value with a major rewrite. On the one hand you have a large list of Molosser breeds, on the other you have detailed articles on individual breeds; the information on their relationships is either limited or fragmented. I think there is scope for an article focusing on a subset of bulldog-like Molossers and how different extinct and modern breeds developed from early bulldogs. You can see the basics for such an article reading the current article. A revised article should focus on the development rather than being another list. Jts1882 | talk 16:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree something like that might work, but it would have to add substantially to what's already present at Bulldog#History - otherwise it's just another duplication. That section does feel rather condensed (but maybe appropriately so.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A brachycephalic history. Jts1882 | talk 16:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1 would be finding RS to cite. I have been removing poorly sourced material, some of which is cited to questionable "spring-up overnight" commercial breed registries that have a BOD (3 partners) that evaluate applications for registry. For all we know, the dogs may look like a particular purebred but all they have to go on is what the owner tells them - which could be that the puppy was sired by Hole In The Fence out of the bitch, Backyard. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No vote yet. I know quite a bit about dogs but much more about herding, sporting, and toy breeds than about bull-type dogs or molossers, and without reading a lot more, I'm hesitant to vote. However, the page as it currently stands lists dogs that are all included in Molosser, and I'm not sure that it makes sense to repeat info about the breeds that would already appear in each breed's page. Interestingly, neither page seems to include everything--for example, American Bully, which seems like it would fit in both places. I'm not sure what dogs don't belong in the Molosser page--quick check in other sources for some that seemed like maybes to me (e.g., French Bulldog, Pug...) do indeed seem to be counted as Molossers (e.g., http://www.bulldoginformation.com/small-dog-breeds-molossers.html)-- but the Molosser narrative fails to address small Molossers. I think that the suggestion that an article about the history of bulldog-type breeds could make sense, with a simple list of dogs in that category... but, as I said, not convinced that I know enough about that. Another possible solution could be to add subheads in the Molosser page for bulldog-type breeds and those that aren't, although not sure what the "aren't" ones would be grouped as. Mostly thinking out loud here. Elf | Talk 05:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of bulldog breeds. Ajf773 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...which would be a nice trifecta of factually wrong, a page misnomer, and pointless. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is assuming the article is kept. Ajf773 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has many WP:RSs and the article passes our notability guide. The article can be renamed if there is consensus that "bully types" is a better title as the nominator suggests. Wm335td (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Editor has only 19 edits.^^^ ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psssst! Read WP:SENIORITY. — Nomopbs (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

READ WP:SPA ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... Wikipedia:Single-purpose account? — Nomopbs (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to have a "list of" in front of the name. Reliable source call these breeds bulldogs then so be it. Enough valid referenced information in the article for it to exist. Dream Focus 23:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, the article lacks RS for all the names listed, and not all are legitimate breeds. Read the NOTE by the OP above, and what the redirects said. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: This whole conversation is happening because Atsme's deletion request is not going very well for him, so now he is trying to get Nomopbs account deleted. The person that is being aggressive and uncivil is Atsme, not Nomopbs. Atsme is a deletionist and Nomopbs is doing a good job editing and trying to save the article! Aquatastetalk 11:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet account. Cavalryman (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

WP:NUKEIT, horribly sourced. If someone comes up with some RS then they can recreate it. Cavalryman (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep but consider repurposing. Seems like there is a bit of confusion here about whether this should be considered an article about a company or an article about a product, and about which notability guideline to apply since the notability criteria are slightly different. Based on my reading of this discussion, there are several conclusions:

Judged by WP:NCORP it seems like there is a delete consensus, as neither number of employees nor the popularity of the product are notability criteria; it's all about the sourcing and as noted none of it has been provided.
On the product it seems like there is actually a consensus to keep, as none of the delete arguments has made the claim that it isn't notable and reasoned arguments have been proffered that it is. Now, the spamming/COI concerns could also be applied here; but neither undisclosed paid editing nor conflicts of interest do automatically require deletion of an otherwise notable topic.
On whether the topic should be treated as an article on the product or on the company or as both, it seems like the article in its current state is primarily about the company and some editors have suggested that it be repurposed to be mainly about the product to resolve the notability concerns.

On balance, this is a "keep" as there is a consensus that in some form the article can be kept and there are no overriding reasons for removing it altogether, but also "but consider repurposing" as the arguments that the article is better off repurposed about the notable product are legitimate. I recommend a talk page discussion to go more in-depth about this aspect also because WP:NNC (i.e notability criteria dictate whether we cover a topic, not necessarily how we do so) potentially applies here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoast[edit]

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

SEO firm which fails WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Likely WP:COI created for... SEO purposes. See https://yoast.com/all-about-googles-knowledge-panels/ Loksmythe (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I use this, and know it's quite popular. I see more benefit in keeping than deleting. If this is a verified COI article, perhaps a COI tag and subsequent cleaning up would be more appropriate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Likely paid-for spam. MER-C 09:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree that the firm is not notable, but the Plugin certainly is. Of course notability is not inherited, but I wonder if a restructuring of the entry to focus on the acclaimed plugin instead of the firm would then subject it to WP:WEBCRIT or WP:PRODUCT, which it would likely pass with ease. Not sure if that kind of thing happens at AfD, or if we would need to delete and start from scratch. Pegnawl (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated the article about the owner three years ago. See here. I received a comment about the nomination on my talk page. See here. gidonb (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 100 employees, multiple reliable sources, notable product.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article were about the plugin, I wouldn't have any grievances. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The article could use reworking for that regard, however I'm not whether a article about a related, yet less notable topic deserves deletion. Utopes (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the focus of this article is about the company, the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP (therefore Delete) but the plug-in is well-known and would easily pass the criteria for notability. Since there's also a chance that an article on the plugin would occupy the same name, perhaps it is possible for an interested editor to rework the article so that the focus is the plug-in? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can be about both since they have the same name. Dream Focus 14:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response It can only have one main topic - either the company or the product. Right now, the topic is the company (and fails WP:NCORP). If the topic is changed so that the focus is the product (and of course if can still have a section on the company), then it would probably pass. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RS. Non-trivial coverage exists. Lightburst (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Can you point to any two links for non-trivial coverage of the company that meets NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a popular enough plug-in. If Forbes and other reliable sources cover it, then it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 14:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the topic isn't about the plug-in .... although it could be. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that it's not Forbes that covered this, but a blogger on Forbes/sites which is NOT the same as Forbes. Ravensfire (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you sure that's not just a directory for someone who worked there? Don't they have proper editorial oversight? They don't just let anyone upload things. Was this person a paid employee? Dream Focus 12:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - In general, when the Forbes URL includes .../site/[contributorname]/, you should assume no editorial oversight and treat it like a blog. If you hover over the little "i" next to the author's name you'll see the notice "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." But on top of that, the article you're referring to (I believe) includes only two brief paragraphs about Yoast, not "substantial coverage," and therefore not applicable for meeting the criteria of WP:NCORP (which are the notability guidelines that should apply to this entry as written). Pegnawl (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That coverage is significant for a review, its context not wordcount that matters, and WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear that something must meet either the general notability guidelines, as this clearly does, or one of the subject specific guidelines, it doesn't have to meet both. That disclaimer means nothing since they do that with their paid editors, especially when there is a review. And most websites have it where you can click on the writer's name and see a link that has /contributor name/ in it, listing all the articles they have written for them. Forbes is a legitimate news source, they not letting just anyone upload whatever they want. Dream Focus 17:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The Forbes 'sites' question has been covered at length over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (here's one example that really gets into it). There is no editorial oversight, therefore it's WP:SPS, and cannot be used to establish notability. Agreed that wordcount doesn't matter, but ... this particular article is mighty thin, miiiighty thin, and says nothing about the company itself, so ... I don't think any reasonable person would consider it "substantial coverage", even if it were reliable. Please ensure we're discussing the same article? Pegnawl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. I wasn't aware contributors were different than writing staff. But a reliable source [9] says over five million people use this, so that makes it notable enough for a Wikipedia article by reason of ignore all rules and basic common sense. Dream Focus 19:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question I see the reasoning of some of the Keep !voters above not differentiating between the company (current topic of this article) and the plug-in of the same name by the company. So what are we actually !voting on here? Nobody has produced any references that meet the criteria for notability on the company. That said, I don't think there'll be much problem turning up links for the product. So is this really a !vote to delete or a !vote to amend/change so that the topic is the product? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article about a company and its highly notable software product of the same name. There is absolutely nothing wrong about covering both in a single article, and the dogmatic objections above are based neither on policies nor guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Hi Cullen328, hardly a dogmatic objection or one that is supported by policy or guidelines. What the WP:NCORP guidelines say in the very first line is: This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - HighKing, nowhere does that guideline say that it is unacceptable for a single article to cover a company and its eponymous product. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company with a sufficient size, popularity, and sourcing. Prodego ^talk 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep for reasons cited by User:Dream Focus and User:Jimbo Wales. Meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable. That's why I did not AfD it along with the founder (see above). gidonb (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, lets be clear about what this AfD is about. The topic of this article is the company and therefore the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP states that "multiple" (at least two) references that support the notability of the company must exist. Despite the reasonable request above to produce any references that meet the criteria, not one has been produced. Also, the WP:NCORP guidelines say in the very first line is: This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. While the majority of editors above agree and have confirmed that the product is likely notably, that isn't the topic of this article. Therefore the reasons to Delete (which have not been dealt with by the Keep !voters are largely two-fold - that there are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP and that NCORP explicitly states that the article should be dedicated solely to either the organization or the product. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your repeated rhetorical insistence and italicization may indicate sincerity (I WP:AGF) but it is still only your opinion. Many others disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True to form, here comes the Rescue Article trolls to harass people who disagree... HighKing⁺⁺ 19:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True to form, here comes HighKing to personally attack and to harass people who disagree with HighKing. You have a long record, which speaks for itself. AFD's are his personal space, donchaknow? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not reading the guideline correctly, HighKing. The section on churches, for example, specifically allows combined articles, and does not limit combined articles to churches. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328 - your interpretation of the section on churches (WP:NCHURCH) is incorrect. It quite clearly only applies to churches and church buildings - especially seeing as it comes in a section labelled "Churches". It also clearly states that a combined article is justified *only* if *both* (congregation and building) are notable in their own right. It also doesn't say that an article where the topic is the congregation (which is *not* notable in its own right) is perfectly fine and allowable because their church building happens to be notable in its own right. The very first sentence of the NCORP guidelines couldn't be clearer, one would have to be obtuse to interpret it any differently that as it is written. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can call me obtuse all you want, HighKing, but there is nothing whatsoever in that sentence or in that guideline that forbids a combined article about a company and their flagship product of the same name. Deleting this article would remove encylopedic coverage of Yoast, and that would be the wrong outcome of this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've changed from arguing that the section on churches *specifically* *allows* combined articles to saying that there's nothing whatsoever that (specifically) *forbids" a combined article. Okay. I can agree with that. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is because both assertions can be true at the same time, and both actually are true, HighKing. Glad to see you onboard. But seriously, keeping and improving this article is the best outcome for the encylopedia, and deleting it is the worst outcome. Pedantry and dogmatism are both counterproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except not for the situation you're arguing for which is specifically excluded by the first line of the guidelines. And if its pedantry to point out what the guidelines actually say and to apply those guidelines to this situation, I'll take that. It isn't dogmatism to point out that your interpretation is not supported by the guidelines and goes against the purpose and spirit of the NCORP guidelines but it is obtuse to illogically cling onto a flawed argument and in my view, this is the real counterproductive behaviour. Most of the Delete !voters have clearly said that the topic (the company) fails the criteria of notability but the product (of the same name) would likely meet the criteria. Therefore the article will be improved by a delete/rewrite and at the same time, follow all our guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, draftify, revise, re-publish. The entry is clearly about the company (for which I can't find a single piece of "significant coverage" in any RS), while the majority of the Reception sub-section is about the product. The entry should be refocused to concentrate primarily on the much acclaimed plugin and include a subsection for the company/founder. As currently written, this entry should not pass WP:N, on its own and especially through the lens of WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trusting in the ordinary process of editing and improving is vastly superior to deletion as an outcome, Pegnawl. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I would agree wholeheartedly, but what's required here is not in the same vein as your typical "editing and improving". It's a total refocus that changes the categories, potentially the page name, and adjusts the language in every section. Had a single !keep voter acknowledged or entertained the restructuring recommendation I and others expressed three weeks ago, sure, I would have such faith. But that was not the case, !keep voters like the article as it presently exists, so (IMO) any such bold moves would be in poor taste until this conversation comes to a conclusion. Pegnawl (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An encyclopaedia does not have to list all 100-employee companies unless they are clearly above the threshold of notability for corporations. This one clearly fails the NCORP criteria. Yes, their product has a decent user base, but this AfD is about a company, not on their product (which would most likely fail any notability criteria anyway). — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Spongebob SquarePants. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamp Koral[edit]

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

I've decided to take this to AFD as @IJBall: questioned at [10] whether or not it meets WP:TVSHOW, and if the show doesn't, then I'd like it moved to draftspace until the premiere date is confirmed. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Spongebob Squarepants. There isn’t much info about this spin-off besides it getting green-lit, and it is best to add what’s out there to the SS article in a section for its own until there’s enough information for this to be on its own. 1989 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Draftify – assuming this actually does make it to broadcast as series, it's worthy of an article. It's just probably WP:TOOSOON right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SpongeBob SquarePants: I agree that it's too soon for the series to have its own standalone article. But there's some interesting information here that could be merged into the "Spin-off" section of the main SpongeBob article. --Jpcase (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not to soon for the series to get its article. The series may start in 2020. If not, don't delete it, since Kamp Koral already got its page. There is no reason for this page to deleted and rewritten because it is already made. 2601:205:4100:AB88:A43B:1442:9136:190F (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that it will air on TV. See WP:E≠N. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants#Spin-off and move this article to draft space. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Spongebob SquarePants. I was contemplating doing this, but it seemed well sourced enough, so I didn't think of it. In the meantime, yes it should go to draft space.Jerry (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and draftify For now. A merge is appropriate with a separate draft for when the show goes live. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SpongeBob SquarePants per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kung-Fu Cocktail Grip[edit]

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

This nomination is mostly procedural. The article for the band (Hog Molly) was recently nominated for deletion, and the result of that discussion is that the band is not notable and their article was merged to Tad (band) with whom they are affiliated. Per WP:A9 the album article should be deleted by rule, though I am bringing it here because it does have brief reviews in the reliable AllMusic [11] and NME [12]. Otherwise this old album received little notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : per nomination not notable, didn’t found significant Andy Kearns (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

striking !vote by sock, now blocked.GirthSummit _(blether) 12:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is right - A9 now applies, the artist doesn't have an article and the article makes no assertion of importance or significance. Routine coverage at Allmusic and Discogs doesn't establish notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete will be require soon.Andy Kearns (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Kearns, you can't !vote twice. I'd suggest you strike through your last post (in case you're not sure how, you do it like ~~this~~). This discussion will probably stay open for another few days - it was opened on the 14th, and they're generally left for a week before closure. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Rasi56 and Andy Kearns have been blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Kearns--DBigXrayᗙ 13:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Thomas[edit]

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

Does not meet General Notability Guidelines for a singer. MurielMary (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meet's WP:SINGER and his notable enough aside being part of a notable musical band, he has been placed on rotation by a major radio known as The Beat 97.9 FM and also have performed music for a notable network known as MTV Base Africa. He was also featured on a major album "Rendezvous" by M.I Abaga in 2018.--Goodie9696 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you indicate which of the notability criteria at WP:SINGER the subject meets, as I don't see any? MurielMary (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 10 & 11; MTV Base (Africa) is a notable network, their is a reliable source on that which I added above and also airplay on Beat FM which is a notable radio station in Nigeria in which he was on rotation with the song "Shaken" in 2018. The two sources i added above are reliable of the network and the radio station.--Goodie9696 (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Pulse Nigeria and magazines as shown on this article and the discography article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Pulse Nigeria and Pan African Music appear to be reliable, independent sources that give him significant coverage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Atlantic306 and Cwmhiraeth Ceethekreator (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to disagree with fellow users above because this article is based on unreliable sources and namechecking which are both signs of intent for promotion. First, Pulse Nigeria (almost half of the current sources) is not reliable, more especially when it's occupying prominent position in sources. I have already explained why in this 2018 thread but things only got worse since then, they now report jokes, and atimes help UK's Daily Mail to spread unverfied nonsense. To their credit, they didn't claim any professional diligence in their mission, they say they are simply "popular news platform".

If we remove Pulse Nigeria from the article (ref 1,5,6,7,12) nothing much will remain. The only reliable source in the article is The Punch, (ref #11), however, it's classic example of a mere-mention. The source only mentioned the subject once, and only once. And this is a name in the midst of 17 other names.
Source number 8, [13] is a user-generated forum; for comparison, it's reliability can be likened to Wikipediocracy's. Source number 10 is not much better, see their about page.
Source number 4 is a blatant namechecking. Number 3, a semi-reliable blog while source #9 is an interview. So there's no evidence of significant coverage and not anything meaningful from reliable sources. In short WP:SINGER is not met here.– Ammarpad (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pushing it but still a keep. Found a few sources from Konbini like this one , and this one. He also was a guest on a few singles with a few notable artists like Santi. Plus what per Emmy. Just enough. Josalm64rc (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your links are both from the same domain konbini.com and are actually worse than the current sources. The site is basically an advertising outfit and most of it is a user-submitted content which they say they're are not liable for. The sources you gave are example of such submissions. You too can submit, using the submission buttons on the website footer or by navigating Contact us >Write article in the top navigation bar. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammarpad: I found this source from the National from 2015 which may be good enough to pass WP:GNG along with the Punch source.Josalm64rc (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Even though the above account is blocked as a sockpuppet, I think it's good to clear this). You said "along with the Punch source." It appears either you didn't read that Punch's article or you're deliberately trying to use it anyhow just to claim notability. Let me quote the whole paragraph for you. It's the last paragraph and reads:
Others include Sensei Uche, Kemi Smallz, Mr Real, CDQ, Jaywon, Iyanya, Okiki DFT, Blaqbonez, Oluwakaponeski, Victor AD, Sess Beats, Lyta, Somto Cody Akanegbu, SamPhrank, Tomi Thomas (Mayorkun’s manager), Shakar El, Awazi and Osagie John-Osarenz. It was a memorable moment for many of the attendees as they got to interact with their favourite celebrities. (Punch)
The highlighted part is the only placed he's mentioned. It'll require an unimaginable stretch to claim that this article makes him notable. What the source only makes clear is that he's just a manager to another artiste, I am not sure when we start hosting article for musicians' managers. That National's article may be a bit better (it's an interview anyway), but we will require multiple of them to show this manager's notability. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goodie and Cwmhiraeth; the sources provided check out, and the subject retains enough notability for an article. Utopes (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, except I have proven they're all unreliable (the only reliable [14] mentioned him ONCE in a list of 17 other people), Goodie and Cwmhiraeth did not refute that. You cannot establish notability based on utterly unreliable sources; and there's no notability to 'retain' as it was never established in the first place. That's a policy. It's not negotiable. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ammarpad: the link you gave does not show any consensus or details of why Pulse Nigeria is unreliable, and printing a list of jokes in a light hearted article is neither here nor there Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not claim any 'consensus', did I? I explained why it's unreliable, if you disagree you have to explain why it's reliable. If you consider printing jokes (which you called "light hearted") as a journalistic professionalism, me I don't. I also explain how they're republishing nonsense intoto from WP:DAILYMAIL [15]. You did not comment on that. Not mention all the other unreliable sources that were used to create the article. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Atlantic306: per the national link provided by Josalm64rc which is a notable newspaper in UAE look's reliable enough to meet WP:GNG cause WP:GNG never stated how many source needed to meet it criteria and also i updated the article. He was part of the musical artist selected to mobilise vote at the 2019 Nigerian general election. To what I stated above he meets WP:SINGER and clearly meets WP:GNG. --Goodie9696 (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - ... selected to mobilise vote... "selected" by who? Your statement makes it look like this was by a government body or a notable organization. It was neither. The news mentioned Tomi once, who was in fact mentioned by the "Lead Influencer" of the organization. The organization TheElectionNetwork is non-notable, the lead influencer Noble Igwe has a questionable biography. I am not sure, but I doubt, if that was a registered organization. It was just an ad hoc pseudo-group for the purpose of campaign and it went it oblivion as soon as campaigns are over. If you believe it was a genuine organization, please provide evidence. GNG did not mandate number of sources, but it requires "significant coverage" [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. There are no sources to meet that and certainly we can't deduct that from one interview without excessive synthesis and original research. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Courtney[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL having not won a single election. While he did get national coverage in places like NYT and Time, it all seems to focus on the "The Conservative Society of America" he founded and not him himself. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any notability is derivative from Goldwater and groups with which he was involved. There's also verification problems with sources. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, this article created by Billy Hathorn - banned for massive copyright violations - is presumed to be a copyright violation and subject to indiscriminate removal. MER-C 13:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cleveland Drew[edit]

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

Notable only as a state circuit court judge, and sources are mostly local to Minden. Notability not inherited from some of his more famous relatives, including his state representative father. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. State circuit court is not an automatic free pass over our notability standards for judges, but the article is not reliably sourced for the purposes of getting him over the bar he would actually have to clear — as usual for Billy Hathorn content, it is "referenced" to a mix of unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, clarifying notes that aren't actually references of any sort, and purely tangential referencing of stray biographical facts about his family members, with no evidence whatsoever of reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete circuit court judges are the lowest level where criminal trials occur. They are not notable by default. We need lots of significant coverage which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JUDGE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, this article created by Billy Hathorn - banned for massive copyright violations - is presumed to be a copyright violation and subject to indiscriminate removal. MER-C 13:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harmon Caldwell Drew[edit]

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

Notable only as a state circuit court judge, and sources are mostly local to Minden. Notability not inherited from some of his more famous relatives, and his "historical" confrontation with Huey Long may be WP:BIO1E. Page also created by serial copyright violater whose articles are being PCCed as we speak. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another Billy Hathorn special. I do wish we had other people who pub such energy into creating articles on members of state legislatures as he did, but he took notability way too far and created lots of articles on people who clearly fail such. Drew is one of many such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither state circuit court judges nor district attorneys are guaranteed an automatic notability freebie just for existing, but in classic Billy Hathorn fashion the sourcing ain't doing what it needs to do to get this one over the bar — it's referenced to a mix of routine reportage of election results, primary sources that are not support for notability at all, tangential verification of stray facts about his relatives and colleagues which has no bearing whatsoever on Drew's notability, and a tiny titch of local death coverage in Minden's local media which does not clinch a person's notability all by itself if it's the best you can show. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not inherited from his relatives. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, this article created by Billy Hathorn - banned for massive copyright violations - is presumed to be a copyright violation and subject to indiscriminate removal. MER-C 13:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primal (TV series)[edit]

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

Identical article Draft:Primal (TV series) rejected at AFC as not showing notability so impossible to draftify. Does not meet WP:GNG single source that looks like a rehashed press release. WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and this quote from this source: “We don’t know much about this series” 1989 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's too early to have an article on this television series as there aren't enough reliable sources to support the existence of the article in it's current form. WP:TOOSOON applies. Utopes (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genndy Tartakovsky, which has just as much info as this article does. Not doubting the series comes out, but Adult Swim's PR can be very thin and we probably won't know anything about the series until its literal release. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whittl[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Short-lived startup in one city, most coverage is about its initial capitalization. Rogermx (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable company. Only routine coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG started in 2012 and closed 2016 and there is only routine coverage about its initial capitalization .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Gil Sevillano[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC Collaboratio (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.~~Weak delete.~~ Google Scholar gives him the h-index of 33. That's pretty good but not spectacular for a high citation field he works in. I could not find anything else. The refs in the article mostly lead to dead links at his home institution. There is also an unverified claim of having received "several awards", also sourced to a dead link. I did some google searching but could not locate either personal webpage or an institutional profile page for him. Unless there is more, I don't quite see this as passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After further digging, I found info about three awards, that look fairly significant, which I added to the article, with refs. A subpage for one of these awards includes a fairly detailed bio article about the subject.[16]. Together with GScholar citations, enough here to pass WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article now stands, after Nsk92's additions, I am not an expert reader of this but it appears as though he passes WP:NACADEMIC in terms of: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" given that "El Mundo has described him as "one of the leading scientists in materials research in the country""; and "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" because he has "received the Spanish Association of Scientists Plaque of Honor". -Lopifalko (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently there have been improvements made to the article. WP:NACADEMIC was referenced as the problem but I currently see it as passing after reading the article. The "Spanish Association of Scientists Plaque of Honor" achievement is important and prestigious enough that an article here is clearly warranted. Utopes (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaaneen - A Secret Search[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. A WP:BEFORE search found numerous mentions in listings and announcements but no in-depth coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | talk _ 01:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (more like question for the nominator) Can you read Assamese? Since that's the language of the film, most meaningful coverage (if any exists) will be in Assamese so I, for one, cannot conclude that such sources are absent. I'd note that the screenwriter (if the article's info is correct) is fairly notable and that the film did win a prize (though a second prize in a festival of limited notability). Pichpich (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pichpich: thanks for chiming in. I can't read Assamese and I do see your point. Pinging @Wiki.Gunjan: as the only active member of WikiProject Assam. The draft was declined at AfC for being improperly sourced, and was subsequently moved to mainspace by a sock, without any improvement. I think there is WP:BURDEN on the author to properly reference the material in the article which would give us the opportunity to run the citations through Google Translate. However they were an SPA blocked for promotion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is indeed a fair point at this stage, as is the possible COI so count me as leaning delete. Pichpich (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the film does not meet any of the five criteria of WP:NFO - nor does it meet any of the "Inclusionary criteria" for films that fail WP:NFO - the production company, Shivam Creation, is not India's equivalent of a "major film studio" as this seems to be their only film - the guideline states, "Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced." - the one award the film won is not a major award as required by the guideline (although the guideline notes that, "Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that an Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included.") - this article seems promotional only - notability not established; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - need to bear in mind WP:WORLDVIEW - de jure application of WP:NFO would exclude 1,000s of notable non-English films from wikipedia. The film is an adaption of the work of a nationally recognised and awarded writer in Assamese. The film was awarded second prize at the largest film festival covering North-East India (home to 45 million people). initial creation of the article suggests WP:COI issues, but subsequent edits seem to have resolved that.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Vogl[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Played 108 games in the DEL and 200 is needed to pass #2. Also has no preeminent honours in the 2nd Bundesliga, DEL2 or EBEL to pass #3 and never played international hockey to pass #6. Also fails WP:GNG. Tay87 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; Vogl does not meet any of the criteria set in WP:NHOCKEY yet to warrant a standalone article. Utopes (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZuZu Man[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. I originally redirected this article to Dr. John as it's not notable and not what it says in the text, but I was reverted by the editor Mudwater, who suggested I take the matter to AfD instead (not entirely certain about that, although he was absolutely correct to say that I should have altered the album chronologies accordingly). Nevertheless, this article and its existence is a confusing mess. It is not a studio album, as stated, but a compilation of old recordings. The infobox states that the album was released on Trip Records in 1989, but the track listing is from an identically-titled album on Charly/Topline Records from 1984/1985 [17], [18], while the Trip Records album is from 1973 [19]. There are also compilations titled "Zu Zu Man" on Thunderbolt Records from 1989 [20], Zillion Records from 1991 [21], [22], and Metronome Records from 2000 [23]. You'll notice that these compilations contain many of the same tracks as each other – they are all unofficial releases of the sessions that Dr. John recorded in the mid-1960s before the release of his debut album Gris-Gris. The AllMusic review of the 1975 compilation Cut Me While I'm Hot [24] explains this in more detail, and you can see that most of the tracks appear on that album as well (well before 1989). In short, this is not a studio album, or notable, and there are two options here. I still favour a redirect – "ZuZu Man" was one of Dr. John's best known songs, and it's a valid search term for him. The other option is to WP:TNT the article and write it again from scratch as one of the compilations, stating that it's a compilation and not a studio album, and correcting the track listing, record label and cover art for the chosen album. But seeing as there are at least five albums with this name and they are all unofficial releases, I wouldn't be that hopeful of finding any other reviews or detailed sources other than the two AllMusic reviews noted above. Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The small amount of online commentary for this album indicates that it is indeed a compilation of old outtakes, so I have updated the article to that effect. However, I agree with the nominator in that this seems to be an unauthorized and/or unofficial quickie release that came and went without notice by anyone other than collectors and completists, and it can be confused with other quickie compilations of the same title. Many notable musicians have unauthorized cheap compilations like this, but that does not make the albums themselves notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would like to thank Richard3120 for looking into this, and for providing a thoughtful and detailed explanation. I've checked on this myself, and as far as I can tell, his main findings are correct. There are several different bootleg albums called ZuZu Man, with similar content but different track listings, that compile some early recordings of Dr. John. The article was getting a couple of those mixed together, and there's also the question of whether this is a studio album, a compilation, or what. That's all good stuff, but not in itself sufficient to warrant the deletion of the article. The real question there is whether or not one of the ZuZu Man albums is a sufficiently notable bootleg to meet the criteria of WP:NALBUM. If yes, the article should be kept. But, to paraphrase Robert Mueller... If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that one of the ZuZu Man bootleg albums met the notability criteria, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable Wikipedia guidelines, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a bootleg. Delete it.
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it with the artist article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Kearns (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote by sock puppet, now blocked GirthSummit _(blether) 13:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drooble[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable, independent sources to meet the General notability guidelines or WP:NWEB for this company. There are a few reviews posted through the web, but half are blatantly promotional, and none of the others seem to have the independence and oversight needed to meet WP:RS. Rejected twice at AfC, and speedied under A7 a few years ago. MarginalCost (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm also unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of either the company or the web presence of the same name. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB I could not find any in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. I found a passing mention and what seem to be promotional articles. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Agenda Project. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 19:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F*ck Tea[edit]

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

No inherent notability. All coverage amount to summaries of a press release. Also covered adequately in The Agenda Project article. This doesn't pass GNG for individual coverageBledwith (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Agenda Project. The content in this article can be merged to The Agenda Project, where it already gets mentions, but can get expanded even further. Not notable enough for its own article, but can serve as a redirect to a paragraph or so. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Agenda Project as this is one of their campaigns and is covered in The Agenda Project article - Epinoia (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Sandstein 20:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

large-calibre artillery (neé Supergun)[edit]

Advanced search for:
"supergun affair"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE/WP:GNG.The topic appears to have been invented by the original editor. No references in the article refer to the word 'supergun', and I have found no reliable sources that define this term. No sources are given to support the assertions in the lead. The principal sources/references in the early part of the article are German texts relating to 16th century weapons which use the word 'Riesengeschütze' ('giant guns'). There is no evidence that these guns, nor the guns up to the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century, have ever been referred to by reliable sources as 'superguns'. The word 'supergun' appears to be a modern confection used in journalism, etc., but without any clear definition. There is no encylopaedic reason, (except WP:OR) to include in one article descriptions of mediaeval guns with those of modern guns under this same word. The article has been tagged under WP:WEASEL since January 2012. Parts of the article might be relocated in other articles, (e.g. Artillery). At present it is just a WP:OR assembly of miscellaneous information about large guns. Smerus (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic most definitely was not invented by the original editor, unless xe had a time machine to take xem back from 2004 to 1990. What the original editor wrote about, however, was not what other people later turned this article into. Put the phrase ″supergun affair″ into some search engines. Would that the original editor had thought to use Supergun affair as the title from the start! Then people would have not added every big gun that they could think of to the article, and by now we might have had an article on the original subject that the article creator started writing about. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G, thanks for this perspective. Clearly, even in your view, the article is not presently fit for purpose. I learn from this that it is only the last section of the article, Supergun#Recent_developments, that can be held to relate to the notion of 'supergun'. Is therefore one answer to change the article title as you suggest, and remove what doesn't relate to that title to other appropriate articles? I would be happy to support that if it has consensus.Smerus (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Steven Zaloga wrote about superguns, but offered no cohesive definition of the concept, did so in 2018 a decade and a half after this article existed, covered the very topics here, and made pointed remarks about encyclopaedias in doing so. So I suspect that xe took the notion from Wikipedia. In any case, the lack of a definition is a problem, and no-one else seems to have adopted this, from Zaloga or Wikipedia.
    I would say ignore that section and the current introduction entirely, grow a Supergun affair article from scratch, and try to work out whether there is a real subject here that is being obscured. Is this about bombards? Or siege guns perhaps? What, if any, overarching subject does encompass large-calibre artillery? Would the UNROCA Category III definition do? Then slap that on the article introduction with a decent source and rename.
    Uncle G (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - In view of your helpful reconstruction of the lede, I would intend to move the article to Large-calibre artillery and withdraw the deletion proposal.Smerus (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now done, and I will also eventually seek to move Category:Superguns to Category:Large-calibre artillery.Smerus (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 11#Category:Superguns. Uncle G (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Polansky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fix AFD request for User:Localemediamonitor

Reason provided: It's time to revisit the discussion of deletion for this page. Questionable notoriety is the main reason. Sources for the books lead back to the author's own (deleted) website and many of the books seem to be self-published. The "Kosovo Roma Refugee Foundation" (KRRF) is also practically nonexistent source-wise except for secondary references; there's almost zero reference to the NGO to be found, making it appear to be another one-man project set up by the subject. The fact that several of the subject's books were published by KRRF, supposedly a refugee support organization, also makes the NGO sound dubious at best & the publishing by KRRF seems to be another self-publishing project. Delete. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- A Baltimore lawyer of the same name has more hits than him, and the lawyer isn't notable either....Antonio El Rey Ese Martin (Wassap??) 14:49, 14 August, 2019 (UTC)
Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 23:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. Localemediamonitor (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sochatsky[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played a total of 158 games in the Eishockey-Bundesliga and 200 is needed to pass #2. Also has no preeminent honours to pass #3 and never played international hockey so fails #6 too. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Forrest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Self Promotion created by a sock puppet for non notable individual. Albums are self released on his own vanity label. Claimed airplay is not rotation. Claimed charting is not good charts. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. This article is bombarded with sources but other than one up and coming piece from billboard (which seems very advertorial) it lacks any good ones for GNG. Quotes from him are not coverage about him. PR is not independent. Attending parties and award shows is not notability. Being in the background of a music video is not notability. Last afd close was a bad WP:NAC. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This guy comes kind of close to notability by association, but see WP:INHERITED. The article in Billboard (currently footnote #12) definitely helps, but otherwise his music has not been noticed by reliable media and this WP article has a suspicious number of citations that go to dead sites. There are some fairly reliable sources for things that have been done by his record company and charity, but those would be more valid for articles about them. Otherwise this WP article is surely an attempted promotion for a guy who is good at networking and getting himself into pictures with famous people. Good luck to him in his many ventures but a WP article will have to wait until he is noticed by someone other than himself. (Note: When searching, beware of a visual artist of the same name.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin. People should not use it for self promotion and we need to enforce these policies for them to have meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:PROMOTION WP:NOT WP:NOTRESUME Wm335td (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every few years someone tries to discredit because they have a mere Opinion and not facts. Allen Forrest has meet the min qualifications to included on WP. If you look at the history you will see that we have already proven our case. 1. You don't get featured in Vogue and on the red carpet at the GRAMMYs if your not notable in their eyes 2. Billboard will not feature anyone that's not legit and you can't pay your way on there. 3. Allen has had several national promotions on iHeart radio via their Artist Integration Program. ^[1] please scroll to number 99 photo. To hear the saved promotions that have been received for Allen Forrest ^[2] He was recently feature here for his new business venture ^[3] He had viral song with singer and actress Jennifer Akerman ^[4] original feature ^[5] red carpet features ^[6] more features ^[7] ^[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForrestGroup (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo feature: ^[9] more features ^[10] over 1 million plays on FB for this song "Earthquake" which was feature on BET's show "The office" ^[11] The Video: ^[12] Latest show in Amsterdam ^[13] Dance Videos that other created ^[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForrestGroup (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aris Ziagos[edit]

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

UPE Promotion for non notable individual who says it was lucky for him that 49 people were massacred at a nightclub. Releases not on important label. Claimed airplay is not rotation. Claimed charting is not good charts. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. This article is bombarded with sources but lacks any good ones for GNG. NY Times is a passing mention. Washington post is a passing mention on a gig listing. Popmatters is pr, buy the album here. Huffpo is a contributor not staff. Mirror is him talking about himself. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has some minor media mentions but it could be too soon for a WP article. This one looks like it has a lot of sources but several are actually about other things, such as a news article about Hurricane Sandy which happened around the time his mom died, or another about the Orlando shooting which he has an opinion about. All other sources are minor introductions to his music or the typical retail/streaming sites, and I can find little else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the individual meets GNG with sufficient non-routine sources. The question of whether GRIDIRON/COLLATH was satisfied was not particularly considered, but NSPORTS is specifically an alternate set of criteria used to determine whether GNG is likely met. GNG can also be directly met in the conventional fashion (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Thomas (wide receiver, born 1991)[edit]

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

Coverage is routine sports coverage. Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No time to do a deep search today, but here are three examples of significant, non-ROUTINE coverage: (1) 2011 feature story part 1-part 2; (2) 2013 feature story part 1-part 2; and (3) 2014 feature story part 1-part 2. These are all from The Montgomery Advertiser. If similar coverage is found in other reliable sources, such would satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Set the all-time Sun Belt Conference (a Division I FBS conference) record for touchdown receptions and played in the Senior Bowl, college football's all-star game. In addition to the feature stories above from The Montgomery Advertiser, here are several other examples of significant coverage in reliable sources: (4) Versatility key for Danger's Thomas from 2017; (5) Troy’s Eric Thomas taking talents back to his home state from 2013; (6) Troy receiver Eric Thomas has 'fast' shoes to fill; (7) Thomas adjusting to life in the NFL; (8) Former Troy WR Eric Thomas gets late Senior Bowl invite; (9) Troy WR Eric Thomas tapped for NFLPA Collegiate Bowl (noting that he set a Sun Belt Conference record for touchdown receptions); (10) Eric Thomas catch still main topic of conversation; (11) Thomas eclipses Sun Belt mark; (12) Troy's Eric Thomas catching on at new slot; (13) Eric Thomas has been go-to guy at receiver for Troy; (14) Troy's Thomas ready to step up at wide receiver. Cbl62 (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage found by Cbl is clearly WP:NOTROUTINE with feature stories and in-depth background of his college years, more than enough to surpass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does fail WP:GNG and WP:COLLATH. I've looked through all the articles above and I would characterise the coverage above as "routine", as all of the coverage on him is in the context of local game reports. I know others will disagree, but I don't think routine local coverage is enough to make an amateur athlete eligible for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- per the WP:ROUTINE guideline, Feature articles are not routine --Paul McDonald (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC non-trivial coverage of the subject exists. Perhaps someone can format the references - I templated the article. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exceeds WP:GNG in my opinion. DavidDelaune (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons stated by others above. No reason to delete. MaroonFrog (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SNOW. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 07:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Siddique[edit]

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

subject is a cricket player. Played for a government agency/department. FailsWP:NCRIC notability requirement for not playing in of the ICC World Cup Qualifier, ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier competitions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. Theroadislong (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bow to superior knowledge of Johnlp. Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination seems to be based on a misunderstanding. This man passes WP:NCRIC easily, having appeared in 14 first-class matches and six List A games. The Water and Power Development Agency's cricket team has competed at the top level of Pakistani domestic cricket, as have other government departments and agencies such as banks, railways and airlines. Johnlp (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Johnlp. Domestic cricket in Pakistan is complicated; besides WAPDA, for whom this individual played, the primary first-class teams in the past have included other government departments and corporations such as Pakistan Customs, Pakistan Railways, and Pakistan International Airlines, as well as private entities including Habib Bank. Therefore, playing for one of them is not a valid rationale for deletion. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 14:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:CRIN by having appeared in first-class and List A cricket, not sure the correct understanding of CRIN has been applied by the nominator. And yes, Pakistani domestic cricket in way too overcomplicated! StickyWicket (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep twenty appearances in top-level domestic cricket, including as captain. While I can't find any sources myself, I also don't have the first clue about how to search for local sources in Urdu, or any of the other regional languages of Pakistan, so I'm willing to AGF that this player is likely to meet the WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 09:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His name is spelled امجد صدیق in Urdu. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 02:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Aucoin[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 3 games in the AHL and no notable preeminent honours to pass #3. Tay87 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both external links given appear to be indiscriminate collections of hockey-related information and thus do not establish notability. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

André Valentim Almeida[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Fails WP:NBIO. I also believe this is a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Willbb234 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker. Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable as the winner of an important film-making award. I have added the information and reference to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film won the award, he didn’t. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 13:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep He made the film so it counts as his award which the reference makes very clear by naming as the recipient, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a possible autobiography. With more references and a more well-rounded article, I may change my mind Nickmeister066 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Barca (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence Doc Alliance Selection Award is a major award. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and fails the criteria for notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Bieniek[edit]

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

This article has been deleted twice per WP:PROD already, once in 2015 (Reason given: self promotion article, questionable notability, most sources from his own website, major contributors have only contributed to this article) and once in 2008 (Reason given: Lacks references and notability - see WP:BIO). In 2016, the article was uploaded once again. As of today, this article has been written almost entirely by four accounts: Hansi-Klump (63 % of content), Balint-Gabor (28 %), Johnnycottonx (3 %) and Hamm-Ging (2 %). All four of these accounts belong to a ring of 33 sockpuppets blocked on the German Wikipedia after an extensive investigation. This block has been applied globally this week. All 33 sockpuppets were found to be operated by one person. As some of these accounts have uploaded pictures by Bieniek himself to Commons, the conclusion is that Bieniek has written this article all by himself, using fake identities over the course of almost ten years, spamming 44 different language versions of Wikipdia. Policies against sockpuppetry and COI editing aside, this article is a big balloon full of hot air. The majority of statements are sourced to Bieniek's website, mentions on 3rd party media are treated as if the article concerned itself only with Bieniek, his 5 minutes of fame are extended ad nauseam, projects from film school are treated like blockbusters, etc. etc. The text is nothing but blatant self-advertising and puffery. I see no valid reason for anyone to waste their time checking up on sources or "polishing the text", thus rewarding the breach of policy and cheating. For this very reason, these "auto-biographies" have been deleted in the French-language Wikipedia, the Italian-language Wikipedia and the German-language Wikipedia. I suggest we follow suit here. (These same reasons apply to Doublefaced, Bieniek-Face, The Gamblers (2007 film), Silvester Home Run as well, but lets focus on the main piece first.) Minderbinder (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't shameless self-promotion across Wikipedia just part of conceptual art? -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With all the energy that's gone into creating this article, I'll make a working assumption that it has been sourced as well as is possible. Little of it is well sourced, and what is well sourced seems humdrum. Therefore delete. -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the existing sourcing appears to be largely event announcements and other sources that simply confirm the event, screening or exhibition happened. there is scant sourcing in-depth coverage either in the article or in a new search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is weak and does not show in-depth coverage compliant with notability criteria. The article(s) are outright advertising irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a personal website. The work is not in any museum collections, nor is the artist represented in art history books, nor is the artist a major figure in the contemporary art world. Fails WP:NARTIST. In light of the 33 socks likely belonging to the artist, suggesting WP:SALT so this self-promotional subject does not continue to reincarnate and waste editors time. Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having assessed the 127 sources this article had, which are now reduced to 22 after a few of us have removed the inconsequential clutter, I recommend to delete because it does not have enough reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV of the subject to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. By my estimation, those RS it does now have amount to only one exhibition review in Tages-Anzeiger and coverage of the same work around the same time in inferno-magazine.com, which is not a publication I am sure is reliable. Any mention there is in other RS (such as Vogue and Süddeutsche Zeitung) do not provide significant coverage. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is too weak overall to pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A verifiable consensus settlement, village. Legally recognised. WP:GEOLAND applies. If there are issues in article content, kindly update it. AfD is not cleanup. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sega jagatpur[edit]

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

This article is so poorly written and has no sources. SacredDragonX (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable".----Pontificalibus 09:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that an article is poorly written alone is not enough to delete the article. This article passes WP:GEOLAND. William2001^(talk) 16:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument of "This article is so poorly written" does not hold water in an AfD discussion. While the article has no sources, it is most certainly a location that exists and protected under WP:GEOLAND, as the users have stated above me. Utopes (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The user who nominated the article for deletion approached me regarding withdrawing the AfD immediately after making the nomination. I'm not sure why they didn't follow through with the withdrawal but this may have been done mistakenly or in error. Kosack (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the rationale "per nom" that is a reason for deletion?Oakshade (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom has only stated reasons for article clean-up, not deletion. Verified populated place.Oakshade (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seemone (singer)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Has never charted anywhere. The only thing she's done is participate in the French Eurovision selection earlier this year, with no other relevant endeavor. IMO not enough to justify an article on here. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 07:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS and a little searching just reveals the usual social media machinery. Agricola44 (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Papa-Cause[edit]

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

Non-notable local Gadsden, Alabama personality who fails to satisfy criteria for notability. Only local sources are available for covering this topic, mostly the Gadsen, Alabama newspaper (online or print) and a local TV station. Fails GNG, ANYBIO, ENTERTAINER. Lacks significant in-depth coverage. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a biographical article as it focuses on only a local entertainment persona, not the person. This Wikipedia article could be characterized as part of a campaign to become nationally or internationally recognized as I quote from this Gadsen newspaper article: [25] ″(Papa-Cause) has evolved so much already,” Sandridge said in a phone interview with The Times, “and I hope for him to evolve into a national or international personality, who can bring hope to everybody.” ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC) (Nominator).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert and the lack of significant coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This was a close debate. In the end, the consensus appears to be that, while Zanna is very likely to be a suitable subject for an article in the future - possibly the very near future - at this point in time she does not meet the relevant notability criteria. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laure Zanna[edit]

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

No yet notable. The citations are too low for notability by WP:PROF. : 59, 58, 53. The prize is an early career award, meaning someone who is hoped will be notable someday, a sort of junior varsity. There are no independent sources toshow notability in any other respect either. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not yet meet the notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, might fall just short of the WP:NPROF criteria (for now), but there are clearly enough sources for a decent length article that meets the core content policies, so I'm not seeing a strong reason to delete. – Joe (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite creative, I might say. ∯WBG^converse 19:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The notability guideline exists to help us write good encyclopaedia articles, not delete them because they don't meet arbitrary criteria. – Joe (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ∯WBG^converse 19:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Wikipedia Academic Notability criteria [1]. Her work has received considerable coverage outside of the bubble of academia. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS citations in this very highly cited field. WP:Too soon now, but matters may have changed in five years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- What would count as enough citations given her 2014 paper in Ocean Modelling is 12 times more cited than the average for the field? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

looking back at academic AfDs over the past ten years, the impression that emerges is that for an average-cited field the cut-off is around 1000 citations or an h-index of around 15. For a highly-cited field, such as climate change, these numbers would be much higher; for a low-cited field such as theology or philosophy much lower. The procedure is to compare like with like. The subject's cites on GS [26] are 664 cites and an h-index of 16, so her statistics are only marginal, even for an average-cited field and there is not a pass of WP:NACADEMIC#1. If you want to show notability here, find other mainstream climate scientists with BIOs on Wikipedia having an equal or lower citation record. The average cites per paper in most fields are very low and any substantially cited paper will have cites much above average. Anyway, the specific paper you refer to[27] has two authors, so she gets only half the credit for it. Having said all this, her citations on GS are growing strongly and, if she continues as she is, she will pass WP:Prof#C1 in a few years.

At present WP:TOO SOON. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I see no reason to divide "credit" by the number of authors. Even going down that path presumes both knowledge of relative contributions and quantifiability thereof, which strike me as extremely dubious. (And if one did want to attempt that kind of hair-splitting, one should incorporate the fact that Zanna is the one distinguished as corresponding author. Does that give her 60% instead of 50%? 75%?) XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the average for a researcher in the field is, but what is the judgement of marginality being based on? Zanna has written or co-written plenty of papers which are above the average for citations in their field. Aside from the above paper, there's another where the field citation ratio is 13 and classed as 'extremely highly cited'. Even then, citations don't tell the full story of impact, and this paper has been picked up by 40 news outlets. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate evidence that the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #3. Andrew D. (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is WP:NACADEMIC #3 passed? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

She is a fellow of an Oxford college and Oxford is ranked by some as the foremost university in the world. Andrew D. (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does not remotely pass WP:Prof#C3 which refers to FRS, NAS and other National academies. A Fellowship of an Oxbridge college has never been accepted as passing WP:Prof#C3. If you think so please quote precedents. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The Royal Society was a spinoff from Wadham College which is clearly an elite academic body. She sits at its top table and this seems adequate recognition of her status. As we also have #1, we have enough for a pass as guidelines are not hard policies or rigid rules but are merely indicative. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Society was formed by a group of people associated with Wadham in 1662. Wadham remains important; the Royal Society had become world-famous. A fellowship at Wadham is an appropriate rank for an academic who is not yet notable. A Fellow of the Royal Society is an honour for someone famous. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the British system, the term "fellow" can have any of a widely-varying collection of meanings. Some checking indicates a title of "David Richards Fellow and Tutor in Physics", which seems to be a tutorial fellow...namely, a professor who is responsible for teaching undergrads in their own areas of specialty. This is decidedly not a designation that satisfies PROF c1 or c3. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the word "and". Teaching duties are separate from the status and title of Fellow. Wadham has "Fellows and academic staff" and people may be the latter without being a fellow. There are numerous tutors and lecturers there who are not fellows while being a fellow makes you part of the governing body of the College. The college is an illustrious institution and so we have the sort of status expected for #3. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. H-index is around 15 - which yes - is marginal for the field - but is also fairly high for a young scholar. Furthermore - it is a very solid 15 - evenly spread out, article number 20 has 10 citations and she's getting cited at a fast rising pace (2016 - 50, 2017 - ~100, 2018 - 160. 2019 - 160 to date) - which is a likely indication that this h-index will probably rise (e.g. recent 2017 papers are at 13, 13, 11, and 10 citations - so likely they'll push past 15 soon given they're getting cited at ~5/year so far) - it doesn't take a big crystal ball here to see a h-index of around 20 soon. When we add to this that a google-news search shows she's getting quoted quite a bit in mainstream press (e.g. New York Times, Guardian, Popular Mechanics, etc.) - you also see a reach here beyond academia. Does she clearly pass WP:NPROF#1? No, but she's close. Does she pass WP:NPROF#7? Possibly. Does she pass GNG? Probably not (but hard to tell given all the times she's quoted - need to sift through and see if she's profiled as well). However the ensemble here as a whole - very close to our notability threshold (possibly over), and on a clearly rising trajectory - is per WP:NOTPAPER worth preserving. Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a good-faith BLP that is TOOSOON. XXan recounted our long-standing framework used to eval PROFs and, in a very hot, high-activity field like climate change, her record in this context is decidedly average. This seems to be grudgingly admitted by some of the above "keeps" that are rhetorically straining to retain this one. To get an idea of clear notability in this area, I would point to someone like Natalie Mahowald (who does not even have a WP BLP – I have added this to my TODO list). Note that it would be unusual for someone working in this field to not have a few interviews here and there. Trajectory seems good, but, as XXan observed, it's toosoon. Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basically per Icewhiz and Joe Roe. (At worst, unobjectionable content and a rising trajectory would be a case for draftifying until such time as wiki-notability is obvious.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum I upgraded one of the references from a content mirror to the original source in the Guardian. There seems to be an at-least adequate amount of WP:RS coverage of her work, which is what wiki-notability for scientists is ultimately based upon. (The whole point of WP:PROF is that we can improve the encyclopedia by writing about people whose work is independently established to be important, even if those people don't get biographical details splashed everywhere like, say, movie stars do.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the "rising trajectory" remark: the only reason that entered my considerations was because the article falls into a borderline or gray area where PROF and GNG are concerned. Good citation profile, but not stellar; substantial media coverage (not just brief quotes in local news) of her work, but not of her personally. I'm stuck having to make a judgment call, without the normal crutches that make such matters easy (and give the eventual decision a veneer of quantitativeness). So the question for me becomes, would this languish as a perma-stub? The text of it isn't indulging in freewheeling speculation. After cutting a sentence about a best-paper award, the bits and pieces of it all appear above the threshold of things worth mentioning. Keeping it seems the better course of action than otherwise. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She is just an ordinary and relatively young scientist who is not notable by our standards. H-index is only around 15 (in natural sciences). No significant awards, no 3rd party publications about the person. One needs to refer either to her own publications or to official website of the University to find any information about the person. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as her achievements and citations show a rising trajectory, as per Icewhiz, JessWade88. Her career indicates a rising star, in a highly esteemed university.DrPlantGenomics (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, you and the others are basically arguing CRYSTAL. Agricola44 (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a "rising trajectory" is the classic expression of not yet notable. Academics --and everyone and everything else as well-- become notable when they have risen. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Xxanthippe, and My very best wishes. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. We can move it to draft if others think it is WP:TOOSOON. Being "young" or on "a rising trajectory" are not valid keep arguments. Edwardx (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against later re-creation if her notability improves, per WP:TOOSOON. Draftification would be acceptable but I'd recommend against it because the draft would likely need both several years waiting (for her to become notable) and significant rewriting (to write about the stuff she would have become notable for) before it could become acceptable. Puffing the article with minor things like early-career and best-paper awards and detailed descriptions of individual research papers sourced to those individual research papers are signs that the more significant awards, works by other people that cover her research in-depth, or other ways she could become notable haven't happened yet. As the discussion above suggests, the citation record is promising but not yet at the level needed for WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation field, her "fellow" title is routine for all Oxbridge faculty rather than being the kind of fellow that passes #C3, and there is no indication that she passes any of the other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep. I take all the points mentioned by both sides. Deb (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Doesn't meet PROF#1 yet and the case for a GNG keep isn't there either. To add a less important heuristic consideration, the only incoming links are from a list at Tel_Aviv_University#Notable_alumni and from Zanna (surname). Haukur (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Droeloe[edit]

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

Did not chart; never released any significant albums. A majority of the sources used on this article relate to the group's work and not about the group itself, but are also mostly music blogs without any indication from the site's about section regarding the credibility of their editors. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. There is also a huge suspicion regarding WP:SPA and WP:COI. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable as proven by the lack of commercial success and respected sources talking about them. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 07:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the previous statements. Also, this article blatantly violates WP:NPOV by continuously praising Droeloe by phrases such as "signature skill," "emphasis on music," "weave intricate stories," and "a new force to be reckoned with." AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 16:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to comment that you said "signature skill"; I believe you were referring to "signature skull", which isn't as bad, but your point still stands about it violating a neutral point of view regardless. Just a misreading, EOC. Utopes (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as does have reliable sources coverage such as Billboard and AllMusic here which usually indicates that there should be more coverage offline if not online. Also, they have released on two notable record labels. Problems with peacockery in the prose can be edited out , regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although the (non-)existence of other articles is not to be used in deletion discussions, it's worth noting that none of their singles have Wikipedia articles. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If it should not be used, then why is it worth noting? gidonb (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the non-existence of articles is unclear. Maybe it's because there's no interest. Maybe it's because there are no sources. Maybe it's because Droeloe isn't notable in the first place. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of such articles is meaningless hence the recommendation not to mention it. gidonb (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG. The amount of sources in music publications is sufficient. Before expressing my opinion, I have largely cleaned up the article. Will continue to do so. While we disagree, kudos to the nominator who clearly expressed an opinion, did include the projects, and now gives everyone space to freely make up their minds. Plus he improved the article name before nominating the article. Very good and honest! gidonb (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not many opinions expressed here, but the sole keep is kind of undetailed and it seems like the page was created and edited almost exclusively by a block evading sockpuppet, so it's delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mashrafe (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK (all of criteria). Fails WP:RS, all promotional. Also book author doesn't have his own article (non notable author). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note: This article is created by User:Rasi56 who is a sock of Hafiz ansi Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hafiz ansi --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bdnews24.com, The Daily Ittefaq, NTV (Bangladeshi TV channel), The Daily Star,BBC Bangla,,ESPNCricinfo all are verified news website published that this book was published in Ekushey Book Fair then this is yet not notable?? And this book about Mashrafe Mortaza and he also attend the book openning ceremony . you can not write any book about him without his permission. So this is enough notable. For author notability concern, tell any bengali admin that create a article about him. He is a writter and enough source have on internet to write a article about author. And for the promotional site you talking go and check many of notable writter article have this site. And rokomari is a book library you can also read the demo of the book. There have many articles which is unsourced/without source/poorly source, Pleas remove first! Don’t finish my interest to wirte articles next time. Thanks, your decision whatever you do -Rasi56 (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every year thousand books published in Ekushey Book Fair, so it's not enough for notability. This book “got zero significant coverage”. This book has no review from reliable and independent third party source. Those sources you mention may be verified news website but in this case the sources are "promotional/press release" type. It fails WP:SIGCOV. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: There have review on espn cricinfo and describe about book in BBC Bangla and Sportskeeda link which I added see first -Rasi56 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

You just copy-past your comment,this book have maximum coverage and enough source which some I provided and many more on internet search please and there have no links which I provided unreliable or promotional for this books. -Rasi56 (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This more like WP:EVENT news. When the book published & because of mashrafe popularity it get some press release type coverage (only exception is cricinfo). I'm not sure we should keep this (whose author is not notable) based on one reviews. Best thing would merge with main article. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: you can not find anything to say then you come out with notability. So when famous writter book was released and that day or next day released news about book then why not you counted them press lease type coverage. If your Logic this then every book have press release coverage. and this his first biography which is popular in book fair that time. If he is famous not his fault,if there is no news about book you said that not enough reliable sources, now enough sources then you came out with new thing. And espn cricinfo review, if you don’t accept the review then your matter. And in bbc news writter also share news about book. And whatever your intention please do you are admin,whatever you say it is right. Rasi56 (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep-This might be the only Mashrafe book that meets notability guidelines.The author of the page is unable to differentiate between autobiography and biography, this is not an autobiography because Mashrafe did not write it.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion. My one objection is: one review about cricket book published in cricket website isn't enough for notability. it looks like because of mashrafe's popularity they published that but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable Hafiz ansi (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note : Hafiz ansi and Rasi56 have been blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Kearns--DBigXrayᗙ 13:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails wP:GNG notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. No source to prove why this book is important to have its own page on Wikipedia. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mashrafenama (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK (all of criteria). Fails WP:RS, third source is about book selling (promotional report, this source literally says "The online distributor of the book is Rockmarie.com .... Call this number for home delivery..") & then all of source are from book selling site. Also book author doesn't have his own article (non notable author). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Priyo Bangladeshi verified news website published that this book was published in Ekushey Book Fair then this is yet not notable?? And this book about Mashrafe Mortaza.you can not write any book about him without his permission. So this is enough notable. For author notability concern, tell any bengali admin that create a article about him. He is a writter and enough source have on internet to write a article about author. And for the promotional site you talking go and check many of notable writter article have this site. And rokomari is a book library you can also read the demo of the book. There have many articles which is unsourced/without source/poorly source, Pleas remove first! Don’t finish my interest to wirte articles next time. Thanks, your decision whatever you do -Rasi56 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC) sock --DBigXrayᗙ 14:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every year thousand books published in Ekushey Book Fair, so it's not enough for notability. This book “got zero significant coverage”. This book has no review from reliable and independent third party source. Priyo may be verified news website but one "promotional" source doesn't prove notability. I already mentioned that this source literally says "The online distributor of the book is Rockmarie.com .... Call this number for home delivery to get this book..."). It fails WP:SIGCOV. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It fails all notability guidelines that cover book including the general notability guidelines. I would also request Rasi56 to declare any relations with Mashrafe Mortaza,nearly all their edits are about Mashrafe Mortaza.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: I haven’t any relationship but I knew cricket well and interested to work on Bangladeshi cricketers articles but currently more focus on Mashrafe's article. I want to create all missing things. I wanted to create shakib al hasan man of the match award but it already someone created before. I hope you get your question answer brother. -Rasi56 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC) @আফতাবুজ্জামান: brother talking about promotional, there have thousand of article in wikipedia and news in verifed website about artist,sports person general person who are not enough famous! they are pay to news website to make news about them and get a place in wikipedia.that time no one concern about promotional just saw the news site is from a verified site or news about him just give a place in wikipedia, there have hundred of articles poorly sourced,unsourced but no one bother! - Rasi56 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC) disagree, there have thousand of book publish but not all book published in verified website if the writter is not notable enoughRasi56 (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, proof of existence, publishing details (even by a notable/reputable publisher), press releases/announcements are not enough, what is needed (amongst other things) are reviews from independent sources, in this case, these do not appear to be available. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manush Mashrafe (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK (all of criteria). Fails WP:RS, 2nd source is about book selling (promotional report ) & then all of source are from book selling site. Also book author doesn't have his own article (non notable author). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Risingbd.com Bangladeshi verified news website published that this book was published in Ekushey Book Fair then this is yet not notable?? And this book about Mashrafe Mortaza.you can not write any book about him without his permission. So this is enough notable. For author notability concern, tell any bengali admin that create a article about him. He is a writter and enough source have on internet to write a article about author. And for the promotional site you talking go and check many of notable writter article have this site. And rokomari is a book library you can also read the demo of the book. There have many articles which is unsourced/without source/poorly source, Pleas remove first! Don’t finish my interest to wirte articles next time. Thanks, your decision whatever you do -Rasi56 (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock --DBigXrayᗙ 13:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- So instead of adding a further reading section at Mashrafe Mortaza containing citations for book biographies, you decided to create an individual article per book, sourcing them (as here) to on-line shopping and advertisements. That was not a good editorial decision. Uncle G (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uncle G: There have verified news portal which was published news about this book. And concern about online shop,I just gave to admin can see the isbn number. And I know that promotional link is not suitable for Wikipedia,it will remove. And If promotional link remove, I Don't bother but I Strongly keep that this book is enough notable to be here! Rasi56 (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you are not applying notability. Notability is not fame nor importance. It is whether there is enough objective, proper, in-depth documentation of a subject to support a non-permastub article. If there isn't then one is putting things into the encyclopaedia wrongly to give such things individual articles. In this case, you have a few biography books of a person, and a biographical article for that person that does not cite any book-length biographies at all. The idea of citing the book biographies as further reading seems obvious, not writing individual permastub articles about the books that readers of the biographical article will never find. (Note that the novels are not covered by this, as they do not constitute factual resources. Note also that I am assuming that said biographies are decent informational resources about the person whose biography they are.) To have individual articles about the books, the books themselves must be documented in depth. (This goes for the novels, too.) Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This book “got zero significant coverage”. This book has no review from reliable and independent third party source. The Source you mention is a promotional source. this source literally gives you book price, address of book stall for buying. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

disagree, there have thousand of book publish but not all book published in verified website if the writter is not notable. this author is also drama director see links 1,2 his written book news 1, 2 is he not enough notable?? There have many Bengali writters who have no article in wikipedia and less media coverage but there book is popular in book lover and enough notable, so in this case there books are not notable per wiki guidelines?? Is the measurement of notability?? If any admin can not create the article about author it’s there fault not writterRasi56 (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, proof of existence, publishing details (even by a notable/reputable publisher), press releases/announcements are not enough, what is needed (amongst other things) are reviews from independent sources, in this case, these do not appear to be available. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cited announcement falls far short of satisfying WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script name and author, found nothing to suggest notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: this author is also drama director see links 1,2 his written book news 1, 2 is he not enough notable?? If you don’t understand please translate. There have news about his book and drama and you said that nothing found!! Rasi56 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasi56: You don't understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is much harder to show that a book is notable than you think. I've seen books turned down despite having five substantial reviews in reliable sources. At Articles for deletion, it took a hard fight in a discussion with wide participation to keep even one with six reviews in The Times (London), The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Times, The Economist, and the Providence Journal.

To count towards demonstrating notability, reviews need to be full-length and by professional reviewers. Think 1,500 words by Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times. Reviews should describe such things as the book's target audience, organization, style, themes, and tone. They should provide background, compare and contrast it with other works, bolster or refute arguments in it, and give an informed opinion of it. Short "capsule" reviews, or publicity in connection with a book tour (or book fair, as in the case of the risingbd piece you cite), are worthless for notability.

The other sources you've linked have nothing to do with the notability of the book. If an author is notable, that doesn't make a book by him notable.

Starting new articles on non-notable subjects is creating a big mess that other editors have to clean up. If English is not your first language, you may find it difficult to contribute constructively through new articles. There are many other important tasks in Wikipedia that can be accomplished with less fluency. If your interest is cricket, see this cleanup list of thousands of identified problems in existing cricket articles that need fixing, or see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket for other ways to help. Alternatively, you might be more comfortable contributing to a different language version of Wikipedia, such as the Bengali one. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mashrafer Jonno Bhalobasha (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK (all of criteria). Fails WP:RS, first & third source are about book selling (promotional report ) & then all of source are from book selling site. Also book author doesn't have his own article (non notable author). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangla Tribune and Dhaktimes24 popular news portal Bangladeshi verified news website published that this book was published in Ekushey Book Fair then this is yet not notable?? And this book about Mashrafe Mortaza.you can not write any book about him without his permission. So this is enough notable. For author notability concern, tell any bengali admin that create a article about him. He is a writter and enough source have on internet to write a article about author. And for the promotional site you talking go and check many of notable writter article have this site. And rokomari is a book library you can also read the demo of the book. There have many articles which is unsourced/without source/poorly source, Pleas remove first! Don’t finish my interest to wirte articles next time. Thanks, your decision whatever you do -Rasi56 (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every year thousand books published in Ekushey Book Fair, so it's not enough for notability. This book “got zero significant coverage”. This book has no review from reliable and independent third party source. Those sources you mention may be verified news website but in this case the sources are "promotional/press release" type. Those sources literally gives you book price, address of book stall for buying. It fails WP:SIGCOV. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bangla Tribune and Dhakatimes24 two verified news portal discuss abou the book subjectRasi56 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

It doesn't matter. I already said Bangla Tribune and Dhakatimes24 may be good news site but problem the sources used in this article aren't Independent & Significant coverage. It's clearly "promotional/press release" type news, Those sources literally gives you book price, address of book stall for buying. Otherwise according to your logic i can create other two books listed in that press/promotional news. Please don't repeat same thing again, i also don't want to. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with you thought many notable Writter book news have stall no info where can you get this book. Promotional will be then if its online shopping website.Rasi56 (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

probhash amin is a well known journalist and writter see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 he is enough notable and his book written about also notable to be here, don't be bias Rasi56 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, proof of existence, publishing details (even by a notable/reputable publisher), press releases/announcements are not enough, what is needed (amongst other things) are reviews from independent sources, in this case, these do not appear to be available. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Coolabahapple: see your above I provided author news,that he is notable journalist and writter Rasi56 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)~~ blocked sock --DBigXrayᗙ 13:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

he may be a notable journalist/writer but we are discussing one of his works, a book, not him, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A book release publicity announcement doesn't cut it for demonstrating notability. Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script name, found nothing more independent or substantial. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mashrafer Shonge Cricket Anonde (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK (all of criteria). Fails WP:RS, first & third source are about book selling (promotional report) & then all of source are from book selling site. Also book author doesn't have his own article (non notable author). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bdnews24.com Bangladeshi verified news website published that this book was published in Ekushey Book Fair then this is yet not notable?? And this book about Mashrafe Mortaza.you can not write any book about him without his permission. So this is enough notable. For author notability concern, tell any bengali admin that create a article about him. He is a writter and enough source have on internet to write a article about author. And for the promotional site you talking go and check many of notable writter article have this site. And rokomari is a book library you can also read the demo of the book. There have many articles which is unsourced/without source/poorly source, Pleas remove first! Don’t finish my interest to wirte articles next time. Thanks, your decision whatever you do -Rasi56 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every year thousand books published in Ekushey Book Fair, so it's not enough for notability. This book “got zero significant coverage”. This book has no review from reliable and independent third party source. Those sources you mention may be verified news website but in this case the sources are "promotional/press release" type. Those sources literally gives you book price, address of book stall for buying. It fails WP:SIGCOV. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete As per WP:NBOOK, proof of publishing or sale is not enough to demonstrate that a book is notable: it needs multiple significant works describing it. I'm not sure how reliable bdnews24 is, but the single usable reference listed is a simple, three paragraph review as part of a larger article. Being part of a large book fair or being about a notable subject is no indication of notability of the book itself. Spike 'em (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC) @Spike 'em: bdnews24 gov approved verified news portal and this book is notable I disscuss above, look at my comment Rasi56 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC) sock--DBigXrayᗙ 13:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it gov approved site or not. I already said bdnews24 may be good news site but problem the sources used in this article aren't Independent & Significant coverage. It's clearly "promotional/press release" type news, Those sources literally gives you book price, address of book stall for buying. Anything about mashrafe aren't automatically notable. Otherwise according to your logic i can create other two books listed in that press/promotional news. Please don't repeat same thing again, i also don't want to. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will have to agree with the nominator on this one. I looked at the source and it looks blatantly promotional. After assessing it's quality, I doubt that it's independent. The subject does have some coverage in this source, but it's useless if it's not independent. Apart form this source, I couldn't find significant coverage anywhere. That said, even if it was reliable and independent, one source wouldn't be enough to establish notability. Masum Reza^📞 07:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not a notable enough book to pass NBOOK. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that we can verify that this book exists, and the fact that the person that the book is about is notable, are beside the point. Notability is not inherited. The book itself fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG as noted by the nominator. Google searches reveal nothing to suggest that the book itself is notable. Harrias ^talk 08:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete not notable enough. Hafiz ansi (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC) sock--DBigXrayᗙ 13:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mashrafer Deshe Cricketer Bhoot (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NBOOK (all of criteria). Fails WP:RS, first source is about book selling (promotional report) & then all of source are from book selling site. Also book author doesn't have his own article (non notable author). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagonews24.com Bangladeshi verified news website published that this book was published in Ekushey Book Fair then this is yet not notable?? And this book about Mashrafe Mortaza.you can not write any book about him without his permission. So this is enough notable. For author notability concern, tell any bengali admin that create a article about him. He is a writter and enough source have on internet to write a article about author. And for the promotional site you talking go and check many of notable writter article have this site. And rokomari is a book library you can also read the demo of the book. There have many articles which is unsourced/without source/poorly source, Pleas remove first! Don’t finish my interest to wirte articles next time. Thanks, your decision whatever you do -Rasi56 (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books), the book exists but that does not mean it is notable. rokomari is a publisher and bookseller, that does not add to notability. There is no guideline that says books released at the book fair, hundreds of them, are notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Vinegarymass911: its published on Jagonews24.com and Risingbd.com see the links. If verified news site published this news then enough notable. Rasi56 (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

@Vinegarymass911: I just said about Ekushey Book Fair because of verification Ekhushey boi mela doesn’t publish any unverified publication book or unverified writters book. All are books are verified then published by national Ekushey Book Fair. And every book is notable which is publish in Ekushey book fair, but every book haven’t enough news coverage if you said that i then I would agree with you. And there is two verified news website published news about this book Rasi56 (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Book doesn't appear to be notable. StickyWicket (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: please first see the two verified website news which I provided. If you don’t understand then translate. I Amzad that two verified news portal published this book news, book published in national Ekushey Book Fair and book about Mashrafe Mortaza still not notable?? Can you take more time to verify -Rasi56 (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

~~I removed promotional website link now verify article.Rasi56 (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Jagonews24.com may be verified news website but in this case the sources are "promotional/press release" type. e.g. see this & just click আরও পড়ুন, you will see they publish hundred of book releasing (press release type) news (related to ekushey book fair). And no, any book about Mashrafe Mortaza is not notable. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

disagree, there have thousand of book publish but not all book published in verified website if the writter is not notable. this author is also drama director see links 1,2 his written book news 1, 2 is he not enough notable?? There have many Bengali writters who have no article in wikipedia and less media coverage but there book is popular in book lover and enough notable, so in this case there books are not notable per wiki guidelines?? Is the measurement of notability?? If any admin can not create the article about author it’s there fault not writter Rasi56 (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, proof of existence, publishing details (even by a notable/reputable publisher), press releases/announcements are not enough, what is needed (amongst other things) are reviews from independent sources, in this case, these do not appear to be available. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Coolabahapple: I don't think you look at source before commenting because every article you gave same comment which is not true. Rasi56 (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually you don't want to understand. Anything published in a verified website doesn't mean that thing is notable. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~@আফতাবুজ্জামান: I understood but author is notable I provided source for you I again give you below: See 1,2 his written book news 1, 2~~

And one more article Mashrafer Jonno Bhalobasha (book) author Probhash Amin is well known journalist and writter, provided 5 links about him first see this article deletion my comment then make decision. Rasi56 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC) blocked sock DBigXrayᗙ 13:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Has been deleted under G11 by user:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surkhab Tv[edit]

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

The pages fail WP:GNG as there doesn't seem to have any references stating to this page. HawkAussie (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this topic. Furthermore, the article does not indicate why its subject is important. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Thaxton[edit]

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

It seems like this person was merely and extra in several movies, many while in high school. Page is extremely promotional with no assertation of notability. Page was previously deleted in 2010.BigDwiki (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BigDwiki (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BigDwiki (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his film roles are not enough to show notability, nor are his other endevors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non Notable, no significant coverage from reliable sources. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the roles as actor (including such roles as "Son in living room", "Church Parishioner" and "Posse Member") support a claim of notability nor do the behind the camera roles back such a claim. Sources here are overwhelmingly from IMDb and no meatier reliable and verifiable sources about him could be identified in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this was previously deleted, it seems nothing has changed or somehow IMDb is a reliable source. 1989 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:CREATIVE. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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