< 21 July	23 July >

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

The result was Delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yonetarō Murata[edit]

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

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

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

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. None of the English transliterations turned up anything of use. He does not appear in the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography.

I have also checked his Japanese name, but I didn't find anything of substance. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted.

Courtesy ping to Hoary, who is knowledgeable on the topic of Japanese photographers, and whose commentary on these AfDs is invaluable to me, especially when it causes me to alter my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "328" book says almost nothing about him. (The page devoted to him is mostly blank.) It's unlikely that much will have been discovered about him in the two decades since the book was compiled. -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trust Hoary's assessment. If he died during the war, his oeuvre would presumably be in the public domain and we could fill an article up with sourced commentary on the photos (similarly to what I've been doing with, say, Omina no Chichihaha), but if we haven't been able to do that until now then we probably will never do it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe he'll be back one day when someone digitizes some sources, but for ow there is nothing to be found online.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article isn't backed up with a notable source. Barca (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not fulfill wikipedia notability criteria. Zinzoo01 (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)— Zinzoo01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - The article does not pass notability. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ijaaz Ebrahim[edit]

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

Roles aren't really major and there is virtually no independent coverage after an analysis of the sources existing in the article and an independent search (see below)

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/i-was-initially-scared-to-stand-in-front-of-harisree-ashokan-chettan-ijaaz-ebrahim/articleshow/68167531.cms	it's basiccally a rehashed press release/sound byte from an interview	~	not coverage in the slightest, it's a 4 sentence blurb	✘ No
https://www.ibtimes.co.in/online-movie-promoter-actor-ijaaz-ebrahims-journey-also-cinematic-798275	interview		Interviews by the subject aren't coverage.	✘ No
https://www.fridaymatinee.in/dream-comes-true-for-ijaaz-ebrahim-thanks-to-his-passion-and-hardwork/	based on the interview above	not even slightly, this is just a hobby blog	The lack of the other two indicate this isn't significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/mollywood/160519/an-international-debut.html	It's a contributor piece also based on an interview	Contributor piece, not by editorial staff		✘ No
https://www.cinekerala.in/an-international-local-story-movie.html		A less reliable version of IMDB	listings aren't coverage	✘ No
http://news24hours.in/2019/04/12/interview-with-actor-ijaaz-ebrahim/	Interview	? I have doubts about the reliability of this site and it doesn't identify the actual author just "editorial board" like a blog post	Interviews aren't coverage	✘ No
https://nettv4u.com/celebrity/malayalam/movie-actor/ijaaz-ebrahim	Listings aren't independent reliable or coverage	Basically a less reliable IMDB	Nope, for everything outlined above.	✘ No
https://article.wn.com/view/2019/02/26/I_was_initially_scared_to_stand_in_front_of_Harisree_Ashokan/	rehash of source #1	see above		✘ No
http://takeone.in/ijaaz-ebrahims-dreams-are-coming-true/	almost word for word the same as multiple other sources here	Absolutely not, it's a hobby blog masquerading as a magazine that just rips content from other sources		✘ No
https://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/malayalam/press+live-epaper-preslive/sinima+enna+svapnathilekk+pichavechathine+kurich+ijas+ibrahim+manas+thurakkunnu-newsid-119267458?s=a&ss=wsp	Interview and rehash of several	Just...no.	See above	✘ No
https://article.wn.com/view/2019/05/25/From_online_movie_promoter_to_actor_Ijaaz_Ebrahims_journey_i/	Another interview ripped from elsewhere.			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After analyzing and searching for a bit, I came to a conclusion that it's either too soon or not a notable actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Masum Reza^📞 18:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Woah. I never saw such a source assessment table in a AfD before. Nicely done. Masum Reza^📞 18:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well documented nomination showing subject fails WP:NACTOR. Ifnord (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor. We actually have lots of articles on such people that need to be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 02:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Ghiozzi[edit]

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

Article on a former, unsuccessful write-in candidate for mayor of Brentwood, California [1] is currently referenced by a single source. An extensive BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, JSTOR) finds no other RS other than the East Bay Times mention of his mayoral candidacy and a self-authored mention on the local PBS affiliate website (plus the in-article source which contains purely trivial information). Per WP:NPOL and longstanding consensus, failed candidates for political office are not inherently notable and sources must establish notability independent of coverage of their candidacy which we generally consider WP:ROUTINE. There is insufficient WP:SIGCOV to otherwise demonstrate this passes the GNG. Indeed, we have so little biographical information it's not even clear if this individual is currently alive as there's also an obituary here [2] but, since the article can't even source his DOB, it's unclear if this is the same person. Chetsford (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I have no issue with Draftiying articles, but oppose draftiying BLPs except in rare circumstances. Our obligations to the privacy of non-notable individuals preclude maintaining pages on them on Wikipedia, even if they are in non-searchable namespaces. Chetsford (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have failed to find any other sources except for East Bay Times one that is WP:SIGCOV (2 sources in Italian but both are passing mentions [3] and [4], but not enough for the subject to be a WP:BASIC pass). This shouldn't go to draft, as it should be a place for something to be worked on if there are enough sources (and even then WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP) or for an upcoming subject that has yet to achieve notability but possibly could. Aldo fits neither. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because The article does not pass notability.Forest90 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Bornholm[edit]

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

Reason Unsourced. Cannot find any indication of notability from reliable sources. Garuda28 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article describes a number of sources being available in Danish about the flag and its creator, including two pieces in the Bornholms Tidende news paper and coverage in a history book. Passes WP:GNG, please note WP:NEXIST FOARP (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the existence of other Nordic-cross flags and sources given by FOARP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some way. Sources that FOARP has found make this not be viable for deletion here. Passes WP:GNG as there are multiple significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (domestic newspapers should absolutely count as such). At worst, this should be merged into Bornholm as an alternative to deletion (not a recognized flag and a stub like this could be better covered there). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources given by FOARP. TSventon (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article because it pass WP:GNG and also per sources given by FOARP.Forest90 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 02:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Democratic Party (Italy)[edit]

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

Completely unknown party, I have not found a single source on it. The page does not indicate the name of any leader, nor the party's website. If this party actually existed, however it was irrelevant and therefore not encyclopedic. Wololoo (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have vanished without a trace. Searches for ‘Partito Nazional Democratico’ throw up articles about Germany, with the single exception of s brief posting in an Italian chat forum in that references this Wikipedia article and invites people to join. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, No source, Not notable, National Democratic Party (Italy) is not represented in the Italian Parliament, the European Parliament, nor in any regional or provincial assemblies. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash Chandra Mishra[edit]

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

Article is blatantly promotional/"about me"-like (and judging from the talk page, has been so for a very long time), it's a list of the things he's done but does nothing to establish notability. No inline sources, and only one external link is even third-party coverage of the subject (the rest are by him or lists of his work). Didn't find any reliable sources on my own to establish notability. creffett (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sourcing. Reads like PROMO. If someone manages to establish notability, please feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks very promotional, something that is against what Wikipedia is per WP:NOTPROMO. His citations are very bad [5], which doesn't make it a pass on WP:PROF's side. The best source I could find on him is [6], so he fails WP:GNG as well. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CRN Games[edit]

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

Article on a New York-based commercial company has been completely unsourced for preceding eight years, with an unresolved tag on it for the same period of time. A basic BEFORE (newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google News, Google Books) does not locate any WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most results are directory-ish or directly affiliated with the company. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything which might come close to satisfying WP:NORG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 02:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GBee[edit]

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

Article is sourced almost entirely to company's own pages and social media accounts. One reputable source, on DAWN, doesn't actually mention the company at all. A standard BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, JSTOR) is somewhat frustrated by the common name of the company but fails to find anything redemptive. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. A review of the current references and an online search did not find significant coverage by independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 02:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semichem[edit]

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

Non notable retailer, Haven't found any evidence of any notability, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage. Although there are some sources (BBC, for example), most are of local newspaper variety [7], or are mere mentions in articles about the parent company. Redirect the page to the parent company Scotmid. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 02:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Aubry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There's no SNG for volleyball, so we have to rely on WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Lack of in-depth sources means the subject fails GNG, and I can't find a record of any achievement lofty enough that he would hit WP:ANYBIO. At the last AfD, someone linked a Google News search with some sources they believed applied, but failed to link the sources, and now the link doesn't work, so it's not much use to us.

However, the OP of that post does mention some newspaper names, which I checked: Østlandets Blad basically had local fluff pieces, nothing in-depth and nothing that indicates he had a professional career - it's all junior-level stuff. Nothing found at Stavanger Aftenblad. Akershus Amtstidende is another junior-league article. Bien Public didn't have anything.

Article was kept by no consensus last time due to weak keeps; clearly the subject has not increased his extremely minimal notability in the last decade, so this article should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable volley ball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and fails WP:NSPORT since he's never competed at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the article is not notable.Forest90 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 02:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Holian[edit]

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

BLP is sourced to a non-RS reference that simply credits his name as an author on a book BLP wrote. A basic BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find further references. Article fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I have no issue with Draftifying articles where there is a possibility of improvement, however, oppose draftifying any BLPs due to our policy "that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest"; non-notable persons should be protected from having their life indexed on WP, even if in a non-searchable namespace. Chetsford (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable WP:BLP. Can't find anything substantial at all in reliable sources on him. SportingFlyer T·C 05:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per BOZ. Holian is an established author, with more credits to his name than several other writers.--Robbstrd (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, verbosity is not one of the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR under which authors achieve inherent notability. Chetsford (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, authoring multiple Notable books is a criterion for NAUTHOR, and the subject of this article has done so. Newimpartial (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Chetsford (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NAUTHOR 4(c) "The person's work has...received significant critical attention". NBOOK 1. "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews." So an author of at least two notable books meets NAUTHOR by definition. I mean, I suppose there may he notable books that haven't received two or more reviews, based on some of the other criteria, but I doubt that many exist and any way, the subject of this article wrote books that satisfy the review criterion and therefore meets AUTHOR 4(c).Newimpartial (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:NAUTHOR 4(c) says "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". "Significant critical attention" must be demonstrated, not simply declared. If several reviews of Holian's books in the New York Review of Books or Le Nouveau Magazine Littéraire or similar publications can be demonstrated, I'll be more than happy to withdraw the nomination. Chetsford (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:NAUTHOR isn't even that strict - it just needs to be non-self-published/peer-edited reviews. It's multiple reviews which pass WP:NAUTHOR, not books written. SportingFlyer T·C 02:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And we have Notable/multiply reviewed books here, a.k.a. "significant critical attention". As usual, Chetsford is trying to conjure up a deletionist bar contra policy, but I have trouble understsnding your !vote, SportingFlyer, given what you say here about AUTHOR. Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if one believes there are significant reviews in RS, one needs to provide evidence of those reviews. Per WP:NEXIST, "merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". Chetsford (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a fairly extensive BEFORE search and didn't find anything that would get him over the WP:AUTHOR line. All the coverage I found was from blogs or non-reliable sources, so even though I don't expect the New Yorker to have reviewed him, there's also not enough reliable secondary sources that would get him over the notability line, especially given he's a possible BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 19:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the slightest sign he qualifies under WP:NAUTHOR specifically or WP:GNG generally, nor has anyone seen fit to provide evidence otherwise. "Hope" is not a substitute for ACTUAL reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 02:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election[edit]

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

Completely hypothetical event that has not been announced, and definitely not certain to take place in 2019, as it might not be called. --Ted Edwards 19:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't believe this article meets WP:GNG, as I can't find any source on it (never mind reliable secondary independent ones). I also believe it violates WP:CRYSTAL, as the article is just speculation. --Ted Edwards 21:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also, not convinced this is significant enough for an article. If it happens, it could be added to an aftermath section of 2019 Liberal Democrats leadership election. Number 5 7 20:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. In addition, the BBC source given only mentions Swinson becoming party leader, so any speculation on an election would constitute WP:OR. Highway 89 (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per WP:RAPID. We have articles on each of the deputy leadership elections in the lib dems (at least all of the recent ones in the last two decade). One is expected to take place - in 2019 (the timetable for these is rather swift - and many of the previous ones occurred when the deputy was appointed to something else and didn't want to hold on to the party post). I can't quite find a source discussing this (in the sea of sources on the leadership election results - in which the deputy leader Jo Swinson became leader) - however I'm fairly sure that even at this early stage there are sources, and that the election itself will take place in the near future. If we delete this - we'll only end up re-creating it in less than a week. I'm at a neutral as the current article is ORish (need at least one source discussing this)Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Why are you fairly sure that there are sources, if you can't find any? --Ted Edwards 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As there will be deputy elections in very short order - and at the moment search results are masked out by Boris and the deputy Lib Dem being elected to ldeader.Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there was going to be news anywhere it would be on the Lib Dem's website, but if there it's hidden so well that they've not put it on their "latest news" page nor can google find it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. while there is an article, it could be added to an aftermath section of 2019 Liberal Democrats leadership election --SalmanZ (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - As far as I can see at the moment there is no guarantee it will take place - the position went unfilled from 2015-2017 and the Lib Dem parliamentary party is only slightly larger now than it was then. Equally, given the current parliamentary arithmetic, there is a chance that when parliament meets after the recess a general election could be called. In this case it is more likely that any ballot would happen after that date, possibly as late as early 2020, so I think this an event not certain to occur. If and when a ballot is announced then the issue can be looked at again. Dunarc (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 02:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samrat Mihir Bhoj Evam Unka Yug[edit]

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

This one was nominated by me and power~enwiki at the same time. --MrClog (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability (as well as article quality). References are blogs or Hindi articles that can't be machine translated. ISBN not found in Google/Amazon/Worldcat - unsure about publisher as a result. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wasn't able to find any sources to meet GNG/NBOOK. Only not independent or blogs, etc. [8][9] MrClog (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book's review is published in Newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 14th April 2019 throughout the Nation(Published in Rajasthan Patrika of All states of India).^[1] and It is first book written on Samrat Mihir Bhoj and published in 2015. It's prequel was selected by Rajasthan Government library.^[2] Book is also notable by National leaders and Educationalists of India.^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.240.110.114 (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This Article is very important with respect to indian history litrature because it is first book written on indian king mihir bhoj in year 2015. The refrence of article is book review published in newspaper rajasthan patrika all states editions on 14th april 2019.^[4] I found this Book is also available on Amazon. There are only one refrence on the article on Mihira Bhoja because very few literature available on mihir bhoj online. The article Samrat Mihir Bhoj Evam Unka Yug is very important and shouldn't be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapanvnahar (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that review seems to be the only reliable source. The book must be covered in multiple reliable sources. --MrClog (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that very few content is available on the theme of book and The topic is important for wikipedia to provide readers information about first book on that theme and book also contains a reliable source and reviews by educationalist. It shouldn't be deleted at this moment. ISBN no. is offline registered and alloted so it is not showing on online platform. Very soon ISBN no. will be also confirmed and put in the refrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapanvnahar (talk • contribs) 09:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If there is very few content available about the book, then it isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) --MrClog (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is few content available about the theme of book not book. There is sufficient references allotted about article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapanvnahar (talk • contribs) 09:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you have only been able to identify one small review in a reliable source, that doesn't seem sufficient. --MrClog (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some time should be given. ^[5]^[6]^[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapanvnahar (talk • contribs) 09:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the sources you cite in your comment have already been mentioned but aren't WP:RS and/or WP:SIGCOV. You have at least 5 days before this discussion gets closed. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) --MrClog (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are there any English sources (or Hindi sources that are not screen-shots of text)? While they're not necessary, it would make this a lot easier for any non-Hindi speaking editors. Furthermore, it would make it easier to track down the ISBN for this book. If the ISBN has not been entered into databases, it may be too soon for an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN No. has been issued offline by Pink city Publishers, Jaipur with legal permission of ISBN Department of India.^[8] Very soon it will be updated in database. Tapanvnahar (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If the book was published in 2015, I'm skeptical that more time is the solution to problems like this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked to team ISBN of india regarding online evidence. There reply is attached.^[9] The letter issued for publisher is already attached.^[10] Still we are trying to process for updation in online database. It may take time. because ISBN is offline registered and the team haven't updated it in online database.--Tapanvnahar (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapanvnahar: Are you the author of the book or in any other way afflifiated with the book/publishing company? --MrClog (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not author and not affiliated with the book/publishing company in any way.Tapanvnahar (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you have the letter in which the ISBN is assigned? --MrClog (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mailed and asked for ISBN evidence regarding this purpose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapanvnahar (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have blocked Tapanvnahar (talk · contribs) for COI and promotional editing in response to this ANI report. I also believe that 117.240.110.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an IP sock/meatpuppet of the now blocked user. Will leave it to the AFD closer to weigh and evaluate the discussion accordingly. Abecedare (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "जिसके युग मे भारत सोने की चिड़िया कहलाया". www.epaper.patrika.com. Retrieved 23 July 2019.
^ "List of selected books of private publishers" (PDF). www.education.rajasthan.gov.in. Rajasthan Government Education Department. Retrieved 29 June 2018.
^ "गुर्जर प्रतिहार सम्राट मिहिर भोज के जीवन पर लेखक विजय नाहर की किताब // RASHTRA KHABAR". Rashtra Khabar. Retrieved 9 October 2018.
^ "Book Review". www.epaper.patrika.com. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
^ "गुर्जर प्रतिहार सम्राट मिहिर भोज के जीवन पर लेखक विजय नाहर की किताब // RASHTRA KHABAR". Rashtra Khabar. Retrieved 9 October 2018.
^ "जिसके युग मे भारत सोने की चिड़िया कहलाया". www.epaper.patrika.com. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
^ "समीक्षा - सम्राट मिहिर भोज एवं उनका युग". www.rachanakar.org. Retrieved 30 March 2019.
^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lslodF-y9Rknq_0sUT2pUxySe_NtBFSd/view?usp=drivesdk
^ https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VoxDGM4x3XoZ4nE6rFgFCwQQJleXSsus
^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lslodF-y9Rknq_0sUT2pUxySe_NtBFSd/view?usp=drivesdk

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 Knuckles' Chaotix. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 02:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotix[edit]

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

As a subject, the topic of this article fails WP:GNG. Most references and information in the article seem to be in regards to the game Knuckles' Chaotix and not the subject of this article, the group with the namesake. The subject of this article seems to have not gained any notability outside of Sonic the Hedgehog "in-universe" references, meaning the subject itself is not notable enough to be an encyclopedic topic. Anyone who is looking for this title would be better served by being redirected to read Knuckles' Chaotix, and any information in this article pertaining to the characters can be merged into List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters (though I don't think there is anything to merge.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge salvagable content to Knuckles' Chaotix, then Redirect. No significant coverage on the characters that isn't dependent on the parent subject. Proposing a redirect as a plausible search term for the game. --letcreate123 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Knuckles' Chaotix as not independently notable, fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not independently notable from the game of the similar name. Just about all sources are either brief passing mentions pulled from articles about the game, or discussing them as part of the game as gameplay mechanics more than characters themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or keep the article. But I think redirecting the article to Knuckles' Chaotix is a better option.Forest90 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Workaholic. As the article is currently a single sentence, a merge didn't seem necessary. However, that sentence is still available in the edit history of the article, so feel free to use it. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 02:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hustle culture[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two sources: . The Forbes column does use the term in the headline, and uses it twice more. (I uses just "hustle" 5 times more.). This would seem to be the actual source for the phrase, because it does explicitly propose it as a neologism: "It seems that everywhere I go, people are suffering from the “hustle culture” pandemic. By hustle culture, I mean the collective urge we currently seem to feel as a society to work harder, stronger, faster." That a Forbes writer proposed the phrase, does not mean it is widely used. The earlier NYT column uses the phrase in a very general sense , twice only in a article that uses the general term hustle by itself 8 times. It doesn't say or indicate or imply that the phrase is a standard descriptor. Looking elsewhere on google, it seems to be used in a general way, as people might say "workout culture", "office culture" , "New York culture" (we have an article Culture of New York City, which is an example the general use of the word "culture" in non-specific unfixed combinations. We have, for example , a redirect from Food culture to the actual article title Sociology of food . Possibly it might become a standard phrase, but most similar terminology has not. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is currently very short, and scholarly sources are in short supply, but there are better ones than those given, and far more of a similar quality. It's not a neologism, though many of the older sources discuss the concept not in the context of Silicon Valley tech companies as the newer ones do, but in the context of Surinamese immigrants to the Netherlands; see for example this 2012 book (p. 182) referring to an earlier work on the topic from 2001. Here is an in-depth profile on "hustle culture" in advertising predating the Forbes piece, and the term is very widely written about in news media, e.g. Wall Street Journal. There has been a significant rise in use of the term since the essay in the New York Times (which also predates Forbes, by the way), but older uses exist, and "it has become more popular recently" is no reason to not have an article. Rather, that was probably the reason behind writing the article now, instead of last year. Huon (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are many equivalent phrases, going back millenia: "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise". The best target appears to be work ethic. Andrew D. (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not seeing how this is different from Workaholic, and there's nothing there to merge except "the term hustle culture is a thing that exists". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Workaholic, as the two terms appear to be largely synonymous. A brief mention of the term, as well as the sources being used here that mention it, can be added to that article if needed. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Workaholic" is a quasi-medical and derogatory framing in which the work is seen as dysfunctional – addictive or compulsive busywork. Even when they have "made it", the workaholic will keep working. Andrew D. (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is what the article, and most of the sources, seem to be describing. Pretty much all of the sources, both in the article and found in this AFD, are describing "hustle culture" as dysfunctional, with one of the sources being used in the article (the Times article) even using the term "workaholism" to describe hustle culture. Hence why I suggested that as the redirect/merge target. To be fair, I can see how work ethic could also be a valid target, and would not have any objection if that is what is decided, but based on the sources, I still think Workaholic to be more appropriate.Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment between this and side hustle, there's enough to discuss this somewhere. Not sure if there's a good redirect target or not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Workaholic. I agree with the above editors. Merger with Workaholic is appropriate. Or delete as per WP:DICDEF --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above - it's a reasonable compromise. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. I'm not sure there's enough material here for anything to merge. Reyk _YO! 17:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this, or Merge, as those who have commented on the matter above have suggested. StewBrewer (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article to workaholism.Forest90 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to workaholic makes the most sense to me. Redirect doesn't make sense without merge, as there's no mention of this there right now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn; independent sourcing is improved since nominating. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry's Hard Soda[edit]

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

Not a notable brand. References (and article content) are largely marketing material from MillerCoors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Following the nomination of the article for deletion, I did more research and added enough reliable sources to support notability, especially given the information they provide about the company's success in this market. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found sources on the internet that are enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. Also, the user above me has added many more sources which have strengthened the article. WP:HEY. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neutrally written article that doesn't come across as overtly promotional. The handful of independent references provided among the chaff are enough to get it over the top. StonyBrook (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 01:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arunava Sinha[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. The references I found verifies they have translated, but does not talk about the subject himself. Needs significant coverage which is lacking. The only source in the article is to the subject's website and the entire page looks like a resume to show people for future writing jobs. CNMall41 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza^📞 17:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Translators can be notable, but we need sources that speak to notability, not merely a list of book translated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall, the rationales for article retention are outweighing the rationales presented here for deletion, particularly notions that the event has had WP:LASTING significance, along with sources presented in the discussion that suggests this notion. I feel that the overall arguments for retention, which roughly assert enduring notability, have sufficiently countered WP:NOTNEWS concerns about the topic. Furthermore, one user that !voted for deletion later stated that the article should not be "entirely deleted", which counters their own initial !vote and suggests that a merge of some sort may be functional. The overall consensus, relative to the arguments presented herein, is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Tinsukia killings[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting significance. ∯WBG^converse 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a single event, not massacre or genocide that it require any wikipedia page. It doesn't meet any WP:Notability criteria and doesn't increase the encyclopedic knowledge of the readers. --Harshil169 (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom's reliance on WP:NOTNEWS in support of deletion is puzzling, because the subject matter meets WP:GNG at a fundamental level so there doesn't appear to be a reason to hunt for reasons to delete it. The topic has received significant coverage (here,here,here,here, etc.) in reliable sources (Economic Times, India Today, NDTV Outlook, The Tribune, etc.) that are independent of the subject. Harshil169's characterization of the event as a "single event" is equally puzzling. The event is related to a separatist movement in India and was allegedly perpetuated by ULFA, a primary proponent of one such movement. Therefore, the event is very much a part of the encyclopedic body of knowledge. The event deserves an article because of its relationship to the greater separatist movement at least as much as the 1993 Aurora shooting (which killed 4 persons) deserves a place in the encyclopedic body of knowledge because of its relationship to the greater issue of mass shootings in the US.Deccantrap (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how single events are decided and Harshil's characterization is damn accurate; otherwise we can link nearly every event to some broader subject and then, have an article. In these days of media-coverage, every trivial crime is amplified all across multiple media and what we essentially look for is lasting coverage, after some time has already passed. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This event deserves the section in the ULFA or some other separatism related articles. The article shouldn't entirely deleted but it should be used when it's appropriate and increase the encyclopedic value of reader while reading article. --Harshil169 (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCRIME. Wide coverage at the time of the event. Continuing coverage through 2019 - e.g. - [10], [11], [12]. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was an widely covered incident that had political ramifications in Assam and West Bengal, especially in the context of NRC and counter movement by some Bengali nationalist organizations. BengaliHindu (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTNEWS very clearly doesn't apply, major event, receiving ongoing coverage, with significant collateral effects. I'm confused by both OP's and Harshil169's comment (who said it didn't meet any notability criteria, not merely failing NOTNEWS). Bizarre. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Zavialova[edit]

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

Promotion aside, the article is unreliably sourced (Blogspot? Really?) and the model isn’t notable. Participation in the “prestigious” Elite Model Look contest is not an indicator of notability or success. Many completely unknown and unnotable models do the same thing every year. (Also, the Ford Supermodel of the World competition makes no mention of her. It’s odd that a model would participate in the competitions of two rival agencies if she “won” one of them already. Maybe it’s because it didn’t happen!) Trillfendi (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing much if any coverage from independent sources. Article looks quite promotional as well. Highway 89 (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, does not look like a notable model Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rent bank[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2009 Rathfelder (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this, this and this. Mccapra (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the content reads as marketing material for Surrey Rent Bank and must be removed. The topic itself is probably notable, but I know nothing about it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by a SRBteamlead - I've just removed the promotional material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - so notability is well-demonstrated by the sources above. Power-enwiki and his battleaxe of anti-promotionalism have...aggressively cleansed the article. There's loads more content that could be added if it's now felt to be too short.

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) 20:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Doughty[edit]

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

Notability warning has been up for 7 years without reliable sources added that are centered on the subject. Omnibus (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete longtime columnist for The Roanoke Times, a wellregarded newspaper, but I am not seeing coverage of him. If anyone is able to source WP:SIGCOV of this journalist or of the things he has written, please ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we would need is actual sources that show that Doughty's actions were trend setting. What we have now is way too much sourcing to his own works, we need sources about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 01:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbert Roget II[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. While a working composer, not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:COMPOSER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lead composer for recent Star Wars, Tomb Raider, Guild Wars, Call of Duty, and Mortal Kombat properties means he's notable. I'll expand the article (or just remake it if it's deleted). :-P Liontamer (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable works don't make him independently notable if he doesn't have articles specifically written about him. However, if you can find enough that are, then it can be kept. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Liontamer. Funny tongue wag there but, seriously, treatening to post up again an article that has been deleted is neither productive nor allowed. If you happen to have indeed adequate sources that support the subject's Wikinotability, well, this is the time to do it!-The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the subject has accrued some coverage (mostly in regards to their composing music for the MK11 soundtrack), WP:COMPOSER criteria does not seem to be met. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW closure). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2028 in rail transport[edit]

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

Far too soon for such a page; there's no reason to believe that LA Olympics projects won't finish in 2027. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per, uhh, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Heck - rail transport might be obsolete by 2028 due to an unknown technical advance in intervening decade. Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above.----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Ajf773 (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others, early close per WP:SNOW. Highway 89 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and above. Barca (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The statement "the actual dates that these events occur on may differ substantially" from the lead basically indicates why this is a wholly unnecessary article. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is little more than speculation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole thing about projects completed by 2028 is idle speculation. All sorts of things could change in the next 9 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 01:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Reports[edit]

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

WP:CORPDEPTH not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked both the creator and the user who moved this into mainspace for UPE. MER-C 15:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jatland[edit]

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

It is not a real area, it is created by a sock, where the goal is only promotion using the Wikipedia. Meeanaya (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although it isn’t an actual administrative unit, the refs provided in the article show that it is a term in current use and widely understood. We have an article for Khalistan movement but not one for Khalistan so perhaps this article should be renamed Jatland movement? Mccapra (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: I dont know if such a movement is going on, but if it is, then it would have to be notable to get an article. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, Although it is popular term used by the politicians to draw attention and there is nothing significant. Another example can be Hinduland or Muslimland. The page was created by a Sock with a very clear purpose to seek advantages for term Jatland. Meeanaya (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meeanaya I think Hinduland and Muslimland are differ from Jatland. --Ashok Talk 17:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meeanaya I understand the point you're making but I believe that our policies on Wikipedia mean that even if this 'isn't really a thing' and is just an idea some people are talking up for partisan purposes, if it has been covered extensively in the press it is likely to be notable, regardless of who originally created the article and whatever their purpose was. The refs provided in the article look sound to me. If there are literally no other references to Jatland then this may be a borderline case, but if there are other pieces in the mainstream press also discussing the idea, it probably is notable enough to have its own article. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra I agree that a page can be created as a term but not as an area, which really don't exists. It will be better to draftify first and rewrite to display the appropriate content on the page.Meeanaya (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jatland word is popular among the people of Indian states Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi and Punjab. Its quit popular in Pakistan also. --Ashok Talk 17:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AshokChakra- I complete agree, it is popular term so it could have a page not as an area but as a term, why it exists and what it is for.Meeanaya (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Meeanaya, Jatland is a term for geographical area. An area where majority of Jats are live. Maybe it is not in the map of India but in the states it is a notable area. --Ashok Talk 16:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AshokChakra- Good to know about it, Can I create pages for Bheelland, Punjabiland, Banialand, Rajputland and others similar to the lines of Jatland which is a hypothetical term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeanaya (talk • contribs)

Meeanaya, I think whatever you want to create, not notable. I mean Jatland article provides references, all reliable. But its up to you, what do you want to create or not. ;) --Ashok Talk 16:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pseudological term used to define an area or region which does not exists, if this is accepted there can be several pages on the same lines, really we need to draw a line to avoid spam. Meeanaya (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of the nominator’s arguments seem compelling to me. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia:no original research policy should. Same challenge to you, too: What do sources actually document about this subject? And how is the article at hand not a bizarre synthesis from nonce-word newspaper headlinese that somehow has this subject stretching across vast and unconnected parts of India? Start off with an easy one if you like: How is the first sentence of the article supported by the BSI piece at all? Please put content policy into action. Uncle G (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK I understand the point that the article defines an area as being known casually as 'Jatland' while none of the sources for the article offer any such definition, just referring to it as if its meaning is already understood. In terms of sourcing for a geographical definition, I've so far found:
Christophe Jaffrelot (2010). Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. Primus Books. p.35 ISBN 978-93-80607-04-7
and

Jat Politics At Crossroads Following Election Results Mccapra (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither actually contain a single fact about a Jatland. The second is actually about the 2019 Indian general election results across various states, and the first is a footnote about the post-Partition manoeuvrings (which were a little more complex than that, in truth, given what happened in 1966). Uncle G (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOLAND applies. FOARP (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How? What do the sources tell us about this subject? Uncle G (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an informal name for a region (similar to e.g., Tri-state area), WP:Geoland allows that these be kept on a case-by-case basis if supported and notable under WP:GNG. This is supported by reliable sources (e.g., 1 2 3 ). FOARP (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of the three sources that you point to state that. One is all about stereotypes of Haryana, one is about a politician visiting Bagpat district, and one is about BJP politicians in the Jind district. None of the three actually contain a single fact about a Jatland. You aren't actually putting the Primary Notability Criterion into practice at all. You are phrase-matching headlines and sub-heads, some of which are even signalling that this is a nonce term by putting it in quotation marks. Putting the PNC into practice involves evaluating the depths of sources, which involves finding out what they actually tell one about a subject. So I challenge you again: What do sources actually tell one about this subject? Uncle G (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets the WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG criteria. It is reported by reliable sources. --Harshil169 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Same challenge: What sources? And what do they tell us? Have you read them? Uncle G (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete: first of all, WP:GEOLAND is not applicable here as the name is not given/created/labelled by census authority or any other government body. secondly: Elected or other politicians use it for politicial/divisive reasons, in that case it doesnt pass it WP:GNG; as most of the times the term is used in either steriotypical manner (talking about Jat community), or in some sort derogatory and/or crude manner (or humour). These sources do not meet criteria for reliable sources. The only two reliable sources that "mentioned" the term, was because they quoted the same peron who had used the term. It is as trivial as it can get.Thirdly: Other such terms which are used, like Tristate area, or some "golden triangle" for industries, or toursim; are used by government officially. eg: "the crime rate in tristate area has increased, so we are increasing our efforts to stop it". That was a statement from few years back from the government. Other statements by government can be found like "offering schemes in x-y-z golden triangle to boost industries" or "tourism". There are also numerous articles about those areas. These articles discuss the subject in depth. Like "what constitutes as tristate, the brief history of tristate, how was the crime in past, the current crime situation, possible reasons/speculations of the increase, government's response to the increase" and so on. The point is, all of these areas receive significant coverage that too persistently. Whereas Jatland hasnt been covered by any WP:RS in depth. Government doesnt use it officially. It fails WP:GNG, and as explained in first point, it fails WP:GEOLAND. Its a nickname. It exists. But its not notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTDIC. A simple and self-explanatory portmanteau of Jat and -land that headline-writers sometimes find catchy, the subject itself fails WP:GEOLAND (as it represents no legally recognized or even disputed geographic entity) and WP:GNG (no significant coverage by reliable sources of either the term or what it represents). And unlike, say, Khalistan, proposals for forming an actual Jatland are essentially throwaway calls and are best covered as a single sentence at Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) if found to be due even there. At close of AFD, the page can be redirected to Jat people. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with the concise and precise explanation of Abecedare. I guess keep !voters are confusing popularity with notability. The term is regularly & casually used by Indian media. And its meaning can only be understood in the context of the article. It may mean an area dominated by Jats numerically, politically, or culturally. And as such there is no definition of Jatland. I must also mention here that, leaving behind the relevant government notifications, we require academic sources for South Asian religion/caste/ethnicity-related claims on this project, as media standards are extremely poor here. As far as academic sources are concerned, they hardly ever use this term. I could find only a single quality source which comes anywhere close to defining Jatland. Here is the relevant quote:^[1]

As the table below shows, while the country’s foodgrain production has nearly doubled since 1970–1, it has trebled in the case of Punjab and Haryana. If we were to also include the Hindu Jats of western Uttar Pradesh (UP) and their Sikh counterparts who have ‘colonized’ the irrigated tracts of northern Rajasthan (mainly Ganganagar and Hanumangarh) and the Tarai area of Uttarakhand, the result is a geographically contiguous, extended ‘Jatland’ territory. It is this belt that has been the cradle of India’s Green Revolution.

In short, the term is neither well-defined in any quality source nor it meets the WP:GNG (as it is always mentioned in passing).So, we are left with WP:ATD. If someone can provide reliable sources which define the term properly, then we can merge/redirect it somewhere, let's say, Jat people. Otherwise we should delete it. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Damodaran, Harish (2008). India's New Capitalists: Caste, Business, and Industry in a Modern Nation. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 261–262. ISBN 978-0230205079. Retrieved 17 July 2019.

Keep per WP:GEOLAND This sbbject meet our GNG with WP:RS. I am not an expert on India however I relied on the descriptions put forth - the subject appears to be sometimes described as a village, and or a region. India Times, Open The Magazine, Travel Triangle, and DNA India. Lightburst (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: Since you point to WP:GNG, can you spell out how how this blog qualifies as a reliable source and how that or the other sources you list list contain "significant coverage" on the subject? To avoid confusion, I'll note that significant coverage means that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". If after reading those sources, you are not even sure if the term refers to "a village, and or a region", wouldn't that indicate that those sources are not fit to write an encyclopedic entry on the subject? Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare I determine from the sources that it exists. I think you can ignore the blog that you have dismissed and consider the rest, including the non-english press. Using various criteria I see that it is a place. India is a complicated geographical location with a mix of regions, villages, and areas often described by locals and others in contradictory descriptives. I will continue to search as I always do. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: Mere existence is not what is required by GNG, which you cited. And GEOLAND, which you also cited, simply does not apply. 'Jat land' exists as a concept, not a specific geographical region. Please read the posts above by Usernamekiran and NitinMlk, who are very much familiar with the geography and complications of India, to understand what the subject and discussion are about. I'll particularly point you to the latter's accurate (albeit WP:OR) definition, And its meaning can only be understood in the context of the article. It may mean an area dominated by Jats numerically, politically, or culturally. That will help explain how the articles you cited don't even use the term to refer to the same concept.Times of India uses Jatland as a synonym for Haryana; Open magazine uses it to talk about Jat migrant community in Chhattisgarh; while DNA India uses it to highlight Jat electoral prowess in Delhi. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India Census 2011 describes an area as simply Jat, and the specific term Jatland is not used in the 2011 census. From one source provided it looked as if there were protests regarding the creation of Jatland. Not sure we dismiss ignore the one about creation of Jatland. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jat, Sangli in Maharashtra is not remotely related, in any sense, to Jat people or Jatland; the names do not even derive from the ~~same family of~~ same languages. And this article is not talking about "creation of Jatland." Interpreting its mention of "convert it into 'Jat land' on March 20" as such, is akin to interpreting "Democrats plan to turn Texas blue in 2024" to a desire to spray-paint the state. :)

May I suggest that you withdraw your !vote at this afd and we hat the following discussion since its going increasing off-topic and bordering on WP:CIR/WP:IDHT? Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: Like Abecedare said: Jat, Sangli is a completely different town. It has nothing to do with the Jat community. The town belongs in state of Maharashtra, and such is a marathi language name. No relation to Jat community, or Jatland at all. The "creation of Jatland" article you provided uses the term metaphorically. Like some clowns saying, "we will host a show in delhi on March 20, and convert it into merryland". Kindly read my vote above. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From further research and examination of the references, this subject does not pass GNG. Jatland is not an actual region or village and the 2011 census has confined this. WP:GEOLAND is not met. I am unsure what Jatland refers to at this point but it seems plausible to assume that Abecedare may be correct in stating it is like saying, "Democrats plan to turn Texas blue in 2024". I cannot even find that Jatland fits a descriptive area like the Southern United States. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Although this is not a legal entity, there is non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (Business Standard, News18, Hindustan Times etc.) which makes it notable. While it does appear to be just an idea, it is one that has received significant coverage and so passes notability guidelines. It's essentially an unofficial region with citations to support its existence. Highway 89 (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Highway 89: Hi. Could you provide links to the reliable sources that covers the subject significantly, rather than just naming them? —usernamekiran(talk) 03:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- None so far, do. There's actually no coverage at all in any of the sources cited, because they do not contain a single fact about this purported concept, not even support for the first sentence of the article at hand. I have been pointing out what they actually document. Have you read them? Uncle G (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Revising to delete. Upon further reading of the sources, the coverage appears to be purely speculative with no real facts of note. Highway 89 (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abecedare's cogent portmanteau explanation and usernamekiran's GEOLAND explanation. I also note that the the sources, such as they are, variously use "Jat land" or "Jat-land", strengthening the portmanteau argument and signifying that this is not a standard term. --regentspark (comment) 22:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, exactly as RegentsPark explains, including their own referencing of Abecedare and usernamekiran. It is a nebulous concept deployed by lazy journalists. At best, this would be a WP:DICDEF thing. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changing my !vote after further thought. The sources I found are too sparse and the arguments of Sitush and Abecedare are persuasive. Mccapra (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Sized[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage to pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Previous AfD was weak in nature and failed to present the necessary coverage for notability. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Not enough coverage to justify it. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just like theatrical films, a television film is not handed an automatic notability freebie just because an IMDb entry offers technical verification that it exists: the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about the film, such as actual reviews by newspaper or magazine TV critics. But besides the IMDb profile, the only other source here is a special-interest magazine reporting a blog-sourced rumor that this film's lead actor had signed to be in it, which is not enough to get this over the "media coverage" test all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That only comes into play if suitable sources are actually shown to exist, and does not hand any article a free exemption from having to show any sources at all just because NEXIST exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not look at the links provided by myself and Jovan below? matt91486 (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't speaking about the existence or non-existence of sources provided after I made my comment — I was addressing the inappropriately condescending tone needed to imply that sources not provided until after I said what I said somehow turn me into a bad Wikipedian for ever having said what I said in the first place. If enough other users vote keep to establish a consensus that the new sources are good enough, then I don't have to reverse my original comment before it can be kept — but my original comment doesn't make me a bad person just because new sources were shown after I made it either. In a nutshell, there was no need for NorthAmerica1000 to actually respond to my comment at all, especially not in a tone that implied that my original comment was negligent or incompetent. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just quickly looking for sources shows various reviews: [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]. Also things like [18]. This shows sufficient coverage. matt91486 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clear pass of WP:NFILM having recieved in-depth reviews by The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and New York Daily News (Reuters is just duplicating what THR said and should be removed). I have also found a review on The Seattle Times [19]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging MaskedSinger, Bearcat and JalenFolf to check the posted sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Jovanmilic97 will take a look when I have a chance. Currently slammed! MaskedSinger (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NFILM with multiple independent reviews in reliable sources such as Variety, New York Daily News and Hollywood Reporter, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly meets WP:MOVIE as per a perusal of available sources, including those added to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are a clear keep on NFILM grounds. While they spend fair portions on the primary actress (her performance, typecasting etc), there is still enough to meet Sig Cov reviews easily. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of room for improvement, but even a simple gNews search turns up plenty of reviews, and ONGOING discussion of this film in he years since.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presley Lawson[edit]

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

An autobiography of a musician who doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. References are unrelated to her musical career. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is promo/vanity, almost entirely OR, and sourced only by web pages, many of which do not even mention the subject. Agricola44 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (WP:PLUG) and WP:CRYSTAL. Rising/upcoming star that could well make it in here one day. StonyBrook (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tea (programming language)[edit]

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

No indication that this is more than a personal project. Flagged for notability since 2011. Dgpop (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three references for notability [20][21][22] Charmk (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Charmk, they did not nominate this article; indeed they recommended keep with sources above. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 17:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, thanks for pointing it out. ;-) Given the amount of similar nominations, at some point I didn't check the individual ones any more due to lack of time.... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is just over GNG. I'd question the nom as weak, was WP:BEFORE done? Widefox; talk 15:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some historical significance behind this language. It was developed by the Walt Disney Internet Group. It's still available here: Tea Trove Project DavidDelaune (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 01:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paschimbanga Dibas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. The entire event was coined a couple of years back as a part and parcel of Hindutvavadi politics and is far from being mainstreamed.

The first source is an op-ed by a Hindu bigot over a Bengali daily. N

The second and third sources fails WP:RS by a few miles or so, per WP:NEWSORG. N

The fourth source (a Bengali daily) dated 20 May, 2018 mentions that a group of intellectuals wish to celebrate 20 June as Paschimbanga Divas. Nothing else. ?

The fifth source (over a reputed media) covers the event as part of BJP's communal politics in Bengal. Y

The sixth source is a BA dissertation. N

Seeing nothing else over reliable sources (both English and Bengali), except that a few Hindus who were going to celebrate the event threw off a Muslim from train, because of wearing a skull-cap:-( ∯WBG^converse 08:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 08:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 08:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 08:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 08:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be because people are celebrating on the wrong day? ☺
- Senmazumdar, Judhajit (2019-06-27). "West Bengal Foundation Day observed". IndiaPost.
Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's because 23rd's the next Sunday after 20th. When I used to be over USA, the diasporic population shew a strong tendency to celebrate all events over the next Sunday after the actual event, to attract more participation. FWIW, that's not a RS and does not contribute to WP:N. ∯WBG^converse 12:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets the WP:Notability criteria and it is gaining attention in the Politics right now. Wikipedia pages should be neutral and any people/events from any political spectrum should be included if it has encyclopedic value. First source is reliable but credits of the statement should be given to the person who have wrote the OP-Ed in the newspaper. WP:Bias policy states that Wikipedia page should be neutral but sources can be biased and they are best to know different viewpoints. It is not required that person who did original research outside Wikipedia should be neutral, if it is requirement then all of the authors will become bigot due to people from other spectrum. Hence, the only recommendation will be to include the various view points of TMC, CPI (M) in the article and the statements of their leaders. Also, according to Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy, non-Ennglish sources can be used as reference. This article shouldn't be deleted. --Harshil169 (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harshil169, op-eds can be used but they don't contribute to notability.

I am a native Bengali speaker and have no idea about why you mention the point of non-English sources, being usable as references. The reasons behind non-suitability of Ref-2&3 have got nothing to with language but with failure of WP:NEWSORG. ∯WBG^converse 12:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric I got your point but you have said that Hindu Bigot wrote this article which is not proper word to use. In Wikipedia, Teesta Setalwad's articles and Rana Ayyub's book are also cited as source which is obviously not reliable if we can check by WP:RS; even court had told to Prashant Bhushan that this is not reliable. My point is anyone's article can be used. Can you go in the more details that how 2nd and 3rd reference exactly violate the WP:NEWSORG criteria? --Harshil169 (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is a bigot^{[citation needed]} and I stand by it.

I don't think Rana Ayuub is a RS for the Gujarat-affairs and don't spot her book as a source over Naroda_Patiya_massacre (which's a GA) or the main article about the riots, either. Obviously, there are scholarly sources who've used her as a source and that's fine enough. (FWIW, the Court's verdict is not a reliable indicator of scholarly reliability ... )

One of the sources is Samakal Darpan. Seems to be founded by a person of zero credibility and I can't spot anything else. Cached version of a FB page shows 48 likes but the page is currently unavailable. Have not ever heard of the paper. Don't confuse with Samakal, from Bangladesh.

Swastika is a (self-proclaimed) nationalist Bengali weekly. Have never heard of it, either. No mention or cross-referencing by any other reliable sources (frankly, there's no site, irrespective of reliability, that even talks about them). ∯WBG^converse 12:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Zayeem ^(talk) 00:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable event, nothing found any reliable source on google. Fails WP:NEVENT--Nahal^(T) 12:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 01:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NOC[edit]

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

This defunct youtube channel does not meet the criteria at either the WP:GNG or WP:WEB. A search has led to no independent or reliable sources. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this channel never seemed to obtain notability and the article fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 01:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GiveBackFilms[edit]

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

Fails the WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The last video this channel posted was in December of 2016. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this channel never seemed to obtain notability and the article fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 01:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amaar Cinema[edit]

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

PROD contested with "TV channels are always notable" on the article talk page. That is not true; all articles have to meet WP:GNG, of course, and this article does not appear to meet those criteria. I can't find anything on a WP:BEFORE check (unless someone has resources they can see that I can't) to indicate its significance, let alone notability. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources this channel actually launched, much less that it's a channel on a satellite (it could just be one of the thousand 'gray market channels' on a questionable Kodi service). Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TV channels is considered as notable.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, if that is the case, then show me a policy that says this. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment For all we know, this is just a YouTube playlist of public domain films uploaded as a 'network'. No sources, no article. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. i didn't find any WP:RS--Nahal^(T) 12:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aranya (festival)[edit]

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

No facts, no independent refs or indication of notabilty Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:RS and the WP:GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG --Harshil169 (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Omloop der Kempen. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Omloop der Kempen[edit]

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

Only marginal added value for this sole annual edition of the Omloop der Kempen. The six medalists are in the general article. Teams are listed in cyclist articles. Creator has been banned. gidonb (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Omloop der Kempen as a valid alternative to deletion. Agreed that the spinout is pretty much of low value at this point. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a redirect. Thought that just adding a random year doesn't add much SEO power, hence the delete proposal. gidonb (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Omloop der Kempen, most likely links to other pages so this is a good to prevent red links that would have to manally be changed.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RoadTrip (band)[edit]

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

This band fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Of the 22 sources 11 are either directly or attributed to "celebmix" which was par concensus deemed non reliable here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_264#CelebMix 4 are twitter. 4 are from the streaming site "Apple Music". 2 Fluff articles that smack of churnalisme (Soundigest and Tigerbeat) a blog (tailored press). Dom from Paris (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this looks like WP:TOOSOON – the band's three EPs have received attention in the fluffier teen-oriented gossip sites, and made the iTunes, Spotify charts, etc. but nothing as yet in reliable sources. You feel this will be a case in the next 12 months of either the band breaking through, or calling it a day due to lack of success. Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Crazy yet awesome life" is in itself a giveaway. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBAND . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay White (impersonator)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT and WP:GNG. It has unreliable sources. Masum Reza^📞 09:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 09:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some of the sources currently used are not reliable, but in the article are references from the Macomb Daily, Las Vegas Sun, and Yahoo Sports which show notability. I also easily found coverage in the Buffalo News, Waterloo Record, and ~~Daily Mail.~~ -- Whpq (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: Daily Mail has been deprecated as RS - see here. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FoxyGrampa75: Thanks for letting me know. I've stricken the Daily Mail item. I know the tabloid is a bit sketchy but didn't know it was declared an unreliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - replacing the Daily Mail stricken above is this NBC Philedelphia item. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I beg to differ with the nom, this guy passes both ENT and GNG based on the sources mentioned above and inside the article. Seems to be good at what he does and has been doing it long enough to get noticed. StonyBrook (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely not notable as a hockey player, but there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Roller Blade Seven. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 01:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of the Roller Blade Seven[edit]

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

Another article about a Scott Shaw movie created in 2006. In nearly 13 years, no sources have been provided and no evidence of notability. A search of Google, Google News and Google Books finds no reliable sources of a substantial nature for this movie. Railfan23 (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Railfan23 (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Railfan23, Looks like you are busy targeting the films of one filmmaker. Of the films you have targeted it looks like this movie possesses the most notability as it was shown on USA Up All Night. As I have done with the other articles you have nominated for deletion I went to the official website and found a lot of information. Rhonda Shear confirms this film as being shown on her show in her book Up All Night: From Hollywood Bombshell to Lingerie Mogul, Life Lessons from an Accidental Feminist. It is also mentioned in the book Encyclopedia of Film Themes, Settings and Series [23], The Art of Movies [24], Horror and Science Fiction Films IV, [25] and Guide to American Cinema, 1965-1995. With a google search it is also widely discusses. I believe this provides notability and reliable sources. Chinanski (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chianski:. Could I urge you to read Wikipedia:Notability (films) which says what notability means on Wikipedia, specifically for films. Being shown on USA Up All Night does not meet any of the criteria listed. Similarly, being mentioned in the books you list does not meet the criteria. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, a wikiarticle appears to have been made on each of Shaw's films on the assumption that they are individually notable, they are not (where are the reviews from reliable sources, significant awards?), therefore (selective) merge, without a redirect, to the sequel section of The Roller Blade Seven. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/redirect/Merge - I honestly wanted to save this article, but I don't see enough in the way of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. There appears to have been a very short Hollywood Reporter review of it in 1992 but that's it. Finding some more sources would help - the above-linked ones provided by User:Chinanski appear to be either brief mentions (not signficant coverage) or not reliable-sources. FOARP (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Think this article should probably be merged or redirected with The Roller Blade Seven. Thanks Chinanski (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Roller Blade Seven as not independently notable at least online, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Roller Blade Seven. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 01:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Roller Blade Seven[edit]

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

A 14-year-old article with no sources and no indication of notability. A search of Google, Google News and Google Books returns no reliable sources beyond extremely brief mentions that the film exists. None support a claim of notability. Railfan23 (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Railfan23 (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, a wikiarticle appears to have been made on each of Shaw's films on the assumption that they are individually notable, they are not (where are the reviews from reliable sources, significant awards?), therefore (selective) merge, without a redirect, to the sequel section of The Roller Blade Seven. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Think this article should probably be merged with The Roller Blade Seven. Thanks Chinanski (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to [[The Roller Blade Seven as not independently notable, at least online, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 01:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fameye[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICIAN, lacks RS. Meeanaya (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not at all notable. No evidence of any quality that might be considered to endow notability. Fails WP:SINGER Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The volume of coverage in Ghanaian sources shows that this singer is clearly a household name in Ghana. Easily passes GNG. — Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from the media saga of subject slapping his manager which was covered by several reliable sources like Ghafla!, Yen.com.gh and others, there's a number of reliable sources about subject on GNEWS from a search here. Lapablo (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lapablo. Bondegezou (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He has released only one album, which doesn't pass WP:MUSICIAN. It was neither on any charts. Meeanaya (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. Song isn't notable enough to warrant a creative professional. Rocktober2018 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fameye is a notable Ghanaian singer as confirmed by GNEWS here: https://www.google.com/search?q=fameye&rlz=1C1CHBF_enGH839GH839&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVy5rGjNrjAhW0sHEKHRTwDrEQ_AUIEygD&biw=1220&bih=556 Sistaginna (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 01:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hal elrod[edit]

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

I guess being a bestselling author is a claim to notability, hence AfD not speedy. The claim is unsourced, & all I can see are unsatisfactory refs like the two provided in the article. TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Miracle Morning easily passes WP:NBOOK - e.g. [26]. And it seems it has become a franchise of several other "Miracle Morning" titles (often written in conjunction with other writers) that receive coverage as well - e.g. [27]. Now - there is alot of crud out there in terms of sourcing (given the promotion of the multitude of books) - but it seems this passes WP:NAUTHOR and probably GNG as well - e.g. coverage [28]. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there does seem to be enough coverage of The Miracle Morning to have some article, either on the book or the author. As The Miracle Morning is a redlink, this should be kept. If an article is created, I'd support a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kumbalangi Nights. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Ben[edit]

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

This a procedural nomination started by 137.97.73.32 (talk · contribs). The original rationale is here and states, "WP:1E, notable only for one film. There's no guarantee that she would continue to appear in notable roles in future. For now, it WP:TOOSOON". I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 8 July 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? 13:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kumbalangi Nights I reviewed the sources in the article as well as what I could find online (which wasn't much more). Most of the references are interviews, which do not contribute to notability. The two non-interviews are reviews of the film itself, with Anna receiving only the most passing of mentions. I found a few more interviews online but that was it. I am not sure how notable her performance in this film even is: in her own words, I never expected people to notice me or my character. That doesn't sound like a major role to me. I would have to agree that this is at best a WP:BLP1E and a WP:TOOSOON. However, there is a valid ATD here, so we should take advantage of that. CThomas³ (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lieve Fransen[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG: career is non-notable; text has not been referenced; much of the article is puffery. MB190417 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise a poor state of an article does not constitute grounds for deletion - but it gives a sense of how well-maintained an article is (and thus how notable the subject is), especially given this article is 9 years old. MB190417 (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen (thanks Rebecca!). --MrClog (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Delete (edit conflict) - Have not been able to find any independent reliable sources with SIGCOV. --MrClog (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am currently searching for and adding sources. I do not see puffery in the article as it stands, it just says what she has done - and anyway, if there were puffery, that could be addressed. There is certainly information about her in histories of public health policies, safe blood supplies, STIs and HIV/AIDS work - it requires digging, though. I will keep looking and adding more sources as I find them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, thank you for taking the time to find more sources and improve the article. A recent edit has addressed most of the puffery, which mostly came from a quasi-WikiQuote 'Quotes from Speeches' section. MB190417 (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am continuing to add sources. I believe that she meets WP:ANYBIO, having received two significant awards, the National Order of the Lion of Senegal (I have fixed the link in the article so it's no longer a redlink), and also the Jonathan Mann Award for Health and Human Rights. We could argue about whether these awards are "well-known" - I'd be pretty sure that the Senegalese one is well-known in Senegal, and it seems to be a high-level award. Admittedly, I have not yet found an independent source for it, even googling it in French - 1990s media from Senegal may not be online. (I have just been through the edit history to check when and by whom the dates of the awards were added, and I see the resumé-like content and what looks like COI editing by one or more people close to the subject. The article itself is not looking too bad now, but the external links still need pruning!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with User:RebeccaGreen. Thanks to Rebecca. BurmesePokemon (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, article now reflects this, thanks to RebeccaGreen. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now meets WP:ANYBIO .E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 01:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Our Time[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper in Bangladesh , fail WP:NMEDIA. Does not meet WP:GNG. not significant coverage. this newspaper doesn't published any print media news in Bangladesh.i know the newspaper editor Nayeemul Islam Khan is notable person but this news paper only online news portal even this news paper not 'A' category news publisher. --Nahal^(T) 10:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 10:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 10:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 10:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I have added on in talk pages about the speedy deletion of the page 3 months ago that its editor Nayeemul Islam Khan is a reknowed journalist in Bangladesh. He was introduced as editor of The Our Time in VOA Bangla. It is a print media. But nominator has said that it is an online media. It is a national level English Daily in Bangladesh.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - "User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib" is the creator of this article.--Nahal^(T) 10:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@S. M. Nazmus Shakib:The last two months ago, the page given speedy deletion tag use @Worldbruce:. on the main point, an admin declined for that take to AfD for a full discussion this page 1. First of all, there is no trusted/reliable source in this article.
- The first link used in this article is Dead Link.
- No involvement of this article was found with the second source of this article which would be eligible for general notable.
- According to this source 1, this newspaper does not exist in the list of notable English newspapers of Bangladesh.
- Since the creation of this article the general notable guideline tags have been given and no coverage was found on Google.
- In Bangladesh there are lot of online newspapers available but that’s means all of newspapers aren’t notable.
- The keep rationale seems to be "we have many that are as bad, or even worse".--Nahal^(T) 07:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NMEDIA either. Notability is not inherited from the editor. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per User:NahalAhmed ((T)) - MA Javadi (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 01:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gowry Lekshmi[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:MUSICIAN, Wikipedia:GNG, lacks RS. Meeanaya (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete - no notabality MaskedSinger (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Satisfy WP:COMPOSER and WP:SINGER. Credited for multiple notable works. Contains multiple independent reliable sources, hence satisfy WP:GNG. Not clear how WP:MUSICIAN applies here as she's not a musician. 137.97.123.57 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article now has many references to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Hindu, New Indian Express, DNA and others, so passes WP:GNG and the article is therefore a valid entry imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no issue with IP editors but when the one and only edit for an IP editor is Strong Keep, I'm highly skeptical of what's going on here.....MaskedSinger (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete like the nominator said, subject fails WP:COMPOSER, and WP:SINGER. Most of the mentions of subject are press-releases covering her films, or other ventures. Subject lacks significant coverage, thus making her fail WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- She has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as here which are by a bylined journalist and not press releases, there are plenty of other dedicated articles in reliable sources listed in the article which are not press releases Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghainese people[edit]

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

better explained in the city article. viztor ✦ 08:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. viztor ✦ 08:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demographics of Shanghai - This article essentially duplicates what's there. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These people have a distinct language. The other suggested pages don't cover all these aspects, such as the diaspora. In any case, merger into other pages would not be a matter of deletion -- see WP:MAD -- and so the policy WP:PRESERVE applies. Andrew D. (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - firstly, I disagree that Shanghainese people (which refers to the native people of Shanghai, who may or may not live there), and Demographics of Shanghai (which is about the people who currently live in Shanghai, who may or may not be natives) are, or should be, about the same thing so I strongly oppose the above redirect suggestion. So the next question is whether the current article meets WP:GNGs. It's not well-sourced at the moment but from a quick search of Google books and news, there seems to be no shortage of sources that could be added to pad this out into a very comprehensive and well-sourced article. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article right now certainly isn't about the native people of Shanghai. viztor ✦ 23:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds like an argument to improve the article, not delete it? Hug^syrup 08:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then again these native people won't be called Shanghainese. This one is more similar to New Yorker, San Franciscan etc. viztor ✦ 11:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a few sources onto the article. Subject does have its languages and culture and it is not intelligently understand for who speak Mandarin, Cantonese or other languages and it does not applies to all resident to who live in Shanghai. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Shanghai dialect is discussed on Demographics of Shanghai. General statements about the abundance of sources doesn't dismiss duplication concerns. FOARP (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the arguments by Andrew and Hugsyrup, and the edits by Cassiopeia indicate to me the article not only meets WP:GNG criteria as a standalone page, but that the article has plenty of potential for improvement and expansion moving forward... — Hunter Ka hn 18:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Hugsyrup (talk) --SalmanZ (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreeing with editors above: the Shanghainese appear to be a distinct ethnic group with their own language. Demographics of Shanghai is different and refers to the people living in Shanghai, who may or may not be Shanghainese. Highway 89 (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No scholarly articles ever said that. Just look it up, don't assume.viz ✦ 06:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Hugsyrup (talk). - MA Javadi (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vince van Meer[edit]

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

Hello. Yet another Wikipedia article that follows a series of "pieces" in the likes of theodysseyonline.com (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 210#Odyssey), thriveglobal.com (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coach Meddy), explosion.com (see [29]), baltimorepostexaminer.com (see [30]), bigtimedaily.com (see Uparika Sharma)... WP:BEFORE returns more of the same, such as kivodaily.com, which was blacklisted earlier this month. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 08:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see any RIS supporting this. Mccapra (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment something a bit odd happening with templates here today so apologies if I’m voting in something that’s just been closed. Per the main AfD page it appears open, but when I save my comment it shows as closed. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this garbage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C9F:F626:F4A8:280E:63E:4D86 (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the excellent analysis of the sources by the nominator. Another case where every single source that can be found in my searches is in the article already, so there are no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:BASIC. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Buettner[edit]

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

Relevant AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Zone

Extremely promotional and mostly unsourced BLP in longevity, a field under arbcom sanctions. Only purpose seems to be promoting the questionable theory "Blue Zone". Other than primary and associated sources produced by subject himself, the very few third party sources does not illustrate this individual's notability, with many of them either inaccessible or are of questionable reliability, failing verification. Created and significantly written by an SPA User:Cogentimperator 12 years ago along with the Blue Zone article (XTools: [31][32]), whose versions reads like advertisements pre-prepared or copied from elsewhere. Seems to be a case concerning WP:Lunatic charlatans that escaped scrutiny. Tsu *miki*⧸ 🌉 08:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. I share some of the nominator's concerns on the state of the article. However, that can be rectified by stubbing the article down. As for the subject of the article - even a cursory BEFORE shows that this Ted speaker (not TedX), author of multiple notable books (passing NBOOK), clearly passes GNG (and most certainly NAUTHOR as well). Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree it's promotional, I agree it's undersourced, but unfortunately I also think he pretty clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR as a minimum. Article needs fixing, not deleting. Hug^syrup 13:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced enough to be notable. Calling the subject a lunatic, even on a talk page, seems to stretch BLP into the no-go zone. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right. Neither here nor there from the point of view of my argument anyway, so I'll withdraw that. Hug^syrup 13:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it would be a good thing if somebody took the trouble to let some of the hot air out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a huge fan of some of the keep rationales here, but Dan is notable. There is some coverage of his on Outside (magazine) [33], Star Tribune [34], City Pages [35], Business Insider [36], The Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier [37], The Globe and Mail [38], Friday Magazine (published by Al Nisr Publishing) [39], Zoomer Magazine (a part of ZoomerMedia) [40], The New York Times [41], NPR [42] and probably even more. And that is before searching for his book reviews! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eurodiaconia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG no in-depth independent sources Theroadislong (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has plenty of references. Speaker616 (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be plenty of independent references.Rathfelder (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google gives 47,100 results, Google Scholar about 380 articles for this term.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is not a good article but seems to be a Europe-wide network. I am not clear how notable it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Zone[edit]

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

Bullshit article. Promotional trainwreck. Article makes no third party substantiations on the genuity and notability of Dan Buettner's claim, while featuring great chunks of text from primary and associated sources produced by Buettner himself, with other sources used as a textbook violation of WP:SYNTH in support of this claim. Article otherwise failed WP:GNG and especially WP:NRV. Considering longevity is a topic under WP:ARBCOM discretionary sanctions and that numerous editors have filed neutrality complaints on talk page in the last 12 years, the fact that this trash survived this long is beyond me. The Dan Buettner article reads extremely promotional as well, with the SPA User:Cogentimperator being the creator and significant contributor to both articles (XTools: [43][44]), whose versions reads like advertisements pre-prepared or copied from elsewhere. WP:COPYVIO concerns seems to be pertinent as well. Tsu *miki*⧸ 🌉 08:13, 22 July 2019lo (UTC)

Weak keep. Looks well written enough to stay on. Speaker616 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Buettner has been filed as well. Participants to this discussions are invited to weigh in there. Tsu *miki*⧸ 🌉 08:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Referred to as such by others (not Buettner - I'm not sure he even coined the term) - e.g. this book, or these journal articles: [45][46][47][48][49] - quite a few hits on "Blue Zone"+longevity in google-scholar (and not passing ones - articles referring to this as a topic or attempting to identify an additional "blue zone"). If the article is promotional - it can be stubbed down to the bare minimum - however the topic itself is clearly notable.Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions like "The so called ..." in only a few academic sources alone may belong to Longevity or respective regional articles, but does not justify a full article here. And the one source you cited even disproved Buettner's one regional claim. With few reliable news media sources, and all promotional Buetner bit removed, I'm not even sure if the things you cited may be written as a coherent paragraph of prose here. Tsu *miki*⧸ 🌉 09:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five journal articles that treat "Blue zone(s)" as a topic = meets GNG. And it's not just five - a simple scholar search for "Blue Zone" longevity shows multiple others (I just picked the first five hits - all of whom have "blue zone" in the title or in the abstract) - e.g. [50], [51]. As for Buettner - his book 2012 book - The blue zones: 9 lessons for living longer from the people who've lived the longest - has 381 citations - which is a rather strong indication of impact (and clearly passes WP:NBOOK). Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article could be improved but there no need to delete it. Oranjelo100 (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Icewhiz's rationale. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep, well sourced already. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 01:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Leigh Schlund[edit]

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

An actress who has had only bit-part roles, sometimes uncredited. Fails WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Seems like an obvious WP:TOOSOON at this point.~~ All of her roles seem to be insignificant (yes, even the Hunger Games 2 one). So I don't see how she would meet WP:NACTOR. WP:GNG also seems to not be met, with mostly routine announcements of her getting a role in Hunger Games movie. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of every actor in the world. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First film appearance in 2006, she's had 13 years to make her breakthrough. Narky Blert (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, you are right. She also may have retired from the industry (for now), seeing that she hasn't had a single role since 2017. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to re-create this as a redirect, if desired. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 01:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG – only source relevant to this topic is an unreliable link. There is also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT rights in Western Sahara. Esiymbro (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As discussed on the other page, fails WP:GNG as only source is the non-RS Equaldex. No other sources found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect At most. Why leave a redlink? Why is this deletion-worthy instead of just being redirected? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to what? LGBT rights in Western Sahara is also a WP:GNG fail. That it would leave a red link is not a good reason for keeping. FOARP (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could both be redirected to LGBT rights in Africa? Thsmi002 (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selassie Ibrahim[edit]

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

non-notable, even considering the difficultires of sourcing in the region. Ref.3 is essentially empty, ref 4 does not document the statement it references. I can find no info on the films mentioned &the film with Omaboe is not listed in the IMDB article on Omaboae. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable considering the neglect on media in the region. DGG I have tried sourcing the page again, please can you check again. Also a search from GNEWS brings up this I think i have addressed some of your concerns and also removed the contents i couldn't find sources for. Thanks in advance. Lapablo (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Has plenty of references and sources. Speaker616 (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus between "keep" and "redirect". Let us see if the article can be expanded from the sources brought up during the AfD, and if not, a redirect / merge discussion can take place on the article talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CRON-diet[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable - in particular lack of coverage in reliable-for-health (WP:MEDRS) sources, without which a decent neutral article cannot be written Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability and usefulness-for-health proven by MEDRS are two totally different things. A diet might clearly be notable if it is widely discussed in national newspapers, or if it has been the subject of a cult following with all kinds of mischief (documented in reliable sources over the years), or if a mass of gullible celebrities had followed it (and been properly written about), even if the evidence for it were missing entirely, or indeed fabricated. A diet that met WP:MEDRS would be a useful diet, but a diet that didn't could still be notable. So much for the theory.

The CRON-diet seems to be based on a proper PNAS paper by Walford; and then followed up by The Anti-Aging Plan, with Walford as a co-author making up 5 of the remaining citations (not so good). But notability depends not on the current state of the article but on what's out there in the world. I see an article in The Telegraph, which would count towards notability. There's one in Slate, too, again, a decent ordinary (non-medical) source, and it mentions that the New York Times also had an article on it.

The CRON diet is discussed in a section "Long-term CR interventions in humans" in a 2017 paper by Anna Picca and colleagues in Clin. Interv. Aging; it regrets that "At present, only the collection of data recorded from the members of the Calorie Restriction Society, who have imposed on themselves a regimen of severe CR with optimal nutrition (CRON), believing to extend in this way their healthy lifespan, provides direct evidence that CR may affect the aging process in humans." but after a detailed discussion of the physiological effects concludes that "Effectively, also quality of life improved according to scores from survey on physical component, depression, and physical functioning." A search on NIH found also a paper on CRON and AMER diets and gut microbiota by Griffin et al 2018; it mentions dietary-practice-associated gut bacterial taxa.

There is (thus) genuine science behind Calorie restriction, but we already have an article on that; we also have one on the CR Society International which Walford helped to found. So it may be that a merge would be the right answer; or we may feel (given the evidence above) that the diet itself has attracted enough notability in its own right to be worth keeping. I'd incline to that latter view but am happy to discuss the evidence with other editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is required in usable RS. Without it, it is impossible to write an article. WP:42. Alexbrn (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: Not notable for stand alone article (modified !vote). Three references; A glossary, search page, and a primary source, are not enough and a search did not show any reliable sources. Otr500 (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well if people feel like that then we should REDIRECT to Calorie restriction. There is certainly enough material for a mention over there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with a redirect and modified !vote to reflect this. Otr500 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [52], [53], [54], [55]. Coverage in medical journals is not required to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: There are no sources on the article that provide evidence of notability and 4 were provided here. As written the article is advertising and has severe WP:NPOV and original research issues. It is a caloric restriction diet.

1. WP:RS. This source discusses "25 percent less than the recommended daily allowance" and makes reference to “starvation diet.” This is nowhere in the article.
2. WP:RS. This reference is passing mention "For the majority of humans, the only way that would happen is if they found themselves locked in Biosphere 2 with CRON diet (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition) pioneer Dr. Roy Walford." but could be used for the negative aspects and CR content
3. This sources plasters a cookies "Express" notice on the page that has to be accepted and shared with partners Google, Amazon Europe Core SARL, IO Technologies, Moat, and Twitter so is forced advertising and I didn't accept.
4. Passing mention and titled The Biosphere 2 "starvation diet", references "team medic Dr. Roy Walford" and states "While his subjects pleaded with mission control for more supplies, Walford — who had been on the CRON-diet for years — maintained that their daily calorie intake was sufficient.". The article states "The CRON-diet was developed from data Walford compiled during his participation in Biosphere 2". This conflicts with the source.

The article claims without sources: "The CRON-diet involves calorie restriction in the "hope" that the practice will "improve health and retard aging", while still attempting to provide the recommended daily amounts of various nutrients.". Also without sourcing "Other names include CR-diet, Longevity diet, and Anti-Aging Plan". This is more advertising when only backed by primary sources. Anti-Aging is refuted in at least one supplied extra source and I believe so is Longevity. A main issue is that when all the WP:OR is removed there is nothing so would require the article to be blown up and started again. Otr500 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was it was PRODDED by Alexbrn who appeared to have done an incomplete WP:BEFORE search (looking only in PUBMED-indexed sources). I did my own quick search and included these as evidence in my DEPROD. I did not improve the article but I gave other editors a head start by posting the sources I found on the article's talk page. This article still needs work but we're not here to delete articles that need work (see WP:IMPERFECT). ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you contested the "PROD". I don't know about an incomplete BEFORE but the article had already been subjected to a PROD in 2008. I have no problem with an imperfect article. I see two sources out of 7 that advances notability. This is not in my area of interest, and maybe not yours, but "IF" I created the article it would have to be from scratch. It would be from a neutral point of view written to include the concerns of pseudo-science, claims of "starvation diet", and other controversies over claims of health benefits including anti-aging, and longevity of life like the 120-Year Diet. It would include government and private studies, as well as clinical trials concerning a nutrient-rich diet that includes extreme caloric reduction (calorie restriction), providing needed balance.

What Wikipedia doesn't need is a one-sided view of a diet that should have any possible risks associated with it to be included so it doesn't appear to be painted too positive. Are there risks? Sure there are. If this can't included then the contents, or mention should be at a location that will, like Calorie restriction. Otr500 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making a WP:TNT argument here (I don't think there's a strong case for that) or just venting about the quality of the article? ~Kvng (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User:Kvng is correct that the article topic appears to have received WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS (e.g., 1 2 3 ). All other issues raised are basically just page-quality issues which should not be discussed at AFD. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaash Tum Hote[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the current sources aren't reliable and reliable sources are interviews with the main lead actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article is not eligible for soft deletion since it was previously deleted by WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A failure of WP:GNG and WP:NFILM because there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. The article already has every source I could find on the film in my searches. My analysis of the sources...

1) IMDB is an unreliable source

2) A pure listing of the movie

3) More about the actress than the movie (also containing a lot of WP:PRIMARY quotes). ""Mohabbatein" fame actress Preeti Jhangiani returns to the big screen in "Kaash Tum Hote" after two years, but doesn't consider it her comeback movie. In "Kaash Tum Hote", Preeti plays a fashion photographer." is not WP:SIGCOV.

4) A decent source from Dainik Jagran but not enough on it's own.

5) The film is mentioned in passing: "She not only choreographed the song for Kaash Tum Hote, featuring Priya Kapoor and Mukesh Bharti". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mornington railway station[edit]

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

So...I'm not entirely sure what's going on with this 15 year old article. There's no body text, but all the information seems to be stuffed into the infoboxes on the side of the page. There's also no references - with an Unreferenced tag dated back to December 2009.

I'm wondering if we should merge this into Mornington railway line or Mornington Railway. – numbermaniac 05:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Mornington railway line - this article on the station has hardly any content, and the only two references are two external links. Vorbee (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the state of the article is the result of merging two original pages (one on the original station and the other on the tourist station) and can be cleaned up. There are some news sources about the station (e.g. here, a mention here, it was the intended start of an extension to the rest of the Mornington Peninsula here, but would be plenty of material on the history of the line in offline sources on the history of the railway station etc. Bookscale (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there's coverage in Mornington Peninsula railways and their communities (2004) (ISBN 0957967691). Bookscale (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article does have prose, but it was blanked by a drive-by vandal and has now been restored. Sufficient references should exist for a station which was in use for 100 years. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per norm. All stations with sources merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We invariably keep articles on railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. A little bit of WP:BEFORE would have saved everyone some time and effort here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Railway stations are notable and this one has significant coverage. AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 01:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Insyde[edit]

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

Being streamed however many times does not qualify for the charting, certification, and airplay requirements at WP:NSINGER #2, 3, 11, 12. A WP:BEFORE search reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources to confirm any of the other criteria at WP:NSINGER. All that can be found are routine retail and streaming directories, plus an empty placeholder at AllMusic. Article is probably an attempted promotion and, charitably, it is too soon for this rapper to merit a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, and as the nom states, nothing to meet WP:NSINGER.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -In the "Delete" vote above the editor claims that this artist does not meet the WP:NSINGER requirements, but he has released 2 albums on AWAL, fulfilling requirement #5.^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] I also edited the article for the original author to remove any "self promotion" style writing and to make it have a more neutral tone.___GingeBro (talk • contribs)

Keep - when searching "Insyde Music" on Google: [56] EVERY result is referring to this Insyde. Also, I was able to find some blog coverage of his song. [57] and also another wiki entry: [58] and [59]. Also found a website mentioning him here: [60] His music is also released by the label (Shoelace Records) that released music for Otis Taylor (musician) Also his youtube channel is a Verified Artist Channel, which is only given to artists on large labels with contacts at YouTube, and it means that YouTube deemed there enough coverage and the chance of impersonation of this artist to give it the verified Artist mark. Also is mentioned in the independent music tracking website MusicBrainz (Often used by Wikipedia to gather data for songs and artists) [61]. Plenty of mentions and credibility found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.30.174 (talk • contribs)

References

^ "Distro Deal". Insyde Blog. Retrieved 16 July 2019.
^ "Album Released!". Retrieved 16 July 2019.
^ "New Album out now! – Insyde". Retrieved 16 July 2019.
^ "Albums removed. – Insyde". Retrieved 16 July 2019.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the above "keep" vote, the other Wikis are copies of THIS version of Wikipedia and prove nothing but website mirroring. The Google search performed by that voter reveals a list of streaming, retail, and lyrics sites that you would get after searching for any musician. All other "sources" given in that vote merely indicate that the rapper exists, not that he has received reliable coverage. See the guidelines given in the original nomination, plus WP:EXIST and WP:ROUTINE. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He does have a point about the youtube artist channel though. Those are pretty exclusive.---GingeBro 15:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep - I did a little research and found out that he is signed with AWAL, which has an established roster with many independently notable artists, and is owned by Kobalt Music Group, a media company that works with many artists with top 100 hits. This makes him qualified under #5 of WP:NSINGER MultiMrWeb (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Incubate - The musician does qualify by WP:NSINGER standards, but doesn't have many strong references from reliable sources. If not kept, then I request it to be moved to the Draft space for further improvements. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the SPI does not look like it will be timely resolved, This is a second !keep vote from the above ip 71..., made here [62], "The musician does qualify by WP:NSINGER standards, but doesn't have many strong references from reliable sources. If not kept, then I request it to be moved to the Draft space for further improvements." They quickly remove it [63]. 7 Minutes later GingeBro restores it [64], "The musician does qualify by WP:NSINGER standards, but doesn't have many strong references from reliable sources. If not kept, then I request it to be moved to the Draft space for further improvements." This is a duplicate !vote fro a meat or sockpuppet. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to log in, that's why I reverted the changes, I wanted to make sure everyone was clear who was making the edit. Not a sockpuppet, simply forgetting to log in. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Vote Change - I changed my stance to Keep from Weak Keep because the artist does pass notability standard for musicians as per WP:NSINGER. (Irrelevant bit of information: Also about a month ago I heard his song on a major Spotify editorial playlist. Another irrelevant note, the lyrics have been viewed a lot on Genius, which says something to me at least. He seems to have an engaged follower base, unlike the typical garage band wikipedia pages. That's my 2 cents.) --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 03:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first keep !vote basically sums up this articles problems. The WP:GHITS claim is not true. IP found blogs, wikis. Not reliable sources. The site mentioning him is a PR listing. Claim about verified is not true, youtube did not evaluate "coverage". Musicbrainz is just a listing. Mentions are not indepth coverage. On the later claim of AWAL, they are distributors, not the releasing record co. Nothing good for GNG or MUSIC. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Duffbeerforme: I agree there is no notable coverage about this artist. However, AWAL is not just a distributor, they are considered a full fledged label. They have a marketing department, sync department, and they bought a prominent radio station music pitching company. Distribution companies do not have all those things. So as I see it, the artist does fall under WP:NSINGER. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's pretend for a moment that Insyde lied when he said he'd signed a distribution deal. What two albums are you talking about? Reading the article I see a total of zero. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: - That is a possiblity. We would have to find a way to verify if he is actually signed to AWAL as he claims. (Are we allowed to try to contact AWAL and/or the artist for verification?) Currently on Spotify I only see one item listed as an album.[65] Depending on how we interpret #5 WP:MUSICBIO, this artist may not pass. If we are interpreting it on a basis of "has released" or a basis of "has (possibly) released, but taken down". I don't really know what the policy is in this case, if you can point me to any answers similar to this and the outcome, I may have to amend my vote as needed. Also another thing to point out, in researching the artist, I found out that he is about to release more music on August 2, which is coming up fast, which would add the second 'album' entry on Spotify. I am not sure how strict we have been on that in the past as well. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm the nominator and I'm trying not to bludgeon this debate any further, but I hope admins will avoid a simple vote count and look closely at the reasoning behind the various "keep" votes above. The reasoning is faulty, to put it charitably. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely interested in learning the reasoning behind your opinion. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on dearth of RS coverages/recognition and the fallacy of the rationales provided by editors voting keep. For a subject to pop up in a google search means little towards notability if all they are are for wiki mirrors, retail and download sites, which is the case here. A verified YouTube channel is not (according to one editor) ”only given to artists on large labels with contacts at YouTube, and it means that YouTube deemed there enough coverage and the chance of impersonation of this artist to give it the verified Artist mark proof”. It is, in fact available to anyone who simply applies. See [66].

As for AWAL, a simple investigation of their site reveals It is not a “label” at all, but rather a multi-tiered service for do-it-yourself artists and independent labels to build success. In structure it is not unlike those quasi-vanity publishing houses offered to authors to get published, providing distribution and marketing services, etc. on multi-tier levels where the creator retains the rights/liabilities, and the service gets a piece of the action (i.e. their “fee”) based proportional on the level of service. See: [67]. As you can see from that link, to be with AWAL simply means all an artist needs to do is pass their submission criteria (in other words, be weeded out from the amateurs by having merit that could lead to genuine success.) To be clear, an Artist or label that has a deal with AWAL can be notable for other reasons, but in and by itself, being with AWAL doesn’t meet WP:MUSICIAN criteria for a being signed to a notable label. The wording “signed a deal with AWAL” is nothing more than WP:PUFFERY.

Bottom line: all that’s left is the argument being made for keep is based on WP:EXISTS, with no evidence of significant, independent recognition. At best, WP:TOOSOON ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I have to point out is that the YouTube answers link you put up there is for "Verification" which is only available to channels with over 100,000 subscribers. The link is NOT for "Official Artist Channel" applications see [68]. Those are two VERY different things.

AWAL would fit under this definition of a Record Label . Having experience in the music industry, what you described is literally how record labels work. Record labels place their artists on tiers based on projected success. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would also like to point out that this page has been viewed over a thousand times since the article was updated to include the bio of this artist (a 2 week period). Clearly people are searching for this article, and visiting it.

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) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjini (singer)[edit]

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

Sources don't appear to justify notability, and the article itself is so promotional that it could be nuke-worthy anyway. If the recent change of "Ranjini" to "Jini June" is correct, the subject's Facebook page appears to say they're an up-and-coming artist. Seems to be an attempt to use WP for promotion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Promotional article of a start out singer where sources are interviews and non independent reliable source. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.

Delete. Long orphan article, almost entirely OR, sourced only by web ephemera and created by short-lived SPA. This is either vanity or fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General Register Office (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I'm not sure what should happen here, but there's also an article called General Register Office, which is a bit confusing! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. This dab page only has three legitimate (UK) entries (Guyana and Jamaica could be listed in the main article, but not in the dab page, as they aren't mentioned in their respective country articles), and was only missing Northern Ireland from the Examples section (which I've added). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) Okay, thanks Clarityfiend. I will leave someone else to deal with the DAB page, and add a bit of detail about the South Australian one, which took me ages to work out and track down (which all started when I was trying to find out what a memorial was in the GRO usage of the word!). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is indeed redundant since it lists article already listed at General Register Office. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Gagné[edit]

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

An impressive CV as a makeup-artist, but lacking in WP:BIO criteria. Only depth of coverage is in some questionable, niche sources ("Puretrend," "Mindfood"); others sources are mostly about Cirque du Soleil and only mention the subject in passing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator nailed it. At first glance, you say, "wow, alright!" Then you look hard at the sourcing. WP:ARTSPAM. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article at the time of the nomination was not supported by sufficient sources to establish notability. However, whether to keep an article or not relies on what sources exist, not solely on what is present in the article. The early part of the discussion leans toward deletion and the later part of the discussion is in favor of keeping. In the middle of the discussion Haukurth introduced additional sources and an evaluation of their quality arguing compellingly that they are sufficient to establish the subject as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Comments following Haukurth’s information are nearly all in favor of keeping. It’s appropriate and important in this situation to give greater weight to the portion of the discussion that was based on more complete information, which in this case comprises the later support for keeping the article.

Haukurth should be commended for the doing the heavy lifting of finding the sources, essentially performing the WP:BEFORE that should have been done by the nominator. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kratman[edit]

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

After multiple years of request for sourcing in talk, article is primarily self-sourced and author notability is not established. Page appears to have been created for possible promotional purposes. SlaterSteven asked for better, non-self-published sources as far back as December 2016 but they have not been found or forthcoming. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*merge~~ with Sad Puppies In effect the only RS we have for this is about the Hugo awards controversy. One mention in an article about other people as well and a load of primary sourcing. No real evidence of any independent notability as an author.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As doubts have been expressed as to my motivation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just removed a long disruptive statement by an IP that was the basis for my block of the IP. Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Speedy Keep:~~ Right off the get-go, this is a tainted AfD. I'm opposed in principle to any AfD started by a SPA, given the high likelihood of sock/meatpuppery inherent. When the next two participants are an editor who really does devote much of his user page in a screed against Mr. Kratman (however much he has the most edits to the article over the last four years) and seemingly Kratman himself, this is a trainwreck in progress. I make no judgment of the subject's notability -- however much I agree that there's a lot of primary sourcing that should be stricken from the article -- which can come in a subsequent neutral AfD. Ravenswing 10:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: your "speedy keep" argument comes down to the fact that though a neutral person started the AfD, the very person who seemingly has waited patiently for two and a half years for someone to post sources actually responded to the AfD, and a troll alleging that the person who asked for sources somehow has a personal vendetta even though they didn't start the AfD? That sounds less like an argument because no matter who starts this, all the troll has to do is run in screaming and you're going to give them a Heckler's veto. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge or notion that you're a "neutral" person. In nearly fifteen years at AfD, my overwhelming experience is that someone who creates an account for the sole purpose of filing an AfD is very, very seldom "neutral." Genuine first-timers to Wikipedia don't have the institutional knowledge. Ravenswing 13:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And most of those were tagging all the problems with the article, 2 years ago. Arguments at AFD should be based on the subjects notability, not how many times an editor had edited a page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever it is, this isn't a speedy keep, regardless of who started the AfD. The article is indeed poorly sourced, and it's not immediately clear that the author meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. I'm on mobile so haven't done a proper search for better sources, but this discussion needs to run its course. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This is a WP:BLP1E issue if I've ever seen one. A non-notable author managed to get their name on a slate produced by notable racist Vox Day for the Hugo Awards and that slate, including Kratman, led to a broad kerfuffle as described at Sad Puppies. However aside from involvement in a notable attempt to game a fan award, Kratman is a nobody of no significance within Science Fiction. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and warn the troublemakers weaponizing the AfD process. It's completely transparent when the same people who started and are "delete" for the ongoing AfD attempt on the Michael Z. Williamson article started this here and are "Delete" here. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I haven't so much as commented on the Williamson AfD (though I did put in a brief 2c at AN/I) - Kratman isn't notable. He's a troll. Not even a good one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

same people, I was going to strike my vote as "involved", but I am not even aware of the other AFD, so who are these "people"? Nor did I vote delete here. Arguemtns should be based on the notability of the subject, not what you think other users are up to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I agree that the Sad Puppies debacle is covered by WP:BLP1E, and does not establish notability. I've been trying to see whether it's possible to get him over the WP:NAUTHOR bar on the strength of criterion 3 - a well known body of work that has been subject of multiple independent reviews. I'm struggling - the best I've found is this (plus a few other reviews of his books linked to from there) in Publishers Weekly, and this in San Francisco Book Review. I'm not sure either of these work though. The Publishers Weekly reviews are very short, more of a synopsis than a review, and they don't have a reviewers name attached to them - I think they churn out one of these for basically every book that gets published - I don't see how that establishes notability. The SFBR review is slightly more substantial, and has a name - but I don't think it's a staff reviewer, as far as I can work out this is a volunteer contributor (they have a link saying 'Become a reviewer'), so this is essentially WP:UGC. Would like to know what others think before !voting though. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are spot-on about PW. Those synopses are WP:ROUTINE coverage. San Francisco Book Review solicits "sponsored reviews" from authors and offers SEO services to authors - and it's mission is specifically to provide a high volume of reviews, so I would not consider them a reliable source for ensuring WP:NAUTHOR notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Non-notable writer whose only claim to fame is being used to push an agenda with the Hugo awards. The absolute lack of significant reviews or other independent citations is telling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from having been dragged into the puppies debacle (none of his doing, to his credit...), this author has not attracted the kind of coverage or influence that we require for an article about a fiction author. Thanks to Girth Summit for winkling out some more material; but by quality and authorship, I don't believe it is enough to satisfy our WP:NAUTHOR criteria. - I don't see any cause for a merge/mention at Sad Puppies either. Nominees are not detailed there, and before Kratman gets mentioned I expect to see a full-title featuring of Chuck Tingle's deathless raptor buggering epic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Served in the army and dubiously nominated for an award. Not enough for notability. --regentspark (comment) 17:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks Simonm223 and Elmidae for you input on those sources. I was already leaning delete, so in light of what you've said I'm decided. I also note that in the Guardian piece about the Sad Puppies stuff, which is actually cited at Tom Kratman, his name doesn't appear. The fact that they didn't bother to mention his name in their article about it is telling. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you need sources for this article, or any sci-fi/fantasy related Wikipedia article, I would recommend Mike Glyer's website "File770". That site is a notable source by every standard and it contains a couple of articles that mention Kratman, although most articles only mention him in passing and only one is explicitly about Kratman. Here they are: http://file770.com/tag/tom-kratman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopladamus (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As much as I like File 770, and Mike Glyer, it's not a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that? It won several awards for the best fanzine and Mike Glyer is a known author. Also, it has a Wikipedia page (albeit one that also needs better sourcing). I admit I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia editor, but I can't find a problem with it as a source. It could be that I do not understand WP:RS very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopladamus (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it appears you don't understand WP:RS very well. Glyer's work is a blog - and blogs are not considered reliable sources as they lack editorial oversight and any method of organized fact checking and formal retraction. In addition blogs fall under WP:UGC which says that Wikipedia should not use any source that allows user-generated content as a source. So although Glyer's blog is a well-respected and well-known blog, it's still not considered a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, that makes sense. But wouldn't that make io9 the only notable sci-fi/fantasy news site, except maybe Locus Online and Publishers Weekly? Speaking of Publishers Weekly, they also have a few reviews of Kratman's books: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/authorpage/tom-kratman.html Would these be acceptable as sources? Hopladamus (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Publisher's Weekly reviews are really more short synopses with the odd tentative comment attached; not really up to what one would expect from a citeable book review. (In my evaluation.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same Mike Glyer who publishes rumors of authors being pedos, then when proof is provided that the alleged events never took place and the convention in question denounces the allegation, refuses to pull the rumors, which came from some rando passerby. It has zero credibility as a source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.200.6 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You people are crazy and should be ashamed of yourselves Above, the deletionists are literally saying they want to kill this page because they don't like the subject's politics. They aren't even trying to hide it. I implore the rest of you, come to your senses and close this discussion. Wikipedia was never meant to be a political action committee and the people trying to make it one are the enemy. 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:90 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nice try, but they're saying nothing of the sort: the delete voters are pretty four-square in finding that the subject lacks notability. Unlike in the world of politics these days, Wikipedia's far less susceptible to the tactic of denying the facts at the top of your lungs and expecting the sheep to "baaa" worshipfully up at you. Ravenswing 21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That explains why all of a sudden, within 48 hours, at least three authors who've passed notability challenges before are suddenly randomly discovered by three different meatpuppets, and the pages of two others are vandalized. Though I note that on his private forum, Kratman asked that it be deleted since he finds association with this group to be degrading. I can see why.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.200.6 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I for one don't know what the subject's politics are - I'd never heard of him before reviewing this article, and it doesn't mention his politics. Everything I know about him is what's in the article, and in the reviews I read - none of which mentions his politics. I spent quite a bit of time trying to find evidence of notability which might save the article, but drew a blank. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am vaugley aware of his politics (well his stated views on some subjects, whether these are politics or a Heinlein like millitraianaism I have no idea). And there is the key, his "politics" are not not new if SF, and in fact hark back to E E Doc Smith and Mack Reynolds (assuming this was not satire). Dodgy power is right right wing politics was a staple of 50's and 60's SF. That did not (and does not) make those authors unnotable, not being notable does.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any wiki-notability standard, plain and simple. Even if we treated File 770 as a reliable source, a move I would find extremely dubious, it wouldn't constitute enough in-depth coverage of Kratman himself to qualify. And there just isn't enough of anything else to clear the bar for WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I checked Locus Online's search and couldn't find anything either. I would be willing to reconsider (or support a merge/redirect to Sad Puppies) if there's enough for an article that meets WP:V but I'm currently unconvinced there's enough for more than a sentence or two. The article as it currently stands is almost entirely cited from Kratman's own site. --Goobergunch|? 04:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Haukur. --Goobergunch|? 17:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability and sources that everyone in such a hurry to vote agaist keeping might have missed: Would Balticon 40 as a featured guest in the literary field (http://www.balticon.org/Balticon40/program.html) work? Or does he have to have been on a panel with other writers as a subject matter expert on a panel topic? (http://www.balticon.org/program/b40schedule.pdf the Saturday at 10AM panel along with Hugo award winner Naomi Novik in a talk on "Civilian Challenges to Writing Military SF". Oh and the 9 PM panel on "History in SF&F". And two readings. And the Monday at 1 PM panel with David Sherman titled "Cui Bono in Bellum?")Oh wait, He's done that. (Or are the goalposts soon to be in motion?) Okay, well, if that isn't going to cut it, surely DragonCon 2007 with its estimated 30k+ attendees would be big enough? (https://archive.org/details/dragoncon_2007_program/page/n51 as a featured guest known for being an SF&F writer.) Oh and one last thing: The edit to say he "claims to" have served in the Army isn't going to fly either: [69] Only the one Tom (or Thomas) Kratman appears in a Google search for the name. Each is a lawyer, military officer, and/or "awful Military Sci-Fi author". I feel comfortable saying that's the same person as well as suggesting that, perhaps, a lot of editors here might want to spend more than 3 seconds on a search next time and perhaps set aside their prejudices. Bob the Cannibal (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What we really need are reliable sources that discuss the author or their work, not random things they have been a speaker or panelist of. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm a published author myself who's been a featured panelist at Worldcon and at Boskone, when those conventions were rivaling Worldcon attendance. I don't fancy that any of that qualifies me for a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 13:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment Again, I should mention for fans of this and other authors who may have come to Wikipedia that a convention schedule is categorically not a reliable source for determining notability for a whole host of reasons including WP:GNG (which does not include convention schedules as a sign of notability), WP:UGC (which would likely apply to a fan run convention), and WP:NAUTHOR which would require that Kratman be widely cited by his peers in reliable sources - which means even if a fan convention schedule was a reliable source it wouldn't be usable to confer notability as it does not include citations. So I'm sorry, but no. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Kratman is a legitimate author with at least ten professionally published books. Deleting his page would be in direct contravention to the core goals of Wikipedia. UndeadDan (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC) — UndeadDan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The bar to cross for authors is significantly higher than "ten professionally published books," especially in these days of vanity presses and print-on-demand houses. See WP:AUTHOR for the guidelines in force. Ravenswing 21:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the term "professionally published," meaning he was paid an advance, by a major house, and collects royalties. If you are unfamiliar with this very basic industry term, you lack any credentials to comment on members of said community. WP:IDONTKNOWIT remains invalid. He seems to have been paid advances for at least a dozen books, and appears in several bestselling anthologies, and co-wrote with at least one NYT bestseller. Apparently, no one here is capable of using Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.200.6 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. This appears to be yet another politically motiviated attempt to 1984 someone out of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txw42 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — Txw42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He is not the only right wing SF author around, but many of the rest have won awards or been the subject of major retrospectives (or even had films made based upon their books). Many of them have not been AFD'd, why not if its politics?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation may not be causation, but it is certainly suggestive of it. There's a lot of correlation here. Why is it that, of SF authors who are currently subjects for AfDs, all of them are conservative? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had three that I know of, and in one I vote keep. So I am not seeing any causation. Now I cannot speak for anyone else, and that is the problem when you generalize, you undermine your case if any of those who you generalize about can show how your generalization doer not really apply to them. Assuming of course this is even true, and that all of them are conservative.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:agf and wp:npa. Any argument that breaches those is invalid, and will not be "counted".Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We're supposed to WP:AGF, but the other side is allowed to throw around accusations of canvassing and meatpupetry and sockpuppetry with wild abandon. Pull the ohter one, it's got bells on. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be noted that Jmaynard is making this claim within minutes of participating in this discussion on Williamson's facebook page. [70] "Jay Maynard Actually, I expect Tom Kratman to be next." "Aaron Bosen They already tried." "Glenn Edward McNally Jay Maynard didnt they already go after tom" "Michael Z. Williamson Yeah, they're in the process of trying to delete his right now." This has been followed by him making this false and inciteful accusation of a conspiracy multiple times across multiple pages in rapid succession. [71] [72] [73] [74]. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it walks like a conspiracy and quacks like a conspiracy, then why shouldn't we conclude it's a conspiracy? And again, I'm not the one doing the inciting - not even on Mike's Facebook page, where I've defended Wikipedia before. You guys are making me look like a fool for doing so -- Jay Maynard (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no such claims.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject meets WP:GNG. There is an entry for him written by John Clute in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction which is a standard reference work in the field.[75] The encyclopedia is now online but earlier editions appeared in print. There is also significant analytical coverage of his work in a completed, publicly available PhD thesis (the name 'Kratman' appears 40 times in the document) which is a usable source according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP.[76]

There is also enough "sustained critical attention" to make a good case for a keep based on WP:AUTHOR. His books with John Ringo (Watch on the Rhine, Yellow Eyes, and The Tuloriad) likely all meet WP:BOOK and have received reviews including a scathing one by Dietmar Dath in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.[77] Kratman's solo novels have also received a number of reviews, including a detailed critical one by perennial Hugo nominee Joseph T. Major: [78] (Alexiad, February 2009, pp. 3-4). There is also a printed article in the Big Issue in 2015 which discusses his work in context with other military science fiction authors. (Buchanan, Craig. "Sci-Fi Battlefields". The Big Issue, 16 April 2015. p. 30.) This is just for starters but it is enough to convince me of notability and that a decent policy-compliant article can be written. I don't, however, have the energy for yet another rescue project right now so I may not get around to this within the timeline of this AfD. Hopefully someone else does. But if this discussion is closed as delete then please do so without prejudice to a new properly sourced article being written. Haukur (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One review of a book he co-authored with John Ringo in which he's mentioned exactly once, is hardly compelling. Fanzines aren't WP:RS per WP:UGC. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fanzine in question does not at all fall under WP:UGC which is about user-generated content like wikis or forums. Alexiad is basically a traditional publication with particular editors and bylines for its reviews. Haukur (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in another AfD someone made a good point that arguments that a book satisfies [[WP:BOOK] make for WP:AUTHOR compliance is contrary to WP:INHERIT. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERIT specifically has an exemption for WP:AUTHOR where notability is indeed inherited in the sense the critical coverage of the works translates into notability for the author. Haukur (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think that's the case. What is stated at WP:AUTHOR (and somewhat vaguely referenced at WP:INHERIT) is that great notability of the author may render their work notable (point 5 at WP:BKCRIT). I don't see the inverse case (notable book reflecting on notability of the author). Can you point that out? (NB, even if that was the case, we are nowhere near such a threshold through the coverage of Kratman's books.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be happy to clarify. WP:INHERIT says that "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". Note that WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE direct to the same thing and WP:INHERIT has a comment in the source text that says "See #3&#4". Part of #4 says "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention" and that is what I am referring to here. So, once we sort through the whole alphabet soup, the point is that authors inherit notability from "significant critical attention" to their works, e.g. book reviews and academic analysis. How much is 'significant' is left for us to decide but it should be decided in accordance with the present norms at AfD and we shouldn't apply a higher (or lower) bar here than we normally do. Haukur (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your interpretation of policy. But I don't think Kratman has had anything close to significant critical attention. He has had some critical attention, but the biggest positive there seems to be reflected glory from John Ringo (who is certainly notable). And as such, I just don't think he meets the bar. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research I think Simonm223's point here about reflected glory is very strong. Baen seems to have a pattern with those dual titles and specifically, tying them to John Ringo seems to be a tactic for both pumping up Ringo's yearly output by shifting the workload (5 with one undercard, 6 with that, 5 with another, 4 with that one, 3 with yet another, and so on) and letting the newcomer tag along on the coattails. In fact, of 78 books listed for Ringo at GoodReads, only 10 are credited to Ringo as sole author. I'm probably dating myself making this comparison but it's like a promoter giving a new wrestler a short tag team run with Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair when they can't generate notability or a fanbase on their own. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Haukur (but maintain the primary-sources tag until the article has been improved). Fanzines are important in the world of science fiction and some have an excellent reputation. Almond Plate (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Haukur makes a compelling argument that notability is sufficient to meet standard guidelines for authors. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Meets all guidelines for notability I can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmay (talk • contribs)
Keep. I agree with Haukur's reasoning--those sources, including the encyclopedia entry, the thesis, and the countless reviews, indicate sufficient notability to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. AaronCanton (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Haukur has already outlined why, Slatersteven and Simonm223 have already demonstrated why not. Qwirkle (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've read through the entire discussion above, and it looks like I'm joining the late bandwagon: Haukur's analysis convinces me that Kratman meets the criteria for notability necessary to be included in Wikipedia. TimBuck2 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A question, if he is so notable and we have all these great sources, why does the article still reply on the self promotional ones? Why has no one tried to improve the sourceing?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's only been two days and there are many things to do. I agree the article needs work. I've been gathering sources and looking at how to summarize them but it takes time to get the ducks in a row. Haukur (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A better question might be “If he is so non-notable, why has he been a focus of your user page for three years?”

Aside from that, of course, the rules on deletion are pretty clear: the state of the article is only relevant when it is so spectacularly bad that it creates an impediment to fixing it, and this piece is nowhere near the WP:TNT level. Qwirkle (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that others disagree this is not beyond fixing. As to the rest, it was not me who deemed him notable, it was me finding the fact he found me notable risible.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly for the same bad reason as yourself, by the look of it. If you can wander into a mainstream mass-market bookstore and see an author advertised by a lifesize cardboard cutout, odds are they are notable in some context. Qwirkle (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Haukur, needs the primary sources removed. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- And for those watching on Facebook as we show them that once it can be shown that someone is notable by our criteria we won't delete their article, no, primary sources are not the gold standard. I won't copy it all here, if any of them are interested they can read these links:[79][80]. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Haukur. Also, I found and added his listing on the bestseller list of the Wall Street Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bestseller lists don't establish notability. And this is where there's a contrast to the MZW article (which I do think is notable). Kratman's reviews are just lacking. As in we have basically one that is unambiguously non-promotional and it's a review of a book which he co-authored with John Ringo. When dealing with works of art it's critical and artistic impact that matter, not number of copies sold. Now these two factors often come together. But in the case of Kratman who, as I've mentioned elsewhere, has spent much of his career as a blog troll, there's been no significant critical or artistic impact outside of the walled garden of Baen and the even more walled garden of Castalia House. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, WP:BOOKCRIT: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as... bestseller lists [4](see footnote at BOOKCRIT - not all bestseller lists quality)". AUTHORS, of course, derive notability from creating notable books. In other words, bestseller listings sdo contribute to E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's leaning really hard on WP:INHERIT. Moreso than I'm comfortable with in the case of such an unaccomplished author. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let's be clear. It was one book, 8th most popular SF hardcover for one week on the WSJ sub-list a decade ago. This wasn't like it was NYT bestselling fiction all genres. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is cumulative and this adds a smidgen of notability. That said, I took the trouble of contesting your sweeping assertion that "Bestseller lists don't establish notability." because editors, especially new editors, learn the ropes by hearing such rules in AfD discussions. It is necessary to be specific about which bestseller lists confer notability so as not to mislead fellow editors who may take a firm but inaccurate statement from an experienced editor as gospel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sneaking suspicion at the back of my mind that it was just this issue that brought me to Mr Kratmans page two years ago, the issue of whether or not an appearance in a niche and short duration best seller list is enough to confer notability (or something like that).Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bestseller lists are "short duration" by definition. As a said, it confers a mere smidgen of notability. Notability here is relatively weak, supported by the sources cumulatively. Magic bullets are nice, but far more rare in real life than in genre novels.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Under the standards of notability used with respect of living writers then he's not notable. I think there is a discussion to be had about those standards - I don't think he's any less deserving of documentation than the myriad one term state senators from Arkansas ion the 1870s or episodes of 1990s TV shows, but this isn't the place to have that debate.Nickpheas (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If better sources do emerge, it's easy enough to undelete. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update on book reviews. Here are the reviews of Kratman's books I know of so far: User:Haukurth/sandbox5. That's ten in all for his solo novels. Some of the sources are marginal but none is just a random guy with a random blog. Then there are 8 reviews for his work with Ringo. I feel it would be weird not to give Kratman some 'notability points' for those too. He's not a hidden ghostwriter but a fully credited co-author. Thomas Wagner notes in his review: "Tom Kratman (remember, in these kinds of "collaborations," the less famous guy does about 85% of the work) can string a sentence together and assemble a narrative thread that flows adequately". He then mentions Kratman 8 times in his review and Ringo only 2 times.[81] Haukur (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR. The Science Fiction Encyclopedia entry plus the reviews collected by Haukur (User:Haukurth/sandbox5) are enough to establish that. Db105 (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of recent improvements to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Brucato[edit]

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

While accomplished, doesn't meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article I created for this academic and author has been slated for discussion regarding possible deletion, due to an issue with notability guidelines. I have added his academic title, to address the second criterion noted, but do not know what is needed to address the first. He is the second half of a team that wrote the true crime book THE NEW EVIL, is responsible for co-developing a system for criminal classification which has wide implications for both academic and research fields, and has been covered in quite a number of places in the media outside of academia. This does not appear to be a situation in which an academic's work is only of relevance within his or her circles. Please let me know what is needed, as I may be able to provide the relevant information or citations. Additionally, I do not know how to add this discussion to the place you mention, where such conversation should be happening regarding the article. SH8901 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you provide clear answers on what to address, rather than delete the page. It was a lot of work to do this research and writing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SH8901 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Brucato's citation record on Google Scholar (highest citation count 36, h-index 6) is too slim to support a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I could only support a pass of WP:AUTHOR if he had multiple books with multiple published reviews each. Here there only appears to be one newly published book, with a more-notable co-author (although the article tries to make it appear like there is more than one by going into some detail about a book that Brucato did not write). I did find a couple of acceptably-reliable reviews [82] [83] but I don't think it's enough. And the way this article is puffed up with minor details and even-more-minor sources makes me suspect promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low GS citations do not support claims of notability made in this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Brucato's h index, shown here, is higher than the minimum of 6: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=56276336500

The widely-used gradations system created by Stone for The Anatomy of Evil was revamped with Brucato for The New Evil, and the two have made numerous media appearances together, as a team. Familiarity with the book would make this quite clear. SH8901 (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other "acceptably reliable reviews" can be found at the bottom of the book's entry on the publisher's web site, given by eight prominent scientists and authors, and Publisher's Weekly: ^[1] SH8901 (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, regarding the statement about "making it appear there is more than one book," it should be noted that The New Evil is the SECOND VOLUME of the first book referenced. The contributions of the second book make little sense without explaining how it builds upon the first.

It appears that, if an entry for Brucato is not accepted, an entry about the book might be a simple solution, as that would not require the same rigor, unless I am mistaken. However, it may be the opinion here that no page at all is worthwhile. Perhaps the group can let me know.SH8901 (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a final point, Criterion One states, "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." In the two Psychopharmacology articles given in the article, Brucato was the lead author, describing an entirely new model for psychosis and violence which is now the basis of a National Institute of Mental Health grant, which is described here: ^[2]

This appears to satisfy Criterion One.SH8901 (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Perhaps you have misunderstood this process. There is a box that should appear in the upper right of this discussion page with pointers for newcomers. But: it is not a process where participants act as advocates or antagonists, putting forward the best face they can make in front of some impartial judge. We, the participants, are ourselves the judges, and are asked both to be impartial and to neutrally evaluate how well the subject fits our notability processes. If you cannot be impartial, your participation is more likely to be detrimental than positive for the case (see my earlier remark about promotionalism). It is even less a process where we come in already having decided that the subject should have an article and try to twist our notability guidelines to fit. If the subject is not notable, he is not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My question for the group is whether the scale included in the book should simply have its own entry. Are there notability requirements for pages about systems of psychological or criminal categorization? This is what made putting the article together interesting. Perhaps such things can be written up, and authors don't necessarily need their own pages? I am new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SH8901 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, can't some of the content-- details regarding the research on violence and psychosis, for instance-- be incorporated into other articles, appropriately? I simply want to try to find a way to not have wasted time with all this research and writing! I certainly appreciate the help.SH8901 (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final question: Is it not better for me to voluntarily delete the page, identify additional resources, revamp it, and repost, rather than for the page to have a history of prior administrative deletion? I ask your kind assistance. Please let me know. Again, my main concern is that I do not wish to waste time with the research I do for these entries-- 2 out of the 3 I have done have been marked for deletion like so.SH8901 (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom basically has it right. The assertion by SH8901 of h-index = 6 being passing is false. Historically, we have taken h-index > 15 as being a fairly clear pass of PROF C1. Agricola44 (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's comments are clear, and I understand. No problem. But no one has answered about whether there are pieces of the write-up which would make sense as elements of other articles.SH8901 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may be the first time I've ever seen a higher h-index on Scopus than on Google Scholar, but the number on Scopus is only 7 (versus 6), which isn't nearly enough, either. Nothing in principle prevents the references in this article being used as citations in others, as far as I can tell, but the text is uncomfortably promotional and shouldn't be incorporated into other pages. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So then there is no point in editing the article? The consensus seems clear. SH8901 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete it myself? SH8901 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SH8901: Unless you are an admin, you can't. If you were the main/only author of the page's content, you can add the g7 speedy deletion template to the top of the page and request that it be deleted. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And once an AfD has started, you shouldn't request deletion until the discussion runs it's course. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henryk Witek[edit]

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

This article has been through PROD, but never AFD. There is very limited evidence of notability here, and the article has been tagged with notability concerns for 5 years. According to Scopus, his h-index is 26, which is decent for a youngish professor at a major research university, but definitely does not establish notability by WP:PROF. According to this Wiki article, one of the claims that supposedly establishes his notability is that he was on a Science paper (but he was in fact only third author of four), and that he has won a handful of minor, non-notable awards. This page looks like a standard academic CV to me, so I don't think he meets WP:PROF. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't think he meets WP:PROF either. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - Regarding the author order in academic papers: for senior authors what matters is if they are corresponding authors (have an asterisk after their name in the author list). Frequently, names of group leaders are near the end of author lists but are followed by an asterisk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.227.221.26 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Regardless, having one Science paper doesn't make you a notable scientist. They publish dozens of papers per week. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think four papers with 100 citations each in Google scholar should be enough for WP:PROF#C1, and we have enough other material on him to make an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein - Best Blake44 (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets PROF #1. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article meets PROF #1. AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Two delete !votes are purely agreeing with the nomination, and more recent keeps showed that it meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Tight[edit]

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

Lacks RS, indepth coverage, no significant contributions found. Meeanaya (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Meeanaya. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per mom Ceethekreator (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to support notability. Barca (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - did the nom or the delete !voters look at the sources? The Daily News and the Standard are both national-level news sources in Zimbabwe. The topic receives significant coverage in both, in sources already in the article, not even counting BEFORE. The Nehanda Radio cites are mirrors of Daily News and should be discounted, but this meets GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per 78.26 above, the singer has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources from Zimbabwe such as The Nation, Daily News and The Herald which are already in the article, so the subject passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Health Enrichment[edit]

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

I found no notability per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. One of the supplement company with fails Fails WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE found only sales, directory, trademarks info but nothing on the company of any IRS (independent, reliable sources) to support the notability of the subject. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cassiopeia. All outside coverage is merely routine. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No substential coverage. Six employees is really small for a company. 02:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

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.