< 24 July	26 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Parker (teenager)[edit]

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

I don't believe being the 17th UK victim of a particular disease meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). This information is more appropriate for inclusion in the article for the disease itself, Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. — TAnthony^Talk 23:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also including the newly-created article for a related victim:

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

Magnoffiq has also created other stub articles for vCJD victims, including:

The bulk of other people in Category:Deaths from Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease appear to be notable for other things than the manner of their death.— TAnthony^Talk 23:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Dying of this particular disease does not come remotely near to making one notable enough for being the sole topic of an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect I have also nominated Grant Goodwin as there was no deletion notification which I believe should also be merged and redirected. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief. Why do we have pages for these people? Tragic of course, but not notable as individuals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find non-trivial coverage of this person in RS. I suggest WP:ONEEVENT is relevant here. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Jagrut[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of any notability. Hence: Delete Windymiles 08:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of passing WP:GNG - HalfLifeDelta 12:37, 4 Jun 2019 (UTC)
Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 23:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close do we still discuss AfDs nominated by sockpuppets? The nom was just blocked. The recent AfD (April 2019) was no consensus, but would have been keep were it not for the three delete votes by socks of, you guessed it, the author of this second nomination. It seems sensible ot save time and close this proceduraly, since all the hubub is sock created here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Even if the nom is by a sock, we sometimes still delete. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has enough coverage in reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without the sockpuppet votes at the last AfD, the concensus looked like keep. I think the good faith !votes had it right the first time around. There is enough coverage here to meet GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable person. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Notable as there is enough coverage in reliable sources. Also I am not a big fan of sockpuppets and the attempt to deceive has clearly backfired in my case: hence the Strong Keep - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage in the Deccan Herald and the New Indian Express, from 2011 to 2018. Looking at the edit history of the article, I see some very strange deletion of content, references and categories by one of the editors who voted Delete in the last AfD (who is now a blocked sock puppet, I see), and I note that both tags currently on the article have been added since that AfD too - the notability tag by the sock puppet. It seems there has been a concerted effort to vandalise and remove this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, I see I noted coverage in the Times of India and The Hindu as well, in my !vote in the last AfD - they have since been removed. I'll try to find them and replace them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussed in detail in multiple independent sources. --Slashme (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trotskyist League (United States)[edit]

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

Defunct minor Marxist party that never elected anybody to any office and likely never even nominated anyone. No sources are given. Does not appear to have substantial, non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 21:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could not find any reliable source with significant coverage. It may be worth redirecting to International Trotskyist Opposition, although that is itself a redirection too. --MarioGom (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it was never notable, it was a tiny splinter cell, and no longer exists. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tiny splinter lacks SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of SIGCOV. --MarioGom (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalist Communist Tendency[edit]

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

Advertisement page for a political party with apparently no elected officials. No citations are given aside from material from the organization itself. Likely does not have substantial, non-trivial coverage from multiple secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 21:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page has been tagged REFIMPROVE for over a decade. It has never had more than a single, lonely, PRIMARY source. Frankly it would have been PRODded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nfooty is a presumption of GNG. That has been challenged here and nothing has been provided to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Jean[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who made a total of 3 substitute's appearances (totaling less than 90 minutes of play) in France's fully-pro Ligue 2. Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage in English- and French-language sources is routine (database entries). Jogurney (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. Note: The individual notability requirements were made for each category on WP i.e. actors, artists, professional athletes etc. The subject only needs to pass NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. And this player clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL by playing played in a professional league which is on our list... the nominator admits this in the nomination. WP recognizes that Footballers are notable for playing, not for tabloid headlines or interviews. Lightburst (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy keep I'm neutral on what should be done with this article (leaning delete or redirect per the nominator's detailed reasoning), but WP:SKCRIT presents a narrow range of six possible criteria, of which 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 obviously cannot possibly apply, and 3 in this case cannot be taken to apply. The nominator explicitly cited NFOOTY and then stated why he felt it didn't apply in this case; the above "speedy keep" !vote, on the other hand, appears be ignorant not only of the speedy keep criteria but even of what the nominator in this case clearly wrote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scrapes by on WP:NFOOTBALL but fails WP:GNG with no sources at all beyond databases. If you can find a source then ping me so I can reconsider. Giant Snowman 08:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giant The subject only needs to pass WP:NFOOTBALL or GNG, that is why WP has categories for each, like WP:PROF and WP:SOLDIER for instance. Many editors believe that a subject must pass both but that is incorrect. I hope that helps. Lightburst (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: that is not correct. Giant Snowman 13:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Please see (Notability) A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lightburst (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and that presumption is rebutted by the lack of GNG sources. – Levivich 05:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously passes WP:NFOOTY. One questionably closed AfD does not make "longstanding consensus". Smartyllama (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: see AFDs on Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Giant Snowman 13:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Editors are unaware of the policy as you were also unaware. We can point to hundreds of AfD's that did not follow WP:POLICY. The ivoters vote based on their understanding of the criteria and relevant policies. AfD is based on who shows up to ivote, not and all voters understand the policy. Even the nom admits that the subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL and I just showed you the relevant policy. However each editor can still vote against policy if they wish. I just hope the closer gives more weight to an argument based on the policies set forth in the Notability requirements. Lightburst (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my nomination rationale - nowhere does it "admit" that this article satisfies NFOOTBALL. Also, NFOOTBALL is a presumption of notability and per long-standing (Cosmos Muneagabe was decided in December 2011!) consensus demonstrated through dozens of AfDs (including many during the past 6 months) shows that this presumption should be rebutted when a player has a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league during a career that fails to have sourcing which satisfies the GNG. This is hardly controversial as editors and administrators participating in those AfDs have very consistently reached the same conclusion. Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have read the nomination: the nomination incorrectly states that the subject must pass both nfootball and gng - WP:NOTPOLICY. And the nomination mentions long standing consensus, which also is not policy... rather it is based on ivoters voting their understanding of policy. For your nomination to be correct on policy, WP:NFOOTBALL would need to be rewritten to add your caveats regarding playing time (which you mention as having a bearing), and adding in an additional GNG requirement which the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (professor, soldier, actor, etc.) does not require. Lightburst (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the consensus (perhaps a read of the many AfDs linked here would help?). I never said an article must satisfy NFOOTBALL and GNG, just that the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL can be rebutted (as it is has in similar situations several times before and should be here). Jogurney (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coming off the substitute's bench three times in a second-tier league is not, never has been, and never should be, a free pass around the general notability guideline. That guideline exists to ensure that we have properly sourced articles and is particularly important for biographies of living persons. Editors arguing otherwise both misunderstand the meaning of "presume" in the relevant guidelines and fail to understand the damage caused by the flotsam and jetsam of thousands of non-notable football biographies floating around unwatched and not updated. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per GS and Mkativerata. Can't find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. The best I can find is a brief mention on the local town hall website [1] (To satisfy their appetite for conquest, the "Red Cats" enlisted a former professional player of the Chamois Niortais: Julien Jean.) – Levivich 05:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 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 speedy keep. Procedural keep. Looks like a clear case of WP:IDLI and it's an ugly nomination. (non-admin closure) Masum Reza^📞 21:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brother 3[edit]

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

Baretsky does not have copyright to the title, so the film is not likely to ever be released. And even if it does, from what they say it will be an amateurish trash flick, hence - not notable. Brinerat (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Your rationale does not address any policies about why you would like this deleted, outside the fact you seem to not want the film made. Please re-state a neutral rationale or this will be closed. Nate • (chatter) 20:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Francis Lewis[edit]

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

Puffery from a Who's Who article. No reliable sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources currently listed in the article is reliable, independent, and with in-depth coverage of the subject. The best I could find with this which is at least a published book with two sentences about him, but it's not multiple sources, not in-depth, and I suspect not adequately reliable (because more interested in repeating puffed-up stories about Goans than in verifying their accuracy). His Google scholar citation record certainly does not suggest notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It claims that Lewis "narrowly missed the Nobel prize" for ... describing one species of bacterium in the genus Deinococcus? There simply isn't enough in reliable sources to write an article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "narrowly missed the nobel prize" line borders on making this article almost a hoax. Nothing suggests he comes close to passing notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. The only reliable source, the Times of India, accepts paid obituaries from anybody, not just licensed undertakers, as looks like this case. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Highest citation I found in Google scholar was 12, next was 4. Doesn't seem enough to pass WP:NPROF and the coverage also doesn't meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 13:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Winn[edit]

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

Non-notable author and failed business person with no WP:LASTING impact. Business career best summed up by WP:BLP1E Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ self-published writer but I cannot find him or his books in WP:RS searches. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable entrepreneur. He founded one of the companies that had a spectacular crash when the Dot-com bubble burst in 2000. copious in-depth national and international coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Docor726 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)— Docor726 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Notable WP:RS Lightburst (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Doug Weller and E.M.Gregory have made considerable improvements to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:15, 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) 21:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Sing Lama[edit]

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

Not notable. Not even the article establishes notability. No RS coverage. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dearth of coverage per WP:42. Does not meet WP:BIO Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of his careers are uncommon but rather run of the mill. Producers are notoriously common, and we almost always delete such articles. My triplet brother, my partner, classmates, and hundreds of thousands of other people have appeared in music videos, which pop up like poppies on YouTube. Badly fails WP:GNG. Consider salting this nonsense. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian heat waves[edit]

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

Duplicates List of heat waves. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a subset of the global list. As heatwaves are becoming more common and India is especially hot, it may be reasonable to split them off. In any case, that issue is not a reason to be deleting anything -- see WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Andrew D. (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. The global list is organised according to date, and is not in tabular form, so the heatwaves specific to India are not easily found. Further, this list includes several years for which there is no Wikipedia article and are not on the global list so it certainly does not duplicate the information there. SpinningSpark 19:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easier to find the information per nation with separate list for nations instead of searching over the long list in the other article. Perhaps if that list was in columns where you could click and sort by nation, then this one would have no purpose. Dream Focus 19:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep a well source WP:RS useful article. Lightburst (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an encyclopedic article. Useful for Wikipedia. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per

"Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories."

from WP:SALAT. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:59, 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) 21:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Featherston[edit]

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

WP:SOLDIER not met - "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable." power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly killed in serving his country but nothing in the article show anything noteworthy in his service and short life. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails SOLDIER and I don't see sources supporting GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel the same as MilborneOne here. I tried very hard to Keep. Even wrote up a great rationale. But if I am honest this is a delete. fails to meet our GNG Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Descendants of Slavery[edit]

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

While the topic of reparations in American politics is notable (and discussed at Reparations for slavery debate in the United States), this group does not appear to be notable. Only the Vox reference seems to discuss the group. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Article and almost all of the sources are about reparations for slavery, not about this ORG. A quick gNews search on "American Descendants of Slavery" does turns up a few mentions. Problems. 1.) Page purports to be about an ORG, but offers no sourced info about the ORG itself. 2.) Page fails to establish that this ORG is notable. 3.) Page as written is a WP:COATRACK for sundry arguments related to Reparations for slavery and Reparations for slavery debate in the United States, an unnecessary duplication. Compare with The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, not a great page, but certainly a respectable page about the topic . If someone can source and rewrite this into a page on the organization it purports to be about - with WP:RS establishing that it is notable - ping me and I will cheerfully reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this were NORG, where I apply my strictest interpretation of GNG, I might not be a keep. However, as a movement/hashtag more analogous to Black Lives Matter than the NAACP I'm a keep. Examples of RS coverage I found fairly quickly beyond Vox: the best coverage is from Daily Dot article entirely about the movement, followed by Buzzfeed (several paragraphs focusing on the movement, though not focus of story), with more passing mentions by The Hill and Washington Post (these last two notably not being signficant but are showing that this movement is receiving notice worthy of encyclopedic coverage. This current article needs some TNT which I would be willing to apply if this is kept but I think the topic itself is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Barkeep49, this is a distinctive sub-stream of the reparations movement, that should be covered as such, and, like BLM, it is more an idea and online discourse than a single organization. I agree also that the more generic stuff about reparations in general should be pared down, and the particular aspects of this stream emphasized.--Pharos (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49, User:Pharos, are you OK with cutting this down to a stub until addition sources are found? Daily Dot and Vox are fine, but I am uncomfortable keeping the History, United Nations, and 2020 US Presidential Election, which constitute a sort of WP:ESSAY about reparations but which do not appear to have sources that discuss this ORG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, absolutely. I mentioned in my !vote that it needs TNT and if you're willing to do it now, or at least some percentage of it now, fantastic. I will note, however, for any closers reading this that I am unconvinced that this article is covered in scope by ORG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found from which an adequate article can be written. Swaths of extraneous material removed; article stubified.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Washington Post and other sources found by Barkeep. WP:NOTCLEANUP good work by the ivoters that came before me. Lightburst (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Barkeep49. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pushkar Sunuwar[edit]

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

No independent references in the article, and none found. The article claims "He has won various nominations in various prestigious award ceremonies around the nation." but there are no references establishing any of the awards as notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have gone with A7 or BLPPROD, no credible assertion of notability, appears to fail GNG. creffett (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible assertion of notability. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kayliah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG nothing much a part from a few passing mentions in people magazines such as [2]. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.The content of this article is based on its French equivalent on French Wikipedia.--Nahal^(T) 07:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that and also checked it out before nominating but it is almost totally unsourced. As a French speaker I was able to analyse the French language sources in a before search with they did not amount to much. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as Allmusic shows two album releases on EMI which therefore passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 5 but reliable sources significant coverage is needed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably notable singer from france. Since I have added references, there are now references in the article. I am of the opinion that passes WP:NMUSIC--Nahal^(T) 09:43, 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) 21:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sutliff & Stout, Injury & Accident Law Firm[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable law firm. References are trivial, promotional, or press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VANISPAM. Non-notable, no apparent coverage in unaffiliated sources. The references other than those originating with the firm itself are all about other subjects that touch only tangentially on the firm. TJRC (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely paid-for spam created in violation of the Terms of Use. I have blocked the author for this. MER-C 15:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unknown company. Docor726 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC) — Docor726(talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. per WP:NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Sourced to trivial coverage and press releases. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NORG due to sources being press releases and passing mentions. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:37, 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. Sandstein 13:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Hyun-choul[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines for biographies. ((u|waddie96)) {talk} 15:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ((u|waddie96)) {talk} 15:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article does need references, but assuming all the claims are true, he is in multiple museum collections and meets WP:ARTIST on many levels. That said, I cannot find sources other than brief mentions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article's overly promotional tone and statements like: "...Shin has withstood all the hardships with pride, and his accomplishments certainly entitles him for such pride and confidence" and "I would like to appraise that his works allow us to discover the energy a cup of tea can bring into our lives..." mades one wonder if the IP and the page creator (both SPA's) may have COI? Searches on Google Books, news, newspapers, Korean wikipedia, JSTOR and Google searches turned up nothing but a culinary wordpress-blog post, a press release from a group show of ten artists that lists his name only, and then this: a review of a group show at the V&A in London, but unfortunately it only devotes half a sentence to him. If he is in fact in the permanent collections of the listed museums, then he would pass notability criteria, however there are no RS backing up those claims. Netherzone (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the V&A review is about a show that he is not in-- it just references his work. I am starting to wonder if the reputation is entirely concocted. A Korean-language speaking editor would be helpful here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I searched every institution on the list of collections and came up with zero. I used variations of his name: Shin Hyun-choul, Hyun Choul Shin, as well as a translation into Korean characters. Also searched Western museums with major Asian collections such as Smithsonian, Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, Asia Society Museum, and the Metropolitan Museum and even the V&A collection: zero. I am wondering if he may be a commercial potter who sells work in the museum stores of the institutions listed, rather than being in these permanent collections? The group shows are not convincing: Yokohama Trade Fair, a Tea Culture Conference, a Planning Forum, Ceramic Pottery Contest, Pottery Biennale Workshop, New Design Fair, etc. A few sound more credible like the Tokyo Modern Art Center Invitational Exhibition, but no sources. Will keep looking, tho. Yes it would be great if a Korean language fluent editor could help out with this. Netherzone (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the above discussion, I am going to say delete. Extensive searches by Netherzone and myself turned up no sources. He has a video online of a show at the Gyeongju Art Centre, but this looks to be a local cultural centre, albeit large, rather than a major museum. The first museum collection given did not pass verification when I went to their site to check it. Sources simply do not seem to exist to prove notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I did find this PDF: Craftsmaster of Kwangju Royal family CeramicsShin Hyun Choul Ceramic Art but it is a product of his website: shcceramic.com, and therefore not a RS and does not confirm notability. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there does not seem to be independent reviews or citations. I'm hoping that an Asian art expert jumps in and finds some sources in Korean, Japanese or Chinese as per his list of unsourced exhibitions and collections (and I would change my !vote if that materializes.)Netherzone (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found this tourist blog that explains that "Kwangju Royal Family Ceramics" is apparently a product line, rather than a title. I think you may be right that he operates a company and sells within museum gift shows, as that is what he is described doing in the blog article. Delete does seem like the way to go here, as we cannot verify even a single claim.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gyeongju Art Centre is a performing arts center (that may have a gallery inside, or the lobby space may be used thusly) - it is not the Gyeongju Art Museum, which is a different institution. Both have prestige (I had heard about them when I used to teach in Seoul, but never ended up making the trip there.) If this show was a substantial, curated solo show with a catalog and reviews it might hold some weight. I really wish I could find something on this artist, but nothing, inc. the blog ThatMontrealIP posted above, makes the cut. Netherzone (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the blog does not help at all-- it was just meant to prove the show. I don't think the show in itself proves much. We would need four times that, with reviews.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:24, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. No rationale for deletion was provided by the nominator. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martyns Mannah[edit]

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

((u|waddie96)) {talk} 15:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ((u|waddie96)) {talk} 15:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passes NPOLITICIAN as a legislator occupying sub-national elective position. But the article needs references and cleanup for it to be kept. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article definitely needs some actual referencing, but the subject has verifiably served in a Nigerian state legislature, which passes WP:NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 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 redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters#Franklin Clinton. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Clinton[edit]

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

Was a redirect, then moved to draft, now moved back to mainspace. No real world notability, should be a redirect, but since some editors are insistent at creating articles for every fictional character ever written, here we are. This character's greatest claim to fame is they are the "sixth greatest Grand Theft Auto protagonist of all time". Not the greatest character, not the second greatest character. Not even the sixth greatest character, but the sixth greatest protagonist. Current sourcing is all primary, or about the actor who does the voice over, or brief blurbs. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage of real world notability needed to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters#Franklin Clinton. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No independent notability, though it is a viable search term. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters#Franklin Clinton per Clarityfiend._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters#Franklin Clinton per above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters#Franklin Clinton when the only possible legitimate source outside of voice actor commentary with decent coverage is Geek.com, and I'm not sure how trustworthy that site is. Regardless, one good independent piece on its own is simply not enough for a standalone article when WP:GNG requires multiple of such nature, but I agree with Sergecross73 that this is still a viable search term. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Demon King[edit]

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

Character with no real world notability. IP editor obscenely reverted the redirect. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Burmese pokemon (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Burmese pokemon (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Burmese pokemon^talk 19:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has redirected since 2011. 9 year later I've created. The character appeared as major role in the Monkey King and Chinese Odyssey films, and also a major supervillain in the 2014 hit film The Monkey King and so covered in numerous works, see per article. Burmese pokemon (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Let's keep in mind that Journey to the West is one of the great works of world literature, and that individual characters (List of Journey to the West characters) may well be notable enough to sustain separate articles. That's certainly so for the main protagonists. It's a little more questionable for the vast roster of antagonists and side characters. I think a case could be made here that the character is prominent enough to merit an article; but I wouldn't object much if it got merged (back) to a list entry either. Borderline. - See also Baigujing and Red Boy, which are in the same bracket. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Journey to the West is not a random work of fiction; it is one of the most significant works of Chinese literature and it's perfectly reasonable that characters in it have pages of their own. The sources could be improved: here are two suggestions for scholarly articles in English: [3] [4], and a book which describes the capture of Niu Mowang as "one of the best known" of the book's stories. As for the vast roster, well, have you seen e.g. Template:Odyssey navbox? Yes, Other Stuff Exists, but Chinese works are as deserving of complete coverage as Western ones, and there shouldn't be a separate prominence threshold imposed on them beyond detailed coverage in reliable sources. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should we delete Pokemon just because it is a fictional character ? For Bull Demon King, it had quite a lot of literature to explore / research the subject. such as "《西游记》中牛魔王形象的文化解析". Matthew hk (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character on its own satisfies the WP:GNG. IP edits do not mean the article is not notable. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elmidae (talk) --SalmanZ (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the major characters in Journey to the West. Esiymbro (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bull Demon King is one of the symbolic character of this reputed work. viz ✦ 05:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nizolan. — Hunter Ka hn 06:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Nizolan. — MA Javadi (talk) 15:17, 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) 21:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' Pages Cares[edit]

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

Fails WP:GROUP, WP:GNG, and lacks any independent sourcing. The creator seems to have a close connection as well. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent, reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a charity, but I cannot source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 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 Constitution Party (United States). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of Oregon[edit]

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

Former affiliate of the national Constitution party that has never elected any candidate to any office and does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge as there's an obvious WP:ATD – merger into the article about the national organisation. Andrew D. (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the national organization Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 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. Consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Cut Now Party[edit]

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

Cites no sources and elected no candidates to any office. Does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 12:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ this ~~tricky~~ political trick to 1994 New York gubernatorial election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now has sources, and was a part of the successful Pataki campaign. JASpencer (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but sources are so thin and it was so short-lived that MERGE and REDIRECT page title to the campaign makes more sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The party ran a successful campaign. Also, a search on WPREF [5], scholar [6], and books [7] prove that the article satisfies the WP:GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AmericanAir88, this party did not win an election. It’s a bit tricky to explain, but New York allows something called electoral fusion, and this “party” was a nonexistent organization created by the Republican Party. Electoral fusion in New York allows parties to nominate candidates from other parties and their votes count towards the candidate’s overall total, but they still hold a separate ballot line. Look at the actual sources added: the New York Times one notes that this “party” was really a ballot line, not an organization, and that it endorsed the exact same candidates as Republicans, because it was essentially just an alternative name for the party. Accordingly, this wasn’t a party at all - it was a legal fiction created by the Pataki campaign and the Republican party to take advantage of electoral fusion. This could easily be merged to the Republican Party of New York or to George Pataki. Just look at the sources you mention - in their tiny, trivial coverage of this party (which fails our notability guidelines, as they require comprehensive coverage), all of them will say this. This “party” is not independently notable of Pataki or the GOP. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Toa Nidhiki05: Look at this sentence in the article "The creation of Tax Cut Now was a success; not only did his overall vote total exceed that of incumbent Mario Cuomo, propelling Pataki to the Governor's Mansion, but Tax Cut Now contributed 54,040 votes to the total." The article makes it evident that the party made a difference in the 1994. The amount of voters also allowed candidates to fully run. How about the campaign guide by the NYT [8]. This gives insight on the Cuomo impact [9]. These two books describes the power of the party [10] [11]. Here are some more books [12], [13], and [14]. The point is that this article clearly passes the WP:GNG and has made an impact on New York politics. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the Wiki article makes is not backed up - it’s original research. Pataki won by double that amount. The New York Times campaign guide is exactly the source I was talking about; it mentions the party very briefly and trivially, notes it is a ballot line run by Republicans, and moves on. That is trivial coverage. Per WP:ORGCRIT, organizations must have significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. A brief passing mention is not significant coverage. Actually read your sources:

Governing New York - Not even a full paragraph explaining the party existed and was a creation of the Pataki/Republican campaign. It was a “direct creature” of the Republican Party. It was created exclusively for Pataki’s 1994 campaign.
Reports of selected cases decided in courts of the State of New York other than the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court - This is a lawsuit and court case. Does not establish notability.
Multiparty Politics in America: Prospects and Performance - It’s literally the exact same text as the Governing New York one.
Village Voice - A two-sentence mention in the context of a naming dispute with the subject of the article. Again, it notes this a Republican front group. This is purely trivial coverage.

The two academic ones I cannot read. They do not mention the party in previews and you have not given any quotations to judge on. So out of what we can see, all mentions of this “party” are trivial, and all of them mention it in the context of being a Republican front group for the 1994 Pataki campaign. As E.M.Gregory suggested, this should be redirected to the 1994 New York gubernatorial election article, or perhaps to the articles for George Pataki or the Republican Party of New York. This “party” clearly is not independently notable of those. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see how this AFD turns out. I stand by my opinion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable, e.g. Multiparty Politics in America. Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See above. This is a trivial mention which does not qualify as substantial, non-trivial coverage and in fact corroborates the idea of merging with another article, as it is noted as a GOP front group. Toa Nidhiki05 14:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

coverage is of this party as a sort of political trick; by forming a legal "party" that qualified for a ballot line the George Pataki campaign found a way to found a way to get enough votes from voters judged unwilling to pull Republican levers to put Pataki, the Republican candidate , into office in a very blue state in the 1994 New York gubernatorial election. There is no WP:SIGCOV of the party, only SIGCOV is of it as a ballot line. Making a merge appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source Multiparty Politics in America provides a variety of detailed facts about the topic and so passes WP:SIGCOV. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as the Freedom Party, it gained significant coverage back in the 1990s, fielded candidates, and had a following amongst moderate African-Americans for a time. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence for this? Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some additional sources. It's also was cited in this supreme court review. Additionally, I found sources that could be added to our coverage, but since they concern local candidates I didn't know where to place them.^{[15][16][17][18]}
I'll also point out that both AmericanAir88 and I live in Connecticut where fusion is also practiced. I therefore have the utmost confidence in his understanding of this type of political system.
Further, I oppose merger at this time. Adding it to 1994 New York gubernatorial election, New York Republican State Committee, or George Pataki would create massive undue weight concerns. It's obvious that the party is best understood within the context of its creation, but until someone writes George Pataki 1994 New York gubernatorial campaign I see no reason to merge. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would it be UNDUE to mention it on the New York GOP page? The entire history of this "party" can be summed up in like one paragraph: it was a ballot line created in 1994 to help Pataki's campaign, was used for that election, was run as a puppet organization by the state Republican party, and folded in 1998 when Pataki declined to use it. There is nothing notable about this "party" outside of its connection to the Pataki campaign. Toa Nidhiki05 02:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Ramsey[edit]

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

Previously soft deleted after an AfD with no participation. Nothing appears to have changed since 2017 - Ramsey does not appear to meet the general or discipline-specific notability guidelines, having only one significant role. – Teratix ₵ 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No references. Delete unless some found/added. RJFJR (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since the last AFD this and this have been created however I wouldn't consider #1 to be a reliable source and the second is a review for a film which is great and certainly can be used however IMHO this one source should not be a justification for keeping the article, Bar these 2 there's still nothing else out there, fails TOOSOON, NACTOR #2 and #3 and GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions notability requirement for performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 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 redirect to Dell laptops. Tone 17:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dell 320SLi[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is that it had faulty components that led to recall. I cannot find any logical place to merge the content, which does have notability. However being a stub I question whether the orphaned article should remain. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve wondered about putting this article up for deletion several times. As you say it does only seem notable for its recall, but the reason I left it is that the recall does seem to have attracted a lot of coverage in the press. Mccapra (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The useful merge/redirect target would be Dell laptops or Dell laptop timelines which might make a more useful article. The content is mildly interesting but not for a standalone article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created a draft Draft:Dell laptops. I may or may not choose to develop it, and welcome if others did. It is not at this moment suitable for mainspace. But it would I think be a suitable merge target for Dell 320SLi.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Old computer, there are RS about it, no harm in keeping the article. Coverage 10 years after the event shows at least some marginal notability (well, infamy) of this product. I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a laptop known solely for its recall. Even if there were any sources for it other than its heating problems, it's still the generic computer coverage that you would see from CNET or a computer magazine. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least some claim of notability (hailed as one of the two first subnotebooks by the PC Mag, 27 October 1992, p. 128: [19]; depends on a defintion of subnotebook of course). Subnotebook article may be also a good redirect target. There are enough reliable sources to expand the article beyond stub state. Pavlor (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not seeing a reason to delete. If an article is short then this is not a problem – "enough is as good as a feast". See also WP:TLDR. Andrew D. (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the coverage is obligate articles in industry press, thus fails WP:AUD as a corporate product. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dell laptops. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casper's[edit]

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

An article about a San Francisco chain of 8 hot dog restaurants which makes no claim of notability. There are two references in the article, both to the homepage of another hot dog restaurant with a similar name.

In searching for reliable secondary sources to expand the article I found only two, which I do not feel meet the criteria of "significant coverage":

SFGate covered the chain's 75th anniversary in 2009
A guidebook to "Slow Food" in the Bay Area has an entry for one location ★ Bigr Tex 19:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom which lists some satisfactory sources. There's plenty more to find such as Origins of Caspers Hot Dogs: A tale of immigration and success out west. And note that the name is so popular that there are now at least three rival chains. Andrew D. (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if such sources do exist, you add them to the article.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not many, but there are at least some RS for this (for now added as raw refs to the article), so WP:GNG is about to be fulfilled with some good will.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As nominator, who always read "significant" as meaning "Reasonably large in number or amount" and not "That which has significance (The extent to which something matters)", this AfD process has been frustrating. My favorite sandwich shop has more coverage than this 'chain' of hot dog restaurants, but I don't think it is notable either. ★ Bigr Tex 20:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Query The Audience section of the Guideline on Notability of Companies says that there should be "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source." Since I am not from the Bay Area, are either the Mercury News or SFGate considered to be regional sources? ★ Bigr Tex 20:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not from the Bay Area, but The Mercury News is a daily newspaper published in San Jose by the Bay Area News Group and apparently the fifth largest daily newspaper in the US (in 2013). SFGate belongs to the San Francisco Chronicle of Hearst Corporation, apparently a major daily paper covering the city and county of San Francisco. According to their web site, they are among the top five newspaper websites nationally. So they both appear to be regional, not only local. They are both independent. I see both WP:AUD and WP:CORPDEPTH fulfilled, but not by much, but as enough for a weak keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RS. Andrew D makes a strong argument as well. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Kasper's. Subject and it's back history seems notable, especially when the historical family infighting is factored in. My concern is with the title, since it looks to me that Kasper's is the more notable name in most of the sources for having been the founder organization which still has branches operating. It is also the name of the third branch of the family business (the original store in Oakland), so it might be 2 against 1. Casper's should be included in a subheading as the spinoff. StonyBrook (talk) 12:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bissonnette[edit]

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

See delete discussion for Tito Mukhopadhyay and Amy Sequenzia. This is the same issue, we do not have independent RS that Bissonnette has authored these works. This violates BLP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tito_Mukhopadhyay and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Sequenzia_(2nd_nomination) Sgerbic (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure what the nom means by "the works", but I see a good mention in this book, this book, a short intro to a book chapter (it might also be a review) here, another book mention here, a mention in this book (for which I rely on the search results), a mention in Vermont Life, brief mention in the book "Digital Anthropology", and coverage in the Mercury News. Is that not enough to establish notability?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also gave the article a major trim. Are we even allowed to talk about someone's psychological diagnosis without sources? The last version did. Removed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are brief mentions and not enough to establish notability, at least one is a interview with Bissonnette. As Bissonnette is using FC to communicate, the interview is actually with the facilitator not Bissonnette. Sgerbic (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot confirm that Bissonnette's art is in the collection of the Musée de l'Art Brut in Switzerland, as stated in the article, but his work -is- in the collection of the Lille Métropole Museum of Modern, Contemporary and Outsider Art See [20]
That work from 1976 predates the use of assistive devices by 15 years. It is possible that those works were not created by Bisonette. I find no reliable sources saying his works are forgeries. I do see documentary evidence of Bisonette painting. His artwork, at least, appears to be his own. Vexations (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Henry Moore also did not make most of his work, he used "facilitated production", i.e studio assistants!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the collection in the Lille, generally having art owned by a museum is not enough to prove notability, often times they "collect" art they do not display. Sgerbic (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sgerbic, generally having art owned by a museum is not enough to prove notability WP:ARTIST says nothing about the work in the collection being on display to establish notability. It does say represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums To clarify (and I apologize if this is superfluous): the permanent collection of a museum is not always on display in its entirety. "Several", on the other hand,is an issue here: I can only confirm ONE museum collection. Vexations (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sgerbic, it's the selection for the collection that is the important aspect for determining notability. When museums collect, they commit with great care as they are also committing to represent the art of the time in question, and to keep that are safe and dry for what could be centuries. Regarding whether it is on display or not, see this article in the NY Times that quotes the Metropolitan Museum of Art as having two million objects in its collection, and less than one percent of that on display. It's entirely normal. Per WP:ARTIST, as Vexations points out, it is the selection of the work, rather than the display of the work, that is important. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any reviews of his art from art critics in national or international newspapers. Apparently, the art piece the Bennington Museum has was a gift. (From the article, it didn't look like the art piece was purchased by the museum). I looked in Global Newstream (a database for newspapers worldwide). Generally, if someone is notable, all kinds of articles pop up.

'The matter of creative impulse' The Burlington Free Press; Burlington, Vt. [Burlington, Vt]01 Sep 2013: 10. Bennington Museum receives remarkable gifts over last year Carson, Derek. Bennington Banner; Bennington, Vt. [Bennington, Vt]26 July 2015. Sgerbic (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of the AFDs mentioned in the nomination seem to have to do with something called "facilitated communication", which is apparently discredited. If I disregard FC and his own artwork, and look only at the sources, this is notable individual as there is decent coverage. The main topic for notability here is his individual story, not his artworks. See the book links above, and the sources added to the article, as well as the museum collection found by Vexations. Meets WP:GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It seems while FC is definitely discredited, he is more famous as an artist and simply for being in Wretches & Jabberers. I did add sources that showed that his usage of FC is doubtful. I would like more opinions on this, however. Ylevental (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references above. From my POV, he clearly passes WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bottom line on Bissonnette is - does the art by itself make the artist worthy of a Wikipedia page? Does having art purchased by a museum (or maybe a couple museums which we can't find evidence for) make the artist worthy of a Wikipedia page? If so, then we are probably missing thousands of pages for artists. That criteria is pretty low. Anything reported to be said by Bissonnette is not from him but his facilitator. We don't know his intentions with his art. Sgerbic (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are interesting thoughts– but they are not related to our notability policy. Being purchased by a museum does contribute to notability, per WP:ARTIST. Appraising the artwork itself is not necessary at all as we go by the appraisal of others, in secondary sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Significant and Substantial are what the policy refers to. "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Do we have evidence that Bissonnette's work has hit this bar? Sgerbic (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am just starting to look for sources myself, and to consider sources noted by other editors in this AfD discussion. I would note that WP:ARTIST does not require "Significant and Substantial" work - it says "The person's work (or works) has: ..... or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." So what we are looking for is his work in several notable collections - or lots of reviews (for the "significant critical attention"), or, for WP:GNG, significant coverage about him (and the National Geographic TV episode is surely one such source about him). RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC at the very least, whether or not he meets WP:ARTIST. I have been adding sources, and I see that there is coverage about him in independent reliable sources from at least 1990 to 2014. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Years (DC Talk album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Compilation album that has no sources and did not chart. Has had a no source tag for ten years now. Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sourcing found, didn't chart. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I should have just redirected it quietly after the last AfD had no participants. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DC Talk as this could be a viable search term, but I would not be opposed to an outright deletion as the album did not chart or receive attention from third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Importance of Sex Education[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, has won some very minor awards, but does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Minor awards. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to be significant coverage to meet the GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Based on the course of the discussion, this article now has evidence of meeting GNG Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Mari da Ashtan[edit]

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

Unsourced, fringy (it even admits to this). Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [21] and WP:GNG. However, there may be other spellings. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, sources to look at. Don't rush it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails as per nom. Barca (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While I do not accept the claims for the monument in the article, pilgrimage is an important feature of Sufi Islam and Hinduism, so that this article is wholly credible. If there are problems over the transliteration of Urdu or Hindi, the answer is redirects from the variant spellings. There certainly is a Muslim sect that believes Jesus went to India and died there. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails as per Slatersteven (talk) --SalmanZ (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the article is legitimate although I agree needs to be expanded upon. To maintain impartiality we need these articles to remain active regardless of if they are considered controversial.Medz (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a number of the sources added to the article such as the Asia Times and books devoted to the subject seem to pass WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "fringy" is an inappropriate slur on faith. Even atheists, if they are objective, should be able to acknowledge that pilgrimage sites are often notable. This one quite obviously is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of political controversies in Australia[edit]

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

The category of "political controversies" is impossibly broad and inclusions are open to debate; this list could never be satisfactorily completed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqst north (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:WORKINPROGRESS. Having a list of all WikiNotable Category:Political scandals in Australia is not overly broad - we only have 32 of them. Political scandals are clearly discussed as a set - meeting NLIST. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a list of scandals, though, it's a list of "controversies". This could include literally anything in Australian history that has been the subject of debate or contention at some point. Whether a list of only notable scandals – in addition to the automatically-generated Category:Political scandals in Australia – is worth having is a separate issue. Mqst north (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That a possible argument for renaming (but not deletion) to List of political scandals in Australia (which does not exist). I personally see "scandal", "row", and "controversy" as nearly synonymous in the political sense (scandal has a POV spin in that it implies wrong doing, but is otherwise similar). Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely significant events that have lead to the downfall of governments, Royal Commissions, changes to laws, and dismissals. Controversies and scandals are two different things, Barnaby Joyce has had recent scandals that arent part of this. Could do with some sectioning but thats something to talk about on the page as it grows. Gnan garra 11:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gnangarra. Bookscale (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a useful list of historically significant events, though I'd like to see some citations, especially for the ones that don't have articles of their own. As for the concern that "this list could never be satisfactorily completed", ((dynamic list)) exists precisely for this reason, though I'm not convinced that's the case for this particular list. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- comment while I think the list needs some work, and I have recommended keeping the inclusion criteria needs clarity I think if an event doesnt have it own article then it isnt significant enough to be on the list. Gnan garra 03:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that there's an element of subjectivity to the list and it's impossible for it to be comprehensive, but if you are not familiar with Australian politics and want to learn it looks like a useful resource. Shritwod (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any political controversy notable enough to have its own article should be on this list. It meets the requirements for a list article. Dream Focus 19:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a broad list based on undefined criteria. What counts as a "controversy"? Looking at the list, the Playmander and the Bjelkemander were certainly controversial, but are they really controversies in the same sense as, say, the Morosi Affair? I see Cornelia Rau, Vivian Solon and Peter Slipper here despite those being biographies; I would also dispute the idea that "controversies" and "scandals" are interchangeable. The Morosi affair was certainly a scandal; I think it's a big stretch to describe the Dismissal in the same sense. An inherently POV list that would be better deleted. Frickeg (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I’ve been pondering since last night how to articulate my deletion rationale for this. Frickeg has relieved me of that task. —Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful list of significant events. WP:IMPERFECT WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gnangarra & Dream Focus. Can always discuss what criteria should be met to classify as a controversy, and if you think certain events should be deleted from the list, but there is no reason to delete the article itself. Powertothepeople (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gnan garra --SalmanZ (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Powertothepeople - the issue is that the inclusion of various issues might require discussion - rather than deleting the list. JarrahTree 04:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as an overview list of a broad subject, all of the entries should be notable in their own right as per WP:CSC - the few entries that do not link to a stand alone article should be removed, but it generally fits. Controversy & scandal are not interchangeable - to me describing a matter as controversial does not involve a POV, but scandal does, because of the additional element of wrong doing. The criteria for inclusion certainly need to be clarified & made explicit. I would change to delete only if it turns out the criteria can't be fixed. Find bruce (talk) 10:09, 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. Tone 15:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thorne Research[edit]

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

Lacks in-depth reliable news sources, google search doesn't turn anything significant. Fails general notability. Meeanaya (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding in-depth reliable news sources, the article contains citations from USA Today, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, and the Pulitzer Prize winning paper "The Post and Courier" among a few others. Regarding google traffic, the peer-reviewed medical journal that Thorne Research owns, Alternative Medicine Review, has published hundreds of articles that can be found in google scholar when one searches "Thorne Research, Inc" Additionally, the website is viewed roughly 250,000 times/month according to a website analytic https://www.similarweb.com/website/thorne.com. Instead of deletion, could the page not simply be improved? TWJohn (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bloomberg citation is just Bloomberg's company database, but not significant coverage. AP is a press release. --213.220.69.6 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Could a compromise be converting the article into a stub article? TWJohn (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls far below the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references feature independent content and all are either based on company announcements or interviews/quotations with the company and/or connected people, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zamir Jaffri Cricket Stadium[edit]

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

Cricket ground with no coverage in reliable sources. Not a ground which hosts international or domestic cricket events. Complete failure of WP:GNG. At best, it is a ground used for local club matches which aren't notable for WP. Störm (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the refs does not even mention the ground, the other is a database listing on cricketarchive and only games it lists are local ones. No indications that any major matches have been played here, or that it passes GNG. Spike 'em (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except blog-entires. Fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A regional stadium frequently in the news for hosting large political rallies, including led by the current Prime Minister of Pakistan.[22], [23], [24] and, in one case, a rally in which nine people were injured by police bullets.[25]. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not about the stadium. Rallies held, okay, but why stadium is important? Störm (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the fact that the now Prime Minister of Pakistan held large political rallies at the stadium might make one stop for a moment and consider whether their denial of the stadium's notability might be just a little bit anglocentric. Would a large cricket stadium in any city in the Western world really not meet the GNG? Of course not. Why would the answer in Pakistan be any different. And, of course, recourse to Urdu sources, which should have been done before nominating for deletion, confirms this answer and confirms that deleting this article would be patently absurd. For example, this article is entirely about the stadium and its dilapidated condition. Just run it through google translate and see. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A stadium need not host national events to be notable, it just must pass WP:GNG/WP:NBUILD. There are a number of articles in English about rallies which have been held in the stadium without being about the stadium specifically, and I can't do a local language search, but I imagine there would have to be local sources per WP:NEXIST, especially because the government specifically updated the stadium. Also, since it's foreign, the stadium appears as Jafri Stadium, Zamir Jafri Stadium, Syed Zamir Jaffri Stadium, et cetera. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain, how it meets WP:GNG? Don't use loose claims that it would meet if we got local sources. You have to bring them here to support your claims. Störm (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has a number of passing mentions in English without any specific "ground construction in Jherum," and from the photos the stadium was clearly sponsored either by the cricket board or by the local government. From the English sources alone you can patch together a decent stub. I can't search in Punjabi or Urdu as I don't know either of these languages, all I have is what's online in English, but given the stadium is used for tournaments by the Pakistani cricket board I would assume there's online and offline sources in both of these languages. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If my reading of WP:CRIN is correct then I would be inclined to head towards very strong keep. This is based on:

Re a venue (aka ground), WP:CRIC has agreed that its regular usage by a notable club ensures its own notability per se. Beyond a purely cricketing outlook, a venue is a recognised named site with a fixed geographic location and established community associations of a permanent nature which themselves ensure notability

the second sentence of which suggests to me that any ground used by any community group whatsoever is considered notable by WP:CRIN standards. I find this odd, bizarre and so on, but I don't see how it means anything different to that.

I don't particularly agree that this reading is desirable or workable to works in any way to determine what is or isn't notable - it seems bizarre that my local cricket club's ground is, by definition, notable when there are no independent sources on it.

I've just suggested on two other AfD that WP:CRIN needs a total rewrite in some areas at least. This does nothing to suggest otherwise to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: I'd argue WP:CRIN has nothing to do with buildings (see WP:NBUILD, but the test is also "regular usage" by a "notable club" as opposed to "any community group whatsoever," so I'm not too fussed. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: - I was looking at the second sentence from he quote which seems to suggest notability per se. Of course, I think that's silly, but there you are. I checked on WP:FOOTY but couldn't find a notability criteria from there and that's usually my go-to place for sensible sports notability criteria. I'll try baseball and hockey as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: Since we're a gazetteer, geographies tend to have a lesser notability requirement than anything else (ie, does it exist), but buildings still need to pass WP:GNG. I think it's overplaying the first part and downplaying the latter. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I'm a big fan of using GNG as the benchmark myself. In that case this article is clearly much less likely to be kept - it does appear to have been used in some political rallies but I can't find anything suitably in depth about it as a place: but then I don't have access to sources in the local language(s) which might have those details. It's that second sentence in CRIN that needs to be dealt with then, isn't it? It strikes me as far too all-encompassing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not too fussed about the CRIN since if you read it narrowly it just implies ovals used by notable teams should also be notable, which is likely true. Also, for the purposes of this AfD this ground appears to be covered locally, as was my guess. See [26]. Can't make heads or tails of the Google translate. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination that didn't check local-language sources? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source has been provided in a local language though, and we need more than one to sustain notability. If you can provide another reference then I can see myself flipping my vote to keep. FOARP (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one that discusses the stadium in the context of the 2014 political rally, talking about the stadium's capacity. Here is a December 2017 article that follows on from the July 2017 article I linked above and which again talks about the dilapidated condition of the stadium. At any rate, this is the google search page that comes up when you type in the name of the stadium in Urdu script. I get the sense that the nominator didn't do this. It is, of course, the nominator's onus to do this work, and not the onus of the keep !voter. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkativerata: Thank you for doing the legwork to search in Urdu. I know that's something I wouldn't be able to do very easily and I appreciate your work to do that. I'm not sure that it's very productive to criticise anyone for not doing so, but I really do appreciate your work here.

As you clearly know what you're talking about, I don't suppose you could add them in to the article could you? It could use plenty of work and I haven't a single word of Urdu myself. If you can get the basics right then I'm sure other people can do any tweaking. Much appreciated - I hope I'm not being presumptuous by asking you to help us out here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't speak a word of Urdu either. It's just that (a) it appeared plainly obvious to me that a large provincial stadium would have a fair bit written about it in the local language, and (b) it's also obvious that because our page on the stadium links to a sister page on Urdu wikipedia: [27], you can use the title of that page to search for sources and then run a rough google translate to confirm the gist of what they say. That's more than sufficient to confirm that this stadium meets the GNG and it's something the nominator should have done. Moreover, now that it has been done, it should be causing the nominator to withdraw the AfD. I think it is productive to criticise a nominator when they have wilfully put forward someone else's work for deletion on the basis of a grossly deficient WP:BEFORE effort. The reason that it is productive to do so is that we need to make sure it does not happen again. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides above mentioned large political rallies, including led by the current Prime Minister of Pakistan, i would like to add that stadium may not host international events but it does host some official domestic matches and domestic events. Here Pakistan Cricket Board's 2015 talent hunt program held at this stadium in Jhelum, similarly 2014's talent hunt event for region and Elections of District Cricket Association Jhelum and list of activecricket clubs. Urdupoint is a reliable newswebsite, it has an news article regarding Spring celebration festival named Jashn-e-Jhelum held in April 2019 at Zamir Jaffri Cricket stadium. This video is of Jashn-e-Jhelum Festival in which host is mentioning that he is present in Zamir Jaffri stadium at 13th second. National news channel Hum News also mentioned celebration of this festival in news here and here. Also we have a link to a TV program (District Diary) on a national TV channel Kay2 TV regarding Zamir Jaffri Stadium. 24 News HD also noted the deteriorating condition of this stadium. Most of these sources are in urdu language, but i think they qualify the article for notibility. i would again say Keep. --Talha^Discuss ^© 15:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sport in Jhelum. Certainly this is not for deletion. OTOH it lacks the substantive material to justify standalone article. All the key information is already at the suggested target. The way forward looks to be to redirect for now and it could be broken out in the future if the necessary content has been found. Just Chilling (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Talha and sources obtained by Mkativerata. Seems to be notable enough and has enough RS to justify keeping the article. Bookscale (talk) 00:59, 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. Tone 15:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Outsourcing Professionals[edit]

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

No evidence for notability according to the rules in WP:NCORP. The first two "NY Times" refs are just pages where it is mentioned based on press releases . The 3rd NYT is just a mention. The other refs are plcements on lists or their own site. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

comment - If "Five items about IAOP were covered during the first half of 2019 by The New York Times" is correct, does that mean NYTimes is no longer WP:RS, and is just a press release publisher? How many companies can get 2 items in one month, and then one each month for three months in a row? Pi314m (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author feedback - Per WP:NCORP - notable? A Congresswoman cited them, albeit negatively, as being on the side of the bad guys. Computerworld had an article, 1/3 of which is about them, the rest is about Outsourcing training and certification, as it related to computer people. A University of Oxford/Oxford University study, posted on the National Center for Biotechnology Information's website, wants them to "update its ethical standards to be more in line with the worker protections needed in a digital economy." The awards and hall of fame part, by itself, may not be A-1/top-of-the-line notability, but when a different Member of Congress is pounding away about "a malicious attack meant to break the backs of organized labor in Ohio" that has a certain amount of notability too.
The article even has a caveat from 2009 IAOP Hall of Fame inductee Peter Drucker regarding outsourcing and "large numbers of people" that begins "there is a price..." Pi314m (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pi314m, I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. "Five items were covered" and it's sourced to a page with Google search results? That's a terrible practice--but it gets worse when one actually goes and looks at the things listed on that page, which includes stuff like this--which is clearly marked as a press release. In other words, "covered by the New York Times" is just completely untrue: the NYT merely reproduced a press release. Even reference 18, falsely claimed to link to coverage by the New York Times, is a press release, as revealed by the very URL, https://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/stocks/news/press_release.asp?docTag=201902130900PR_NEWS_USPRX____NY52388%26feedID=600%26press_symbol=6694205 . Oh, the Congresswoman--you cite the record, from the House, which is a primary source, and thus also adds nothing to notability. So no. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: directory information and press releases are inflated to create the idea of notability. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per both Nom and Drmies. It's also significantly promo. Either press releases, or in a couple of non-promo cases, non-secondary/independent. I don't think it would meet GNG but it definitely doesn't meet NCORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Bianchi[edit]

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

Winning a silver medal (only) at a university-level competition does not qualify this person under WP:NSPORT and the coverage does not qualify under WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but it is certainly not his only medal. As he was on the podium at the World Cup in Bonn, last year ([28]).-Binbaksa (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 09:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a real lack of any decent coverage, so we'd be looking for some kind of presumptive notability on the basis of his sporting achievements, and I'm not sure a bronze medal at a World Cup quite cuts it. No doubt he'll qualify for an article in the future, but not right now. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough reliable sources added with enough coverage, including Tv coverage on Rai2 and RaiSport (the final was transmitted in Live on Rai2, one of the main Italian Channel of television). Not only on Eurosport.-Binbaksa (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. We should not rush to create articles on people who lack a true track record showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep winner of multiple medals in international competitions. consensus is that medalists in junior international competitions are notable; if you want to change that, go to Nsports. Queen-washington (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the guidelines or discussion that establishes that consensus? I'd genuinely be happy to change my !vote if there's clear consensus for that, but I don't think WP:NSPORTS as written gives that impression. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus for most sports is that junior events do not convey notability. WP:NSPORT talks about competing at the highest level and junior events are definitely not that. A podium finish at a world championship would definitely show notability, one at a world cup or university level does not. Papaursa (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it is NOT a junior event, but an international championship for athletes between 18 and 25 years (born in 1994). Bianchi is born in 1997 and he is no more a junior.-Binbaksa (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the incorrect comment that "medalists in junior international competitions are notable". Papaursa (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not seem to meet WP:NSPORT. Coverage is predominantly about the Universiade games, which can be considered routine sports reporting and also WP:BLP1E. WP:TOOSOON seems to apply until his adult preformances become notable. Papaursa (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

always Keep. Because he is an adult (and not a junior) and because he got a podium at World Cup with coverage.-Binbaksa (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the events he's had success at are considered the highest level--quoting WP:NSPORT"highest level (such as the Olympics)". Depending on the sport, and the number of entries, world championships may also be viewed as showing notability. World Cup and University games are not at that level. In fencing, World Cup events convey only 1/3 of the ratings points of the Olympics, 40% of that for the world championships, and only 2/3 of the points for zonal championships. That seems to show a clear gap between World Cup and "highest level". The Universiade games have 0 ratings points. Sports like boxing and kickboxing accept competitors ranked in the top 10, while even world championship quarterfinalists in judo have been put up for deletion. As far as I can tell he's not ranked in the top 50 and has never competed at an adult world championship. Some routine sports reporting on lesser events does not suffice for meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as FIE ranks (Official), Guillaume Bianchi is:

46th (S) as a Senior in 2018/2019
36th (S), 42.00, in 2017/2018.

So you are completely wrong saying that « he’s not ranked in the top 50 » but you are right for the fact he has never competed yet in a World Championship: ahah, he is an Italian, one of the best countries in foil ! If you think that Universiade is not very important, consult again please the results of the 10 last Universiades (and even the most recent one: Fencing at the 2019 Summer Universiade) and you will notice many great champions (Olympic and World). We do not share the fact that a direct coverage on Rai 2 (the second main channel in Italy, you can see the video here) is enough for the notorious. Seen by millions of people. Live. It is enough for my point of vue.-Binbaksa (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I can't access the FIE website on my computer so I looked at the World Cup article that said he was ranked 64th at the beginning of that event. The point is he's nowhere near the top 10 and you haven't countered the fact that he's never competed at the highest level (World Cups are the 4th highest level event). It's irrelevant that some Universiade winners have become notable because notability is not inherited. Being in a live event on TV is nice, but thousands of American college football players have that every year and yet are not deemed WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | spout _ 06:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also finished top 3 in the World Cup and won gold at the European championships. Seems notable to me.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the European event was a junior (U23) event.Sandals1 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under-23 is not junior. And Under-23 champions are notable in other sports.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many others athletes are notables just for the individual Summer Universiade medal. --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete One podium finish at, as Papaursa points out, a fourth tier event isn't close to meeting the requirement that athletes have "competed at the highest level". Success as a junior also doesn't meet this standard, which is why junior success generally doesn't show notability. The Universiade competition is the same (limits on competitors). Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting of results and fails to meet the GNG. The editors voting to keep the article, all of whom are pretty new to AfD discussions, are ignoring WP:NSPORT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ROUTINE while relying on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and incorrect interpretations of what it takes to be a notable athlete.Sandals1 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether he meets WP:NSPORT is irrelevant because the sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. This has been open long enough. There is general agreement that the organization is probably notable. However, there is not agreement as to whether the article is so promotional that it harms the encyclopedia. I'm am going to close this as "draftify", as DGG's suggestion seems the most practical here. It will allow Jovanmilic97 and Cunard to continue to improve the article if they wish, but will take it out of mainspace (and indexing). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seva Mandir[edit]

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

Non-notable organization page created by the company itself User:Sevamandirudaipur, surprisingly it is live since 2010. Meeanaya (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meeanaya: can you please clarify if you are nominating deletion for (a) lack of notability or (b)because it was self-created by the subject? If the former, I don't think notability is an issue as a quick search of Google Scholar and Google Books throws up with a large number of references in several credible books and academic journals about this organization. A citation needed tag would be a more appropriate response (in fact I now remember I did some reference clean-up on this article not too long ago). If it is the latter, then can you please point to WP policy showing this can be a reason for deletion? Thanks.Deccantrap (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deccantrap:, Seva Mandir is a very common term in India, used by all newspapers, media. If you want to connect to the correct Seva Mandir Udaipur, here is the search result, which are mostly local and non RS. For me, reasons are both, created and edited by the company itself and lack in-depth reliable sources. Meeanaya (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks@Meeanaya:. I was not mistaking references to Seva Mandir, Udaipur, with generic use of the term. I am sufficiently conversant with the subject matter to not conflate the specific name with the generic name. Please refer to the following in-depth and reliable sources about Seva Mandir, Udaipur (which are only representative and do not represent the whole body of literature referencing Seva Mandir; these sources do not only mention Seva Mandir in passing, but study its work in detail):

1) Article in the Asia Pacific Journal of Rural development referencing Seva Mandir's work in forestry development

2) The book 'Civil Society and Democratization in India: Institutions, Ideologies and Interests' which references several aspects of Seva Mandir's work in health, education, forestry, and rural development in general

3) Paper titled 'Health, healthcare and economic development' which references the work by Seva Mandir in the area of health

4) Paper in International Journal of Rural Management referencing Seva Mandir's work in development women's self-help groups

You stated your grounds for deletion are both notability and self-creation. The former ground is not strong, based on the above evidence. In case of the latter, please direct me to the policy/policies which indicate self-creation is a criteria for deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a chance to look up consequences of a subject self-creating an article about itself. As per WP:YOURSELF, an organization creating an article about itself is discouraged but not prohibited as long as WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING are not violated. Because several independent editors have contributed to the Seva Mandir article and I do not see WP:NPOV or WP:NOTADVERTISING being violated, I don't think self-creation provides grounds for deletion. @Meeanaya: please let me know if I am misinterpreting any of the above factors.Deccantrap (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, for reasons noted above. Correct remedy for deficiency in articles is to edit or attach tags to fix, not deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Not suitable for mainspace: insufficient good sources for notability, and written promotionally. . Reading the references above makes it seem that an acceptable article ccould be written, but it has to be written before we can keep it. This is one of the reasons we created Draft space. Before we had craft space, we sometimes used o keep articles usuch as these on the mere promise of rewriting and about two thirds of the time had to remove them when they did not actually get rewritten; now we have a better way. The reason for not writing articles with strong COI is precisely that it is not likely to be a satisfactory article, as is demonstrated once again here--another reason why we have draft space. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 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) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deccantrap, I have seen that you have voted strong keep on two AFDs I have pushed, at once place you have later on accepted that you were wrong. I am a local resident here, the company is running in a small room, nothing significant for them. The page was probably created by their digital marketing and it has been spamming the platform from last 10 years. Instead of Strong keep, it is very clearly Strongest Delete. If you don't agree with me, please review the comment of DGG. Let's not waste more time and delete and close this AFD.Meeanaya (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deccantrap, The day this company will be notable, I will create it myself. Meeanaya (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meeanaya, unfortunately your knowledge as a local resident is not helpful for the purpose of implementing WP policies. WP uses a process based on third-party, independent sources. As such, I have provided several credible, independent sources above, which underscore the notability of the subject matter. You are welcome to rebut my argument by indicating why you think those sources do not indicate notability.Deccantrap (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meeanaya I took the liberty of moving your comments and my response, made after re-listing to BELOW the relisting so that the administrator who revisits this AfD nom can identify the later comments.Deccantrap (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 06:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (basically a Keep vote but this discussion is going nowhere) Clearly a notable topic that has been covered in multiple reliable sources in-depth. There is also coverage in a lot of other books [29] [30] [31] [32] and Livemint [33] and there are even more books with just snippets without previews like Fieldstaff Reports: South Asia Series Volume 19, The Bombay Civic Journal Volume 14, Antipoverty Rural Development In India, Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century.... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Notable or not, this is too promotional to keep. Sandstein 11:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Sandstein, this spammy stuff needs a good dose of TNT. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Jovanmilic97 (talk · contribs) definitively establish that Seva Mandir passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline in having received significant coverage in multiple book sources. I removed a promotional sentence from the article and do not find the rest of the text to be particularly promotional. The article text contains factual information about the group. I do not consider this to be a WP:TNT case.
Cunard (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Achse des Guten[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, due to lack of WP:RS. The article has self published sources. It also fails following two notability criteria for websites. 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. and 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Masum Reza^📞 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is as blatant case of WP:NN as I have ever seen. Only a primary source and that is a blog (so invalid per WP:BLOGS). It was tagged in 2010 as needing improvement: it hasn't shaped up so it should be shipped out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: Hello, You need state your vote using Delete or Keep in AfD discussions. Please have a look at WP:AFDFORMAT. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 15:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, this is the first of these I've encountered. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: Also use * instead of colons to start the message where you added your vote. You can reply using colons. Masum Reza^📞 16:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- please look at the interwiki. There are quite a few sources on the German page, some of which would seem to be reliable. matt91486 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or rewrite...), long-term notable blog. From the German Wikipedia's article you can see that their internal quarrels make major mainstream news: [34], [35]. Failing that, redirect to Henryk M. Broder. —Kusma (t·c) 18:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the redirect idea. As a general principle (irrespective of this particular case), what makes a blog notable? Surely the author(s) would have to be very notable indeed? and convincing (RS) evidence produced that it is influential. I suggest also that articles in each language wikipedia should be notable enough to stand on their own after a reasonable time has elapsed to bring them up to scratch. If there are significant interwiki sources, it should not be a big effort to meet this test. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERLANG. English Wikipedia has different notability guidelines than most other wikis. I don't know German, so I didn't bother to check it. You need to add reliable sources here to prove notability. It doesn't matter, if those sources exist there. Masum Reza^📞 19:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masumrezarock100, I have just linked to two reliable sources. I am aware that the fact that the German Wikipedia has an article is at best anecdotal evidence for an AFD here, but the point is that the German article's references show that there are WP:RS talk about the blog, showing that the first of the notability criteria you mention in your nomination is satisfied. —Kusma (t·c) 19:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true, Masumrezarock100 -- WP:NEXIST means that sources need to exist, not be added to the article. If the German language wiki has reliable sources, that is sufficient. And checking the interwiki is a basic aspect of WP:BEFORE, which should have been done before any nomination. matt91486 (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm supposed to know that sources exist if I don't know the language? True, English Wikipedia does permit us to use sources in different languages. But how would I know if I can't identify what sources are reliable? This article has been almost abondoned. Last substantial edit was adding an image on December 2016. Masum Reza^📞 06:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recency of editing is not a criteria for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly true but in this case the article has been tagged as needing major improvement for nine years. This has two significant implications: either the npov WP:RSs simply do not exist, or the subject is so non-notable that nobody cares. Or both. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: I will have to agree on this one. This discussion is happening because we want to confirm whether this blog is notable or not. I knew something like this would happen, that's why I started an AfD instead of PRODing it. If you want to improve this article to prove notability feel free to do so. Masum Reza^📞 10:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: This is a problematic argument in general: obscurity is not the same thing as WP non-notability; we have articles on plenty of obscure but notable topics that nobody touches for many years. Hence WP:IMPATIENT. It's especially problematic when the article is about a topic mainly of interest for non-English-speakers. The German Wikipedia article gets a good amount of editing interest. I haven't researched this case though so no !vote from me, at least for the moment. (Edit: Have !voted keep after checking the sources.) —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To steal from Terry Pratchett, nine years is a definition of impatient that I haven't come across before. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, the interwiki should be consulted. There are various sources from there that indicate notability. Going through them should have fallen under the onus of the nominator as a step of WP:BEFORE. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. These are all third party, reliable sources (and most of them fairly prominent, though Migazin is a bit more narrowly focused). And this is without any additional searching. These sources were already all present in the German article. The book chapter referenced (I just downloaded it) doesn't talk about it extensively, but provides an additional credible academic cite for classifying it as an anti-Islamic blog. As such, Keep. matt91486 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to reiterate NEXIST: It doesn't matter if the article is improved if the sources to indicate notability exists -- which these do regardless of if I (or anyone else) takes the time to incorporate them into the article. matt91486 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand a single one of them. Google translate does no good. I can easily say that those are third party sources but I can't prove that those are reliable. Masum Reza^📞 18:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I take your point that Google translate doesnt help indicate a source's reliability, you could easily look at the English language wiki articles on Berliner Zeitung, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Der Tagesspiegel. matt91486 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This link (https://taz.de/!539420/) is not about the blog; it is about the author of the blog, so it's not a good source for any WP article about the blog itself. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | yak _ 06:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After verifying the sources listed by Matt91486 above, I believe this is very much a notable topic. Of particular note is the article about it in the Berliner Zeitung describing it as "the most influential German author blog" in the headline. The Die Welt article lists it as being on "the first place" for German blogs. The Migazin article discusses the blog at length. Disputes on the blog are given substantial news coverage. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see the German article for many sources on this topic, demonstrating notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:03, 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. There are no credible arguments for delete other than the nominator. Several sources have been posited as providing SIGCOV, and since multiple of these (but not all) have remained unchallenged over a period of time, I judge consensus to be keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saranga Shrestha[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Translations of the presented sources do not show any significant coverage related to the subject's career as an actress or a dancer. IMDb Link credits her for insignificant roles in two movies. Not meeting minimum requirements per WP:GNG either. I am open to the reassessment of non-English sources by an expert in Nepalese language. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On WP:NEXIST basis. I will attempt to convince you of the same (I do have a bias as the creator of the article.)

I started creating this one back when I wouldn't first collect sources before starting on the article. This actor is notable. But I can't prove it on strict Wikipedia standards. I don't have access to offline sources and we don't have a reliable and prolific online source on entertainment in Nepal. So, having started the article, I left the article with all the hopefully non-controversial sources I could find, hoping I'd at least established that the actor is real and notable based on NPOSSIBLE.
First off, this is the state of the article on the most successful Nepali actress in history. This is the case because she went in decline before the internet became a big thing in Nepal. It's the same case with our subject, although she was not nearly as successful. I could beef up both with iffy sources. I chose not to.
For example, this gives 23 film credits for our subject and this one gives 25. Almost all of them were as lead actress or co-lead as love interest of the protagonist. I didn't use these sources because they're not standard reliable sources but on the other hand, I think they do meet the spirit of the WP:SOURCE statement that appropriateness of any source depends on the context since there's little reason to fabricate filmography of a retired actress who's moved on from her profession as well as country, not to mention these sources are used in almost all other articles on Nepali film.
I am certain there's plenty of offline RS coverage of her during her prime, which was most of the 90s and early 2000s. I can see at least half a dozen credits of those 23-25, which anyone from Nepal who knows anything about Nepali film would know of. Like: Aago - A big name pro-maoist propaganda feature released during the maoist insurgency, which generated plenty of controversy and earned some dough at the back of that controversy, but also got banned and generated freedom of expression/censorship debates, which was had again when it re-shot and re-released after the insurgency ended, even leading to a sequel.
This is the extent of what I'm willing to say in defence of this article. I do think it will contribute to systemic bias in Wikipedia if it is deleted, but other than that I am not really going to lose sleep over this one. I certainly wouldn't create this article now, but I wouldn't go as far as deleting it either.Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I quickly found an RS for this article, on my first google search ~ that I have edited into the article ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchellhobbs:, As I said earlier that I am open to revaluation of the sources, but this is not something that can help in establishing notability. I recommend you to understand WP:GNG before !voting keeps in AfDs. Regards Hitro talk 07:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It, nonetheless, supports NPOSSIBLE. As such, I appreciate the effort. I don't think we ought to be judging who understands which policies, with any amount of certainty. Let's leave that to uninvolved editors who will close the discussion. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool:, No it is not like we need to leave the things to the closing administrator. This not how AfDs work. This is not the forum to create indiscriminate possibilities to misguide the discussion and eventual road to consensus. We are trying to reach consensus and community needs to discuss before reaching the consensus. We need to make policy based rationale to keep or delete the article. Read and understand these policies and guidelines, this what is written in WP:BEFORE. I have made policy based nomination, I did my research before bringing this article here. I came across few passing mentions that I deemed not enough for demonstrating notability. Even you made it clear that there are lack of online sourcing and you have not produced any instant of offline sourcing yet. This is not the kind of sourcing that is required to be discussed to demonstrate WP:GNG. Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD, there are some expectations from the users who are taking part in AfDs. You don't need to vote on everything. Hitro talk 10:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant to say was, the first sentence of your comment was sufficient to make your point as it relates to this AfD. Perhaps we disagree on that, but since that's not what we're trying to resolve here, let's leave it at that. To be clear, I do think I've supplied enough evidence to assure editors that offline sources do/must exist even if I can't provide them. But I do understand that ... once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, ... and so I leave it at the capable hands of the community to decide its fate. My non-chalance is mainly to do with how little there is to write about the subject currently, and how easily the content can be recovered/recreated when the sources become available (neither of which is a reason to delete though). Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HitroMilanese: ~ Nice to meet you ~ as I said I quickly found a RS mentioning her and several other performers in the United States about a Nepali actor/performers~ if I ~ being so (inexperienced) as to find a RS mentioning someone from Nepal in such a large city as Baltimore ~ I'm sure an editor with more experience (and a faster computer) would be able to find more information quickly ~ and I think that a mention of her in the Baltimore Sun is worth mentioning, I understand it is not a slam dunk but every little bit helps ~ Also !voting is open to any one for any reason ~ and telling me I should understand one of wiki's WP:GNG ~ before I vote ~ is like telling me don't vote for this candidate because I can't speak his language ~ it's quite improper ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:No coverage whatsoever on Google news or anywhere. Fails WP:NACTOR Ozar77 08:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So, you're back, eh? I recommend reading WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:AFD and WP:GNG before you resume editing on Wikipedia. Feel free to ask at the WP:Teahouse if you find anything confusing. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:00, 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) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Search of Native Name (सारंगा श्रेष्ठ) gives a some good references like 1, 2 that provides WP:SIGCOV of the actress in respect to her acting career. Given that this is one of the oldest movies in Nepal, it is hard to find reference for the actress and the movie. But I found some references that talk about the movie 'Aago' here and here. The later talks also about more of the movies she has worked on. Also WP:GNGACTOR mentions that missing out WP:GNG doesn't mean the actor is not notable and it isn't required to have in-depth coverage of the individual in the reliable source. These references along with the ones already on the page is, I believe, enough to prove her notability, both for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to a comment now withdrawn:) Hello again Ozar77, you don't need to reaffirm your vote after the relisting. The closer evaluates the discussion all the way from the top. You can just put the word "delete" in one of the two between <s></s> and it will prevent any confusion. Regards! (The way to sign your comment is to end your comment with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks. Ozar77 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | yak _ 06:38, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoho Town[edit]

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

nothing besides iinfo, fails NBUILD and GNG viz ✦ 05:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. viz ✦ 05:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Huang, Shu-Mei (2015). Urbanizing Carescapes of Hong Kong: Two Systems, One City. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-07391-8726-5. Retrieved 2019-07-28.
脫苦海 (2013-01-19). "嚴選私樓王──元朗。新時代廣場 (Yoho Town)". Yahoo! Finance (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-07-28. Retrieved 2019-07-28.
曾淵滄 (2015). 富足自由人3 ──買樓收租10P之道 (in Chinese). Hong Kong: 天窗出版. pp. 58–59, 159. ISBN 9888292943. Retrieved 2019-07-28.
"每呎 $1560　元朗區最平: YOHO入場費74萬". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2003-07-03. Archived from the original on 2018-06-15. Retrieved 2019-07-28.

Sources with quotes
Huang, Shu-Mei (2015). Urbanizing Carescapes of Hong Kong: Two Systems, One City. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-07391-8726-5. Retrieved 2019-07-28. The book notes: The housing estate, YOHO TOWN, is a typical private development resulting from the widely-applied Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) model, considered an ideal strategy to decentralize Hong Kong's crowded population to new towns along the expanding massive transportation network in New Territories. YOHO TOWN is modeled after Tokyo Midtown in Japan, and eventually will contain about 6,000 residential units in 33-50 story towers in three phases. Each phase contains one shopping center and about 2,000 flats, most of which are two-bedroom units that are favorable to the middle-class families and presumably cross-border investors. It is worth noting that the size of two-bedroom flats in Hong Kong is barely half of their North American counterpart across the Pacific. "Bedroom," as one Filipino engineer working as an expat in the city mocked, is at best "a room for a bed." The prototypical compact flat requires inhabitants to adjust their conceptualization of home space because one will find it challenging to put a stjdy desk in her own flat. Instead, the estate has a private "club house" where the residents can access a variety of educational and recreational facilities, including a common study room, a gymnasium, a swimming pool, a play room for children, piano practice rooms, Wi-Fi and so on—basically a thorough externalization of domestic functions to make up the insufficient space of individual flats but without the feminist spirit of socializing care appearing in the US during the 1890–1920s (Hayden, 1982). There are at least 50-80 janitors and servic workers at each private estate to maintain its operation. The ownership-residents pay a monthly management fee of $232.2, which includes the clubhouse membership and other services such as security, cleaning, mail, and so on. The fee varies depends upno the size and age of the building and usually can be equivalent to the rent of a subdivided room in Sham Shui Po. 脫苦海 (2013-01-19). "嚴選私樓王──元朗。新時代廣場 (Yoho Town)". Yahoo! Finance (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-07-28. Retrieved 2019-07-28. The article notes: 新時代廣場的名字比較令人陌生，英文名可能更多人知：Yoho Town，主題是Young Town，意即年輕的城市。與新地其他的輕鐵總站項目「新元朗中心」和「新屯門中心」不同，屋苑更近似於沙田「新城市廣場」，以整體概念興建的大型綜合性發展項目。新時代廣場共分三期發展，第一期Yoho Town和第二期Yoho Midtown已完成，現正興建第三期Yoho Mega Town。其中第一期是純住宅，以二房及三房單位為主；第二期有基座商場，開則變化較大，由一房到四房都有，而且有更多大單位可供選擇。開則是以日字廳及左右廳為主，第二期有部份大單位以曲尺廳開則，均是方正易擺位。屋苑規模大，所以各自設有會所，而部份細單位只有環保露台，沒有工作平台，所以更見實用，可惜整體實用率只有77%，得1.5分。 From Google Translate: The name of New Times Square is relatively strange, and the English name may be more known: Yoho Town, the theme is Young Town, which means young city. Unlike the other new LRT Terminus projects, the "New Yuen Long Centre" and the "New Tuen Mun Centre", the estate is similar to the "New Town Plaza" in Sha Tin. It is a large-scale integrated development project with a holistic concept. New Times Square has been developed in three phases. The first phase of Yoho Town and the second phase of Yoho Midtown have been completed and the third phase of Yoho Mega Town is being built. The first phase is pure residential, mainly two-bedroom and three-bedroom units; the second phase has a pedestal shopping mall, which has a large change from one to four rooms, and there are more large units to choose from. The opening is based on the Japanese character hall and the left and right halls. In the second phase, some large units are opened in the curved room, and they are all placed in the square. The housing estates are large in size, so each has its own clubhouse. Some of the fine units have only an environmentally-friendly terrace and no working platform. Therefore, it is more practical. Unfortunately, the overall utility rate is only 77%, which is 1.5 points. 曾淵滄 (2015). 富足自由人3 ──買樓收租10P之道 (in Chinese). Hong Kong: 天窗出版. pp. 58–59, 159. ISBN 9888292943. Retrieved 2019-07-28. The book notes on page 59: 我舉個例子，新鴻基地發展的 YOHO Town 開售時，它賣得比同區貴一點，但我還是覺得盒宜的，因為新地將整個 YOHO Town 所在的區域，都發展成一般，交通、飲食配套俱備、把整個社區質素提升了，樓盤較同區有溢價，但也是值得的。 The book notes on page 159: 讓我舉一個正面的例子，你便更加明白我在說甚麼。新鴻基地產在元朗發展的 YOHO Town 及 YOHO Midtown 就是正面的例子。新地元朗那遍地後，便積極開發，落力將全區改造成與之前不同的社 YOHO Town 及 YOHO Midtown 當年賣七千元多元一呎，明顯定同區其他樓盤高，但這兩個樓盤高，享有較同區高的溢價是應該的，個項目將個社區改變，把整個地方升級，定價取沒有不可。 "每呎 $1560　元朗區最平: YOHO入場費74萬". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2003-07-03. Archived from the original on 2018-06-15. Retrieved 2019-07-28. The article notes: 【本報訊】新鴻基地產（016）今年首個大型重頭項目，兼今年度主要賣樓收入來源的元朗 YOHO Town，昨日公布以即供平均呎價1560元，推出首批16個公開發售單位，呎價貼近同區二手市場，但最平宜的單位僅73.73萬元，屬全區最平的新盤單位。業內人士指出，此類細價盤容易上車，料可重現馬灣珀麗灣的盛況。 YOHO Town是新地繼去年珀麗灣後最大規模的一個新盤。元朗 YOHO Town首批16單位，位於第2座2及3樓，呎價最平1399元，其中2伙售價不足80萬元，低於100萬元的則佔12伙。地產代理指出，區內二手樓如新元朗中心、朗晴居的低層單位呎價約1600元，樓齡較新的采葉庭呎價約1700元，故 YOHO Town的開售價較貼近市場。售價在120萬元以下的上車盤，為近期最熱賣的單位；120萬以上的承接力會受到考驗。

Sources with quotes

Huang, Shu-Mei (2015). Urbanizing Carescapes of Hong Kong: Two Systems, One City. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-07391-8726-5. Retrieved 2019-07-28.
The book notes:
The housing estate, YOHO TOWN, is a typical private development resulting from the widely-applied Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) model, considered an ideal strategy to decentralize Hong Kong's crowded population to new towns along the expanding massive transportation network in New Territories.
YOHO TOWN is modeled after Tokyo Midtown in Japan, and eventually will contain about 6,000 residential units in 33-50 story towers in three phases. Each phase contains one shopping center and about 2,000 flats, most of which are two-bedroom units that are favorable to the middle-class families and presumably cross-border investors. It is worth noting that the size of two-bedroom flats in Hong Kong is barely half of their North American counterpart across the Pacific. "Bedroom," as one Filipino engineer working as an expat in the city mocked, is at best "a room for a bed." The prototypical compact flat requires inhabitants to adjust their conceptualization of home space because one will find it challenging to put a stjdy desk in her own flat. Instead, the estate has a private "club house" where the residents can access a variety of educational and recreational facilities, including a common study room, a gymnasium, a swimming pool, a play room for children, piano practice rooms, Wi-Fi and so on—basically a thorough externalization of domestic functions to make up the insufficient space of individual flats but without the feminist spirit of socializing care appearing in the US during the 1890–1920s (Hayden, 1982). There are at least 50-80 janitors and servic workers at each private estate to maintain its operation. The ownership-residents pay a monthly management fee of $232.2, which includes the clubhouse membership and other services such as security, cleaning, mail, and so on. The fee varies depends upno the size and age of the building and usually can be equivalent to the rent of a subdivided room in Sham Shui Po.
脫苦海 (2013-01-19). "嚴選私樓王──元朗。新時代廣場 (Yoho Town)". Yahoo! Finance (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-07-28. Retrieved 2019-07-28.
The article notes:
新時代廣場的名字比較令人陌生，英文名可能更多人知：Yoho Town，主題是Young Town，意即年輕的城市。與新地其他的輕鐵總站項目「新元朗中心」和「新屯門中心」不同，屋苑更近似於沙田「新城市廣場」，以整體概念興建的大型綜合性發展項目。
新時代廣場共分三期發展，第一期Yoho Town和第二期Yoho Midtown已完成，現正興建第三期Yoho Mega Town。其中第一期是純住宅，以二房及三房單位為主；第二期有基座商場，開則變化較大，由一房到四房都有，而且有更多大單位可供選擇。開則是以日字廳及左右廳為主，第二期有部份大單位以曲尺廳開則，均是方正易擺位。
屋苑規模大，所以各自設有會所，而部份細單位只有環保露台，沒有工作平台，所以更見實用，可惜整體實用率只有77%，得1.5分。
From Google Translate:
The name of New Times Square is relatively strange, and the English name may be more known: Yoho Town, the theme is Young Town, which means young city. Unlike the other new LRT Terminus projects, the "New Yuen Long Centre" and the "New Tuen Mun Centre", the estate is similar to the "New Town Plaza" in Sha Tin. It is a large-scale integrated development project with a holistic concept.
New Times Square has been developed in three phases. The first phase of Yoho Town and the second phase of Yoho Midtown have been completed and the third phase of Yoho Mega Town is being built. The first phase is pure residential, mainly two-bedroom and three-bedroom units; the second phase has a pedestal shopping mall, which has a large change from one to four rooms, and there are more large units to choose from. The opening is based on the Japanese character hall and the left and right halls. In the second phase, some large units are opened in the curved room, and they are all placed in the square.
The housing estates are large in size, so each has its own clubhouse. Some of the fine units have only an environmentally-friendly terrace and no working platform. Therefore, it is more practical. Unfortunately, the overall utility rate is only 77%, which is 1.5 points.
曾淵滄 (2015). 富足自由人3 ──買樓收租10P之道 (in Chinese). Hong Kong: 天窗出版. pp. 58–59, 159. ISBN 9888292943. Retrieved 2019-07-28.
The book notes on page 59:
我舉個例子，新鴻基地發展的 YOHO Town 開售時，它賣得比同區貴一點，但我還是覺得盒宜的，因為新地將整個 YOHO Town 所在的區域，都發展成一般，交通、飲食配套俱備、把整個社區質素提升了，樓盤較同區有溢價，但也是值得的。
The book notes on page 159:
讓我舉一個正面的例子，你便更加明白我在說甚麼。新鴻基地產在元朗發展的 YOHO Town 及 YOHO Midtown 就是正面的例子。新地元朗那遍地後，便積極開發，落力將全區改造成與之前不同的社 YOHO Town 及 YOHO Midtown 當年賣七千元多元一呎，明顯定同區其他樓盤高，但這兩個樓盤高，享有較同區高的溢價是應該的，個項目將個社區改變，把整個地方升級，定價取沒有不可。
"每呎 $1560　元朗區最平: YOHO入場費74萬". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2003-07-03. Archived from the original on 2018-06-15. Retrieved 2019-07-28.
The article notes:
【本報訊】新鴻基地產（016）今年首個大型重頭項目，兼今年度主要賣樓收入來源的元朗 YOHO Town，昨日公布以即供平均呎價1560元，推出首批16個公開發售單位，呎價貼近同區二手市場，但最平宜的單位僅73.73萬元，屬全區最平的新盤單位。業內人士指出，此類細價盤容易上車，料可重現馬灣珀麗灣的盛況。 YOHO Town是新地繼去年珀麗灣後最大規模的一個新盤。
元朗 YOHO Town首批16單位，位於第2座2及3樓，呎價最平1399元，其中2伙售價不足80萬元，低於100萬元的則佔12伙。地產代理指出，區內二手樓如新元朗中心、朗晴居的低層單位呎價約1600元，樓齡較新的采葉庭呎價約1700元，故 YOHO Town的開售價較貼近市場。售價在120萬元以下的上車盤，為近期最熱賣的單位；120萬以上的承接力會受到考驗。

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yoho Town to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Actually the photo showing a massive, multi-tower development, bigger in population than most of the towns/villages/communities covered in Wikipedia, suffices for me. Anything this sizeable is also a Geographic feature, changing the earth's gravitational field and all that. ---Doncram (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to recreation if sufficient sources are provided. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Tokov[edit]

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

Hasn't played in a WP:FPL league despite being signed by Pune FC, their is no data stating that he did play for the team. HawkAussie (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable football player. Barca (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per this .He did play and score for Pune against chirag FC and hence may pass WP:NFOOTY .He earlier played football in Uzbekistan as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted above, Tokov actually does pass NFOOTY thanks to his appearance(s) in the I-League for Pune ... Soccerway shows he scored. Of course it's dependant on how many apps he made here, could be 1 or the full 26. Worth, at least, clarifying, if possible. R96Skinner (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and has played at the top level in Uzbekistan a country with 32 million people and where Football is the most popluar sport.this ,this and further this and this show that he had long career in Uzbekistan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack indepth sourcing on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY, as played in top level of Uzbekistan football, and also in the I-League in India. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the NFOOTY presumption of notability is rebutted by the lack of WP:SIGCOV. The "Uzbek Mystery" article is a routine new-guy interview. Goal.com is one paragraph with five sentences. The other two are just stats. We don't have the sources from which to write an article. – Levivich 02:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Levivich says, we don’t even have the sources to write an article. In light of that, debates about NFOOTY are clearly irrelevant. No coverage in reliable sources = no article. —Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Timoner[edit]

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

He hasn't managed in a league that is part of WP:FPL with him managing in the second tier of Hong Kong football. HawkAussie (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a second tier football manager - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro football manager which fails the GNG. I tried to locate any information in his native Argentina about a previous management or playing career there and came up with nothing but routine mentions of his managerial career in Hong Kong. Jogurney (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is actually more than meets the eye here, which brings an interesting question: Timoner managed Happy Valley in the second tier of Hong Kong football, the Hong Kong First Division League, between August and October 2013 (per Soccerway), a league that was professional until 2014 (as noted at FPL). However, Happy Valley's results were expunged [41] in the following February (2014) and they were excluded; though disciplinary stuff remains 'on record' [42] - long after Timoner left. So, he did manage in an FPL league... it's just a question of how we see the expunging of results. Thoughts? GiantSnowman, CASSIOPEIA & Jogurney. R96Skinner (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to stop turning biographical articles into directories of some sports.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 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 Kenneth Anderson (writer). Recreation is possible if any editor has access to the sources mentioned. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Maneaters And One Rogue[edit]

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

There are no sources to show this book is notable. In a before search I could find only a couple of blogs reader's reviews and book sellers. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Kenneth Anderson, an old time writer (and big-game hunter) who is having something of a revival, see, for example, How the legacy of a colonial hunter has inspired conservation efforts in the forests of south India, which has a sentence that mentions this book. I can find no reviews in news archive searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran a gBooks search on "Nine Maneaters And One Rogue" and came up with pages of hits, several in the 1st and 2nd page seem to be book reviews in New Statesman and other British periodicals. At the very least this is a useful search term, and it would very probably meet WP:NBOOK if someone with good acccess to old periodicals undertook the task.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you may well be right, I've just checked myself on my phone and I honestly don't know why these didn't come up when I searched on my computer. I'll have a look at them tomorrow and will happily withdraw if they seem sufficient. Thanks for that. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kenneth Anderson per E.M.Gregory - if we can't establish notability but we think we might be able to, and it's still a good redirect, then an alternative to deletion is preferable. And, if someone can find it, that editor can go back and add it and re-establish the article. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Bin Faisal bin Khaled Al Qassimi[edit]

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

Press releases, adulatory promo pieces, passing mentions, and listicles. This guy may own half the UAE but clearly has not attracted personal coverage outside what his PR bureau arranges. Fails WP:NBIO. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. There is precedent here that merely being a billionaire is sufficient for notability. I recall an English billionaire's article being kept solely because of his wealth. Pinging DGG. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reliable evidence he's a billionaire. The money mentioned in the article is the funding for his projects, not his personal wealth. He's not included in the 2018 Forbes List for the Middle East : [43] or in 2019 [44]. (And the Forbes listings are for the family, not the individual). At this time there are over 2,000 billionaires. I think I would use a higher level than I did 15 years ago. But he simply is not as wealthy or important as the article implies--his actual position is running a hospital chain. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for UPE. MER-C 16:02, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masami Akazawa[edit]

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

According to ja-wiki (ja:赤澤昌美), he played 10 matches in the 1991–92 Japan Soccer League#JSL Second Division for Kashima Antlers (formerly Sumitomo). However, this league is not a professional league. Kashima Antlers joined the professional league, J1 League in 1992. However, he did not play in the match in 1992 season and 1993 season. This article shows this source [45]. But, the source is also written "0 match" in J1 League. This article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. 忍者小僧 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - MA Javadi (talk) 15:25, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Harnett[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as his elected office is to a neighborhood advisory commission in Washington, DC and while he was elected at 19 I don't think that on itself could bring Harnett to notability. Almost all of the 28 sources are either primary, from his college or high school newspaper, passing mentions, or social media posts. GPL93 (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a neighborhood advisory commission does not pass WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neighbourhood advisory commission (a/k/a neighborhood council) is not a level of office that gets an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2, but this article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over the bar: of the 28 footnotes here, nine of them are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (i.e. Twitter tweets and/or the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with), another 11 are high school or college student newspapers which are not notability-assisting coverage, and the few that are real general-market media are still exclusively local coverage which doesn't demonstrate a credible reason why his notability could be deemed to have nationalized at all. As always, GNG is not just "anybody who's gotten their name into any media outlet twice or more" — GNG does not just test for the number of footnotes, but also applies tests for depth and range and context, and the sourcing here isn't passing those tests. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable level of office, and being elected at 19 does not change that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as his elected office is to a neighborhood advisory commission in Washington DC. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fails WP:NPOL passes WP:GNG - only needs to pass one or the other. Subject is notable for being the youngest elected official in Washington, D.C. (19). Once a subject is notable always notable. per WP:NTEMP Washington Post, North Jersey/USA Today, college publication - GW Hatchet, CNN. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NPOL, and even if stories cover him as the youngest official when elected, it looks like all the significant coverage is about that, so the main notability claim fails under WP:BLP1E. The rest of the coverage appears to be passing mentions and routine coverage that any elected official gets. If an article on that election existed, one sentence about this person could go there, but a full biographical article in the encyclopedia is neither necessary nor justified. Bakazaka (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka. What about this one which is not about his election or politician status? North Jersey/USA Today Lightburst (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat already addressed that above, so I'm not sure why you're replying to me here. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it. Bearcat dismissed a number of sources as primary but did not address the in depth coverage in the sources I cited above (Bearcat only addresses the failing sources). Nor did he address the coverage in that in depth USA Today piece that had to do with the subject's Eagle Scout work. Lightburst (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post article is technically local coverage, even "national" newspapers still cover local interest stories. The "USA Today" piece is actually a NorthJersey.com article, USAToday.com hosts pretty much every local paper owned by its parent company Gannett, so its really an article published in The Record (Bergen County, New Jersey), the Herald News, or the Daily Record (Morristown) about his Eagle Scout project. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinion. We also forgot the CNN Lisa Ling national television program about hackers. I encourage the editors to read the in-depth sources The coverage in each was for different achievements/participations. Subject has coverage on CNN TV for being the youngest participant in Hackerfest, In depth coverage for his Eagle Scout work in North Jersey/USA Today, and in Depth coverage in the Washington Post for being being elected to office at 19. We have a good article about a notable subject IMO. Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bearcat did a great job in examining the sources above, demonstrating that the subject fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The sources are either primary, non-reliable, or local coverage only. And, as Bakazaka mentioned, as his only real claim to notability was his age when elected, that falls under WP:BLP1E. Rorshacma (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echoplex Digital Pro[edit]

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

This is just not a notable product. The article is a mix of primary sources and promotional stuff, including all the links. It's essentially a product description with a bunch of names and links dropped in. Oh, it was written by the person who claims to have built the machine. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overly promotional tone, and a lack of third-party reliable sources suggests this is not a notable product. WP:COI in writing doesn't help the situation, either. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Is Real Derby[edit]

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

Recreation of Hell is Real and Cincinnati-Columbus rivalry. I am still not convinced that this meets WP:GNG, but the matches in MLS are quickly approaching (August 10, 2019) and it may very soon. I think further consensus needs to be generated on whether or not this article should be kept. Jay eyem (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have to agree with GiantSnowman. Barca (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In spite of this being a young rivalry I think this is a clear pass, and even for the sake of argument it's not a clear pass, it's borderline and will be a clear pass in less than two weeks when they have their first league derby match. Plenty of WP:GNG coverage already such as FourFourTwo (referenced by the Guardian) and others [46] [47] [48] along with the assumedly non-RS usual US Soccer blogosphere. SportingFlyer T·C 17:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this rivalry will only intensify after the two clubs play in August. SportingFlyer referenced some great articles on the topic and here is one more. [49] Ruschear90 16:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough to satisfy WP:GNG and more will come. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clear notability. The two teams may have only played once so far, but there are already news publications about this topic. BLAIXX 10:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rivalry has received ample coverage in reliable sources. Obviously notable. Smartyllama (talk) 12:20, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca Alvarado[edit]

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

The subject is a niche politician of no real notability. The article contains a great deal of non-verifiable information. A cursory Google search shows no RS validating the information in this article outside of the puff piece in the Mercury News. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more coverage of her than just the Mercury piece, including this, and I suspect there is lots more out there for such a storied career. It looks as if her activism thing is still going strong at 88 years old; the last time I read about someone similar was Marjory Stoneman Douglas, who today gets more attention and google hits about the shooting in her eponymous school than about her and all her accomplishments. StonyBrook (talk)
Keep Even based on a cursory look, I seem to see lots of entries on the subject. Also used material from the archive entry from the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library at San José State University as a reference. --Big_iron (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Also, I would contend that although the content of her papers in the library at the San José State University would constitute a primary source, the biographical details in the web entry which describes that resource would be extracted from primary sources and hence a reliable secondary source. --Big_iron (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the coverage rises above expected coverage for a city council person and that is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — San Jose is certainly a large enough city that a well-sourced article about a city councillor might be keepable, but three local newspaper articles and two primary sources is not enough referencing to get her over the bar. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if somebody can beef the article up with a lot more than just three reliable sources, but being a city councillor is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 for an article that's referenced this inadequately. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to write an short accurate informative article about someone with a long record of public service. Verifying that there are enough to do so is the purpose of the notability guideline. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 02:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google Books search turns up coverage about her in numerous books such as a chapter in Ethnic Community Builders: Mexican-Americans in Search of Justice and Power. Also her work is covered in these books: Success While Others Fail: Social Movement Unionism and the Public Workplace (Cornell U Press); Silicon Valley, Women, and the California Dream: Gender, Class, and Opportunity in the Twentieth Century (Stanford U Press); American Women Leaders. Netherzone (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone. Having a substantial coverage of a subject in several books (as one can easily check) is proof of notability of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per as above. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hudson Soft games#Super Famicom/Super NES. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caravan Shooting Collection[edit]

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

Although this might come off as ironic, considering I'm infact the creator of the page, but I feel as this fails to meet notability guidelines. Two sources, one being a blank Famitsu database page and another from a likely unreliable Super Famicom fansite. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Hudson Soft games since it's just a collection of the three games stated on the page. --Wow (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hudson Soft games#Super Famicom/Super NES. Plausible search term, but I wasn't able to find sufficient coverage to establish notability. However, given that this was a mid-nineties, Japan-only release, I wouldn't be hugely surprised if coverage of this does exist in Japanese print media, so no prejudice against recreation if anyone does dig up sources. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:14, 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O. Leslie Stone[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searching, this subject does not appear to have received an adequate depth of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. Sources found are short directory listings (e.g. [50]) and what appears to be short minor mentions (from snippet Google Books views). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep I see plenty of sources that indicate that this person could pass the WP:GNG, but User:Northamerica1000 makes a point by stating that the sources do not have enough depth. I have changed my decision to Delete as a result of the subject failing WP:RS. Keep per User:RebeccaGreen's excellent work. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:05, 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) 15:02, 17 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) 00:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources out there that aren't of his employer, the Mormon Church. Trillfendi (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by the others. No independent sources. Changing vote to keep per additions by RebeccaGreen. Rollidan (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hmmmm~~ - I see a two-page long article in this book, and an apparent one-para article here, which appears to be an RS, but I can't read them as they're not accessible online. However, not being accessible online does not dismiss them sustaining notability. Additionally he is one of ~20-30 LDS churchmen to have received emeritus membership of the First Quorum but I'm not sure how big an award that is. I've got to be honest and say that on balance I think sourcing likely exists out there to sustain this guy's notability but, not having read it, I'm not sure how to vote. I guess this doesn't really help anyone but there you go. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Yeah, keep per User:RebeccaGreen's typically excellent work on this thread. FOARP (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have searched Newspapers.com excluding Utah (just to make sure that the newspapers were not affiliated with the LDS church), and I have added 11 references. Most of the significant coverage is from the Oakland Tribune, although there is also some from newspapers in Texas and Idaho. I have added more information from these sources. Other papers in Nevada, Montana, Idaho and Ohio provide supporting information. The articles date from 1961-1978, and cover periods before that too. I believe that he meets WP:GNG, or at least WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I am sorry to come so late to this AfD, but I do wish that editors nominating or !voting on AfDs for people active in pre-internet days would check contemporary news coverage (personally, I think that should be added to the requirements for WP:BEFORE). The sources in an article at the time of nomination are not a valid reason to delete. Perhaps FOARP, and maybe AmericanAir88, would like to have a look at what I've added and see what they think. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was trying to see if the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history had an artcle on him. I was unable to find my copy. If it does, being published 14 years after his death probably makes it indepdent of him. Either way, the sourcing the Rebecca Green dug up clearly shows that Stone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 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.