< 30 July	1 August >

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

The result was redirect to CBWT-DT#News operation. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intermountain Television[edit]

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

Made an error in creating this page. Intermountain was just a subsiduary of Craig Broadcasting that used an existing CBC retransmitter in Dauphin to broadcast local (instead of Winnipeg) news. I thought it was a separate transmitter altogether. OK to delete "Intermountain Television" page. Jimj wpg (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A ping for @Bearcat:, who is definitely the expert on untangling these kinds of things. I'd say a mention in CBWT-DT#News operation (where mention is made already) is likely appropriate, but I'd want to make sure before supporting a redirection there. Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus confirmed, so redirect to CBWT-DT#News operation. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nate. Indeed this wasn't a standalone TV station of its own, but just a local insertion agreement on Dauphin's CBWT retransmitter, so a mention in that station's main article (which is indeed already there, and referenced to the very same CRTC decision that's quoted here) is the most contextually appropriate way to address this. If this had been an actual television station, it would have had a call sign and a CRTC license. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfuckupable[edit]

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

Non notable term. Also WP:NOTDICT Praxidicae (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it should be kept, I don't think it's nonsense. Hvnlytearss (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. best, GPL93 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDICT applies here. However, I'd argue that could undergo a Speedy Delete as vandalism, given the tone of the article and the fact that the one source being used doesn't even corroborate the definition this attempted joke is claiming. Rorshacma (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT. (Plus we've got this word covered already at Wiktionary - this article adds nothing verifiable to that). GirthSummit _(blether) 22:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT, especially that the term is obscure and has no notable uses, in contrast to LOL. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT End of. Trillfendi (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rorshacma: What else makes you think this is vandalism and not just a poor-quality good-faith page writing? AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I mentioned, the only source being used here (from definitions.net, which itself is taking the information from Wiktionary) does not even support the information that the article creator tagged it to. That strikes me as an intentional bit of misdirection. The same user also recently edited the Wiktionary entry on the word to add this same definition to it, that is tagged as being unverified. It looks more like a concentrated effort to coin a new use for the slang by the user than a legitimate attempt to create an article. Of course, I could be wrong, and this could have just been a very misguided attempt to create a legitimate article. It doesn't really matter at this point, as it does not appear that there is any chance at this not being deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, G1 (patent nonsense) doesn't apply here: "In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply." AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AnUnnamedUser No one has suggested G1...Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDICT akso this is not widely used term Lightburst (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A new word every day, however this isn't Wiktionary. Clear WP:DICTDEF fail. Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense terminology. Barca (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not a dictionary, and it has no place here. Let Wiktionary or whoever sort it out please, not us. DBaK (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. It's Not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 7 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mejias[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and pretty much all coverage are from his state senate and congressional campaigns. Maybe redirect to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in New York? GPL93 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON - I've heard of him, but not more than any other candidate for public office. We can always re-create an article if he gets elected to state or federal office. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, this doesn't even try to claim or source that he had preexisting notability that would have gotten him an article for other reasons independent of the candidacy, and a small smattering of the merely expected local campaign coverage in the local media is not a free pass over WP:GNG that would exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL by winning. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a person who becomes a candidate in the elections but without success is not considered as notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New York County office holders are not notable, just because they call them "legislators" instead of commissioners or council members or judges as they do in other states, does not make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Starlito. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Warrior (mixtape)[edit]

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

Notability unmet and poorly sourced Sociable Song (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Starlito. Non-notable album. SL93 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Starlito. There does not appear to be enough coverage to meet the WP:Notability, but it could be a valid search term so I think a redirect would be better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Sipos[edit]

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

BLP sourced only to IMDB since 2010. Mccapra (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found nothing to show notability per WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any WP:RS on Colin. Not notable enough to warrant a Wiki page. Coldsweats (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:ENT, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Agree with above, I could not signs of notability. Alex-h (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time we jettison every article only sourced to IMDb. This is such a large problem it really should be its own special speedy deletion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia H. Allred[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It was previously deleted a year ago according to deletion logs and i don't think the subject's notability has changed since that time Josalm64rc (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. One of the many LDS articles being pushed on Wikipedia. No notability for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Only trivially mentioned in 2 sources and work/position not notable per se. Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - run of the mill missionary and speaker, something every Mormon must do. No significant coverage outside of LDS materials. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get the push to remove this article and I understand the need to keep Wikipedia on target, but I would appeal to a recent article in The New York Times about the gaping disparity in profiles for men versus women. Allred spent five years as the number two leader of an organization of more than 7 million women. She may not have yielded the appropriate press coverage, but we start to get into a chicken-and-the-egg scenario where Wikipedia can improve exposure to garner more coverage. Allred is a woman, a person of color, and from a small nation. Whatever your eye-rolling thoughts of people of her religion, I think a well-written and arguably sourced article might move Wikipedia in the right direction. Please forgive my inexperience with Wikipedia--I'm still learning. Fullrabb (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a member of the church pertaining to this article, I understand the push for more coverage. However, as significant coverage does not exist in independent, reliable sources, the individual fails WP:GNG. Rollidan (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belle 9ice[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST. Even if all of the cited sources are reliable (not clear that this is the case), the coverage therein is a mix of routine music release announcements and interviews and is thus insufficient for GNG. Internet searches did not turn up anything better. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 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. Sandstein 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trilion Quality Systems[edit]

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

At present, the article is almost entirely sourced to the company's website, or that of a partner company. There are a few other refs to documents partly written by people associated with the company, and a couple of other articles that don't actually mention the company, or that mention their products in passing but don't discuss the company - in short, nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I looked for independent sourcing, and failed to find anything giving significant coverage, so the subject fails WP:NCORP. I also note that this article is the author's first substantive contribution, having made just enough minor edits to get autoconfirmed earlier this month. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the company. I note that an article with this name has previously been deleted, and am amazed at the competency of the "newbie" editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Farach[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Provided coverage is largely not independent of the subject, as the only coverage in reliable sources (Vogue Japan, GQ) are rather fleeting interviews. Previously nominated for PROD, dePROD by the initial editor who claimed that the coverage in Vogue and GQ is independent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's famous in East Asia but not the West. Period. Try googling with filter "site:*.vn" (Vietnam) or tw, jp, hk, etc. Or google her name in Japanese セリーヌ・ファラク or Chinese 席琳法拉奇. You would find more sources over the past two years. She has an artist's page on Universal Japan: https://www.universal-music.co.jp/celine-farach/ . I'm not excessively linking these, but that's not a reason for deletion. Lack of mentions from mainstream English media is not equivalent to no notability either. I'm not a fan of her, but I read much discussion on Chinese forums and turned to enwp first to know more, since she's an American, only to find a page deleted in 2013, so I started this stub, leaving it to her fans. When an American becomes famous in multiple Asian countries, an enwp entry would best serve readers from these countries, and yall should come up with better arguments for deletion than these lame ones rather fleeting interviews, I cherry-pick Google results or non-notable.--Roy17 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

an "artist's page on Universal Japan" is nothing but a primary source that gives no independent indication of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject looks to fail WP:NMUSICIAN at this point. The article lacks the in-depth, independent sourcing to meet NMUSICIAN's points. WP:PRIMARY material does not establish notability, and issue given most of the sources in and off the article are primary.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's notability is not decided by the article. This person has been extensively covered by media in not just one but at least five territories. I am amused to see users arguing a wide range of well-established media are primary sources. Here are two additional pieces from each country fwiw:

It's a wonder she should be non-notable. How many non-notable musicians could get such prolonged coverage and a place on Universal Japan?--Roy17 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so let's take a look at these sources. The Oricon coverage looks good to me if a bit short, the ATPress source looks like promotional coverage for a concert. Both of the Vietnamese sources seem to have an ok amount of depth, but I can't find anything that pushes me over either way as far as figuring out their reliability. The Hong Kong sources do not look reliable, as they appear to be trivial tabloid coverage. The Taiwanese coverage is trivial, comprising several swimsuit photos and some boilerplate comments from subject. Finally, the first Chinese source is just a photo gallery, while the second has some coverage of unclear reliability (published in the sports section of sina.com.cn of all places?) and which still seems to primarily exist to print a bunch fo swimsuit photos.

All in all, I'm on the fence, and would appreciate it if someone more familiar with the Vietnamese sources (as well as sina.com) could weigh in.

I would also add that it's not clear that you understand the difference between being famous and being notable. Notability has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and is a measure of significant coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter how well known someone is if the only coverage we can find is in their record company's artist profile and in tabloids of dubious reliability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VK3RTV[edit]

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

Fails WP:BCAST. Broadcast area is extremely limited. Cannot find anything that indicates station is producing original content. No SIGCOV, all enthusiast blogs. Rogermx (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BCAST as mentioned and fails WP:GNG, in my opinion. I do not see any coverage in mainstream news services. This might be a good entry for an amateur radio wiki—and we may need to think how to structure the deletion to allow proper attribution if this is moved to http://www.amateur-radio-wiki.net/ or the like—but to borrow their wording, this is information "that wouldn't fit in the general audience of Wikipedia". 73 —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , does not satisfy WP:BCAST Alex-h (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Schneiderman[edit]

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

Town supervisor and former county legislator, neither of which are WP:NPOL passes. Article was created by an SPA account. GPL93 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Politicians at the city, town or county council level of political office are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist — the lowest level of office that guarantees a Wikipedia article is the state legislature, while local officeholders qualify for articles only if they can be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG. But in 12 years, the only reference that has ever been added to this article at all is a (deadlinked) councillor profile on the self-published website of the county government itself, which is not an independent or notability-supporting source. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Barca (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too local, run of the mill. If he were Suffolk County Executive, then he'd be notable. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 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) 16:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan Shaheed[edit]

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

Promotional biography of non-notable individual. I was reached out to by a sysop from ar.wiki who says the the sourcing is non-reliable or promotional, and that the subject is not notable and is solely using Wikipedia for promotion. Delete per WP:NOTSPAM and WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. arwiki article deleted under "non-notable individual" --Alaa :)..! 14:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Says a lot when even the Arabic Wikipedia, the primary-language Wikipedia for this subject, says it's not notable. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:36, 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. Sandstein 19:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalPlatform[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While there is some evidence of notability, in my opinion there isn't quite enough to pass the "received significant coverage" requirements of WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UICC configuration. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 14:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable The article is terrible, I wasn't even sure what it was about but I found the home page and this appears to be a standards group for the Internet focusing on IoT (Internet of things). There are no reliable sources in the article and when I did a google search all I found were the home page for the standards group and references on various web sites. Even on the page for news article on the group's site there are no articles in IT magazines or general newspapers or news sites such as CNN, NY Times, or lesser known sources. All they have are their own press releases and press releases from vendors participating in the standard. If they can't even find 3rd party articles about the standard then they almost certainly don't exist. Definitely delete. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:17, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Risingbd.com[edit]

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

This is not notable news media or is not a news media approved by the Bangladesh government. this only news related website. References are used from own and official sites. No reference was given as a significant source. — Delwar • 19:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Delwar • 19:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this news portal not notable newspaper in Bangladesh. Not established online newspapers, Fail WP:GNG. In Bangladesh there are lot of online newspapers available but that’s means all of newspapers aren’t notable. I’m not agree with @DelwarHossain: mention that news media not approved by the Bangladesh government on this point. Since this is a Walton Group newspapers , then of course, this newspaper registered by the government but on the main point this is not a popular newspaper in Bangladesh also no important newspaper for need to be keep on Wikipedia. This article don’t have any WP:RS and last 6 months added WP:GNG tag not meet General Notability Guideline. according to this source here Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission has ordered the closure of 58 news portals in the country. This was the second of the portals ordered to close. this article should be deleted. This is a fully functional newspaper with professional journalists and is owned by a major corporation also User:Vinegarymass911 added reliable sources --Nahal^(T) 07:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NahalAhmed: I am Online News Portal Journalist. No online media has been declared in Bangladesh. However, the application for recognition of online media has been submitted as per the policy. However, there are some online media articles based on the significance of popularity news in Wikipedia. example: Bdnews24.com Banglanews24.com Jago News Bangla Tribune etc. Online News Potarl Ethics --— Delwar • 07:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@DelwarHossain:- I'm agree with you. there are some online media articles based on the significance of popularity news in Wikipedia. The Bangladeshi magazines which are notable are those that mainly print Bangladesh magazines and especially the kind of online news papers that they have already gained a lot of popularity, they can only be considered significant.--Nahal^(T) 10:22, 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) 🐱 08:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I have addded content with citation. This is a fully functional newspaper with professional journalists and is owned by a major corporation, Walton Group. Since I have added references, there are now references in the article. I am of the opinion this passes GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: Please can you provide a source which one passed on general notable guideline? The main two reason for I voted to delete it , that time there was no reliable source found and it was ordered by the BTRC 58 websites to be blocking in 2018. There was a list of interrupted newspaper lists. If there is a credible source that has been unblocking by government. i will change my vote! I didn't agree with who Nominated this page. because The Walton Group is a Bangladeshi biggest company and they are must be an online news paper registered by the government. Thanks --Nahal^(T) 07:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if they are blocked by the government of Bangladesh, that's entirely irrelevant to notability guidelines.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be cautious, the website is a news organization that covers national news in Bangladesh where the government has a record of not respecting freedom the press. The press in Bangladesh generally does not cover rival publications. The fact that it is managed by professional journalist and financed by a large corporation should indicate some importance and at least notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:16, 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Landau[edit]

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

GNG fail. All I can find on this person is that a) she is a curator, b) she got hired at the Israel Museum of art (lots of coverage for the hire), and c) did some shows where she receives trivial mentions, then d) retired (more trivial mentions). There is one controversy she was associated with, but condsidered as a whole, the coverage does not meet our notability standards. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Maybe first, considering she is in Israel, checking in Hebrew would have helped. Plenty of information in depth to meet GNGfull bio]brief bio and working philosophy first woman to head a major museum in Israel,"one of the most prominent and influential figures on the art field in the last three decades"[1],[2] SusunW (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in English isn't bad, but going on the Hebrew name - "סוזן לנדאו" - one sees quite a bit of coverage - not surprising given she ran the largest art museum in Tel Aviv. Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She appears in two New York Times articles: here an here. (Hopefully these links work - I tried to shorten the URLS because the articles are behind a paywall.) Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article author. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's done more than enough. JasonKY (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SusunW's sources. First woman at a major Israeli museum is enough on its own. ~~Also, listing this for WP Museums manually as I can't find the delsort~~ StarM 01:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SSA22−HCM1[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Published papers on the object include the discovery announcement and I found it included in lists in six other papers. No popular coverage at all that I could find. All I got were a lot of mirrors of this page, so possibly something obscure is lurking out there. Lithopsian (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that it fails WP:NASTRO. 20 years after discovery there are only a few journal papers that mention this object. Aldebarium (talk) 19:20, 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Barnett (Jack the Ripper suspect)[edit]

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

I'd suggest merging this toJack the Ripper suspects. However he isn't listed there, which is curious since his relationship with a victim and a profession involving knives would surely have led the police to look at him. I think that this is nonsensical fluff. TheLongTone (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @TheLongTone: - he actually is in the suspects article (permalink) - and the amount of google-book hits (yes, a GHITS - but GBOOKHITS is a bit stronger...) - gbook search ("Joseph Barnett" ripper) - is such that the subject is plausibly notable. Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per research by Icewhiz. Clearly established notability according to me. WP:GNG met.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:NEXIST. The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper, The Complete Jack The Ripper A-Z - The Ultimate Guide to The Ripper Mystery, (An entire chapter devoted to the subject here Jack the Ripper: The Suspects: The Suspects, The Telegraph, and also less reliable WP:PUS The Daily Mail and LAD Bible Lightburst (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Keep there is a lot of material on Barnett, not just because he has been suspected by later writers, but also due to the fact that due to his relationship to the fifth canonical victim Mary Jane Kelly (who is arguably the most written about victim), he was interviewed by both police and the press at the time of the murder. However if it is felt that it is too much of a problem that he is only notable for his connection to Kelly then I would suggest that as well as the Jack the Ripper suspects it should be considered whether any material should be merged to Mary Jane Kelly. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- However I would also add that the article needs work and some of its claims are speculative or questionable. For instance I have never heard the claim made in this article that "After Annie Chapman's death, an envelope that belonged to Barnett was found in the courtyard of Hanbury Street, who could've have lost it when he committed the murder" before and there is no citation for it. There is an online article arguing that a scrap of envelope found with Chapman that could have been addressed to Barnett, but this has been challenged and refuted. I would think if an envelope with his name had been found as this claim suggests it would be very widely known. Dunarc (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom-ed by a sock. W/o prejudice against any fresh nomination . (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Solanki[edit]

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

Notability in question, fails: WP:PEOPLE Roundmaster (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roundmaster (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:29, 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. Sandstein 19:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S. G. Collins[edit]

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

non-notable BLP; obvious COI; strictly promotional / resume; resources are primary and linked to subject; no substantial reason for inclusion found within WP guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs) 12:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Writer who has had some articles published but who has not attracted much attention, certainly not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Has written several books, all or most of which were self-published, and none of which appear to have been review or otherwise written about. The sole instance of significant attention being taken of this writer is a couple of articles that mention an article he wrote on why the moon landing photos could not have been fakes, and it is not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybe kurac[edit]

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

An entry under this name may have existed briefly in the UniProt database, but I notice that the "failed verification" tag was added to the article the day after it was created.

The putative taxonomic authorities for this name did indeed publish a number of names in the genus Psilocybe, but this one was probably not among them. [3].

When I enter the supposed specific epithet 'kurac' into Google Translate it proffers only the suggestion that it is a Bosnian slang word for the penis, which is not the kind of "epithet" one would hope for. [4] William Avery (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. William Avery (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V - not coming up with much. I will note that Kurac is a spice (drug) dealing house in Armageddon (MUD) ([5], [6]). Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no hits in any databases, no mention in the literature, no search results except circular links. Based on the etymology suggested above, probably a hoax. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - nothing in the linked source, and nothing on Google except for Wikipedia mirrors. I skimmed the Uniprot database to see if "kurac" was a typo for something, and while I'm not a fungus expert I couldn't find any plausible candidates. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete per above. --Nessie (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you've made a fair point, I think I must have been delerious writing this article. Next time I'll make sure my information is legitimate. Thank you. BluePankow BluePankow ✉ 14:13, 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. Noting tat the only clear !vote for delete came from the nominator; the only other such also, per policy, suggested an alternative to deletion. A rename discussion, of course, is for the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brantham TMD[edit]

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

Has very little notability. Is a train depot that hasn't been finished yet, with no apparent significance. Willbb234 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its well sourced but there is something about it that says to me that it wont be completed. ~~I would say soft delete until something substantial comes through. Nightfury 10:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)~~ Sourcing has improved so happy to change to keep. Nightfury 07:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly update and rename; it is now proposed to be built at Parkeston, although if the level crossing is the reason for this it may be built somewhere else as it is also on the route to the new location. (Harwich to get new depot, East Anglian Daily Times, 6 July 2019) Peter James (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion and renaming are two mutually exclusive outcomes for an administrator to enact. Which one do you actually want? Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How do we judge notability? By multiple reliable secondary sources. What do I see here already? This might not be complete yet, but it's way past WP:CRYSTAL. When it is in operation (and whichever site matters much less), it will be a significant aspect of regional rail transport. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've done an update with the reference provided by Peter James, others (particularly my spelling/grammar entourage) are welcome to correct/improve. Okay the underlying entity has relocated but that's part of the history. It will no doubt be renamed in time but we can wait until the new name turns up. The redirect from the old link should help people trying to answer the question: what happened to Brantham TMD?. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a reader, I enjoyed the infobox that told me about Brantham, per its title, and that its location was Brantham. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note your deep joy and have tweaked article though as per TOWIE the roads and names are unclear but shiny smooth wheels are expected. They might call the TMD Dorian for all I know.

Keep - well sourced by reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. Bookscale (talk) 10:38, 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. Sandstein 19:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Guruvayoor[edit]

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

non notable screenwriter (1 significant film only) and director (1 not very notable film so far) Most of his career is as assistant director. He's director of a film about to come out, which may explain the creation of this article at this time DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 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) 17:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable screen writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG is upcoming not notable as this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Party, USA[edit]

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

Cities exclusively to self published sources; the only non-self published source is a mention in no detail of another organization. This group does not appear to have received significant, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources, which means it fails the notability guideline and should be deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 21:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now The article has been here for 15 years, and as far as I can tell, no one has objected until now. Given its longevity, I think the first step should be a call to establish notability in third-party sources, not just remove it. Can we wait until the end of the year before revisiting the matter of deletion? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to try and find sources to improve it, please do, but if it doesn’t meet ORGCRIT (significant non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources), it has to be deleted. There is no reason to remove this nomination and that is not how things are done here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that it has been tagged for third party sourcing since 2014.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a few books that cover the organization:

Drachkovitch, Milorad M.; Gann, Lewis H. (1987). Yearbook on International Communist Affairs. Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. p. 153. ISBN 9780817986513.
Klehr, Harvey (1988). Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today. Transaction Publishers. pp. 125–126. ISBN 9781412823432.
Sargent, Lyman Tower (1995). Extremism in America: A Reader. New York University Press. ISBN 9780814780114. (starts at page 85)
Alexander, Robert Jackson (2001). Maoism in the Developed World. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780275961480.
Leonard, Aaron J.; Gallagher, Conor A. (2015). Heavy Radicals - The FBI's Secret War on America's Maoists: The Revolutionary Union / Revolutionary Communist Party 1968-1980. John Hunt Publishing. pp. 155–156. ISBN 9781782795339.
Elbaum, Max (2018). Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che (PDF). Verso Books. pp. 236–237, 341. ISBN 9781786634597.

Also found minor (not really significant) coverage on The Washington Post ([7]), as well as other mentions in reliable sources that didn't go beyond the organization appearing in an enumeration. --MarioGom (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the WaPo article reads: "At least four separate groups of protesters will be marching"..."The fourth and smallest group is a Marxist-Leninist organization" it was part of what the Post describes as a group, called the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) Committee for a Fitting Welcome or RCP (USA) that came together for the purpose of staging a single organization. Whether it is the same at our Marxist–Leninist Party, USA, is not clear to me, but, then, one of the main problems with Marxism is the effort needed just to figure out which Marxist faction is which.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is this coverage substantial or is it just saying “this organization exists”? Because the latter doesn’t count as substantial, non-trivial coverage. Some examples of what would qualify:

Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement:
A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger,

A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization,

A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products,

An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization,

A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product,

An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies).

Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Elbaum citation is wonderful, as a parody of Marxist factionalism, it is priceless: "Second was the Central Organization of US Marxist-Leninists (COUSML), which had been formed in 1973 mainly by the Cleveland-based American Communist Workers Movement. In january 1980 this group, too, held a founding congress and declared itself to be the Marxist-Leninist Party. The MLP thus became the sixth antirevisionist group to declare that it had founded the vanguard of the US working class -but with just 100 members it was the smallest vanguard yet. The shrinking size of newly proclaimed vanguards constituted a definite pattern: the MLP, CPUSA(ML) and CWP gatherings in 1980, 1978 and 1979, respectively, were all smaller than the first wave of founding congresses, CLP's in 1974, RCP's in 1975 and CP(ML)'s in 1977."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems straight out of Monty Python. Toa Nidhiki05 20:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that Elbaum cites the Pythons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided 6 book passages spanning from 1987 to 2018. I didn't expect anyone really going into detail about The Washington Post coverage, which is obviously not significant. Keep in mind that an organization being considered ridiculous is completely irrelevant to determine notability. Low membership count does not necessarily imply non-notability. I'm currently looking at other sources beyond Google Books to check if there's further coverage. --MarioGom (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were plenty of mentions in USA local newspapers about events involving the MLP and its various predecessor groups, in particular the COUSML. However, all of these are routine coverage on protest attendance and subversive activities at universities and factories, nothing standing out. As far as I've seen. --MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven’t given any quotes or answered if the coverage was significant and non-trivial. Being mentioned in passing doesn’t count as notable. Toa Nidhiki05 23:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All these books have specific sections (1 or 2 pages) that cover COUSML/MLP specifically. I think all of them have available previews in Google Books. I can provide links and quotes if necessary. --MarioGom (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gBooks searches can be a little random; I am getting none of the books you list except Elbaum on Books searches "Marxist–Leninist Party, USA". Searching "Marxist–Leninist Party" + USA I find Extremism in America: A Reader - Page 85 by Lymen Tower Sargent, "Marxist-Leninist Party One of the parties that split off from the Communist Party is the Marxist- Leninist Party, which was supported by the Communist Party of Albania" [8] The book then replicates a 1983 communique. the is not WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maoism in the Developed World - Page 37 by Robert Jackson Alexander - 2001 - ‎"The CPUSA (M-L) traced its origins to a small split in the pro-Moscow Communist Party of the USA in 1958, establishing the Provisional Organizing Committee for the Reconstruction of a Marxist- Leninist Party. In 1965, the majority of that ..." and continues, very briefly, to tell us which Albanian faction sided with whom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this sort of fine detail about a political party that never qualified for a ballot belongs in arcane accounts of infighting in the very tine U.S. Marxist parties of the 1980s, but I do not see that brief accounts of vote tallies at tiny partisan "congresses" passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ an American political party with fewer than 100 members that lasted only a few years and never contested an election belongs right where it is, in a small sub-heading of a chapter of book published by Verso Books. It could be mentioned if we have an article dedicated to untangling marxist factionalism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Communist movement. The books I provided above are probably enough to source a section in New Communist movement discussing COUSML and MLP together with other similar groups active at that time. --MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Keep and improve. As there are enough sources to justify a short article too. --MarioGom (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate that the citations above are about this splinter group and that the sources you cite offer WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the sources? It will be necessary to do so and to establish that they contain WP:SIGCOV by bringing the material to this or the article page before arguing that they do more than mention the organization's existence. It is rare for us to keep a political party as a stand alone article unless it wins elections.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY. XavierItzm (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- This article has been here for 15 years, and no one has objected, therefore I think the first step should be redirected to New Communist movement and not be deleted. -MA Javadi (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid rational for a Redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Keep in mind that these articles on small parties only get a handful of views a month, so it’s very easy for them to slip between the cracks. Toa Nidhiki05 12:37, 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) 🐱 08:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Redirect~~ to New Communist movement. In sum, although the book list may look impressive, the ones I can access have mere mentions, or are actually about a different "Marxist–Leninist Party." The editor who posted that list has not responded to requests to provide the texts he found. In fact, no one has provided WP:SIGCOV of this short-lived political party that never ran a candidate and that, in the only detailed source anyone has found, this "party" is said to have had 100 members - with no evidence that it ever got on a ballot, let alone won an election. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory: I started adding some inline citations to these books in the article itself (still work in progress). Other than expanding the citations there, I'm not sure how to proceed on this AfD. Should I just add all the pending inline citations to the article so that we can evaluate the coverage? Or is it better for me to add here excerpts from the sources? Thanks! --MarioGom (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be useful, citations need to be more than mere mentions. They need to qualify as WP:SIGCOV of this party. The way to do that is to add text, quotations from the source, to the footnote. And, of course, the source itself has to be a WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are the sources that merit consideration for notability:

Alexander, Robert Jackson (2001). Maoism in the Developed World. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780275961480.
Elbaum, Max (2018). Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che (PDF). Verso Books. pp. 236–237, 341. ISBN 9781786634597.
Klehr, Harvey (1988). Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today. Transaction Publishers. pp. 125–126. ISBN 9781412823432.

All of them have links to full text or exact page in Google Books preview, so that should be enough for people participating in this discussion. As far as I know, the article missing more quotes and inline citatiosn is not a factor to consider for deletion. When reading the sources, keep in mind that we should consider their coverage for ACWM(M-L), COUSML and MLP-USA, since most sources (primary and secondary) establish a clear lineage for the organization (ACWM(M-L), COUSML and MLP-USA). --MarioGom (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that (Sargent, 1995) covers the organization, but just as a collection of primary source material, adding little additional context. --MarioGom (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page should include material from Klehr: "In addition to former Albanian Communist leader Enver Hohxa, the Party's other hero is Joseph Stalin, it has proclaimed - 'Eternal glory to J.V. Stalin!'" And from Elbaum the fact that this party had "just 100 members."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrie Nelson[edit]

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

The second source gives the only non-stats details about this racing driver, but makes it clear he didn't compete in major circuits. The third reference states he won one race in the 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship, but nothing else, so WP:SPORTSPERSON is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely 18 starts at Bathurst 1000 counts. Got 7th one year, don't know how the rest went [9]. Looking in two books Greenhalgh, David; Thomas B. Floyd; Bill Tuckey (2000). Australia's Greatest Motor Race 1960-1999. Chevron Publishing Group. ISBN 1-875221-12-3. and Noonan, Aaron (2018). Holden At Bathurst - The Cars: 1963-2017. AN1 Media Pty. Ltd. would tell you more. Coverage also in [10]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any significant independent coverage of him. I found some passing mentions and results, but no significant coverage. I'm not sure if he meets any criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He hasn't competed in any series mentioned in those criteria but it's not an all encompassing list. I would lean towards delete since he fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I definitely don't see the coverage necessary to meet the GNG. My search found him in results, lists of competitors, and some passing mentions--none of which is enough to show notability. Don't know why just competing at the Bathurst 1000 would show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final. Commenting seems to have picked up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme. Bookscale (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as The Bathurst 1000 is "Widely regarded as the pinnacle of motorsport in Australia," according to it's article, alternatively he could be merged there Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Awadallah[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable business man. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Article current sources fall short of GNG. Conference bios, database entries, him talking about his company. Restored prod. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 10 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) 15:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found in depth articles about this man from Bloomberg and Forbes, along with a number of smaller, but reliable sources. I also edited the article to be more neutral, and to flow more naturally. --- GingeBro (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg is just a business listing, not in depth coverage. Forbes is a contributor article, not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:56, 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 06:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GF. Last relist, no prejudice on closure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:40, 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 redirect to After School (group). A clear consensus for redirection has formed here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ka-eun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lee Kaeun

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

Fails WP:SINGER and WP:NACTOR. As a solo singer, she released only one uncharted song, while for passing WP:NACTOR you need to "have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" which she obviously doesn’t have, she had only one supporting role so far. Individual notability outside of her band is not shown. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band. Individual notability is not sufficient for a separate article. Coolbruh123 has reinstated this article five times, against the objections of four other editors. It's time this was made to stick. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Elmidae. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator. Have to agree - one acting role and a member of the band, no significant notability from either. Nothing significant as a solo singer yet. Evaders99 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, being one of the four editors who has already redirected the article. Elmidae's analysis is spot on. Might also suggest protection from recreation without admin approval.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 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) 19:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allway Gardens[edit]

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

Non notable residential zone, per NBUILD viz ✦ 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. viz ✦ 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, major and historic huge complex. This can be shown in multiple sources, I am sure, by User:Cunard or others with access, skills, motivation to save an article like this. But why the drill, just keep, like for the similar huge Hong Kong complex articles also up for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doncram, and noting the long list of references on zh:荃威花園 which includes a long list of newsworthy events happening in this residential area. Deryck C. 20:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Residential zone articles do not exist to cover all the trivial things happened there. Not unless the residential zone itself played a some role in the event. viz ✦ 17:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above Alex-h (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cut down on the sorta-promotional facilities/bus list in the article. I'm not convinced this should be kept at this point, but I also can't read the sources on the zh wiki, so not !voting either way. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amen (American band). RL0919 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slave (Amen album)[edit]

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

This article was boldly redirected, restored, redirected again, and restored again - instead of trying to redirect it a third time I'm bringing it to AfD as I agree with the redirecters it fails WP:ALBUM/WP:GNG. Done a before search and can only find database/directory listings of the album. Currently cited only to a primary source and a database. Willing to withdraw if other sources can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Amen (American band) I was the original redirector, as I didn't believe there were multiple reviews that passed the requirements of sig cov/independent/reliable, nor was any other criterion of WP:NBAND satisfied. Obviously it's possible some might exist, in which case great, but I think a redirect is appropriate. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some of the band's later works got pro reviews and the like, but this early album was largely unnoticed and can't get beyond the WP:EXIST standard, with nothing to be found beyond basic retail/streaming entries. I am voting to delete rather than redirect because the article title (a common word) is a vague search term, and this article has already been un-redirected too many times. If the ultimate decision here is to redirect, there should be some sort of protection to prevent yet another reversion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)

I generally feel that any album (proven to exist) should logically be redirected. You're right of course that it will need protection of some level (EC will probably suffice) but any closing admin can do that. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relister query - @Yunshui: - I was just wondering if there was a specific reason that you relisted this discussion, if only to make sure it was actually considered? Nosebagbear (talk)

It was pretty clear that there's no good reason to keep the page, but there isn't an obvious consensus here as to whether it should be redirected or just deleted outright - there are good arguments for both. Relisting allows for a bit more discussion as to which option is more appropriate; after all, it's not as though we're in a rush! Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: - that's fine, I just wanted to check that it was the delete/redirect disagreement as opposed to, say, rejecting one or more of the arguments made. Tah Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amen (American band). I agree with Nosebagbear that any album should be redirected to the artist's main page as it could be a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 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 no consensus. Or weak keep; at any rate, the article stays for now. Sandstein 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Salme[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable WP:BLP1E. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. I have just reported what I consider to be promotional editing in this article at WP:ANI, where I remarked on the questionable notability of someone who's sole evidence of 'notability' (notoriety would be a better word) is to be found in a few short press articles from the time of his conviction. Evidence elsewhere on the interwebs seems to indicate that Salme is keen on promoting himself, and that he thinks that his story makes him deserving of further publicity, but I see no reason why Wikipedia should assist him in that. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)~~— 86.143.229.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .~~ This IP has come to my talk page and identified himself as someone who "has been editing Wikipedia for years (longer than you have, it appears), with a dynamic IP." I will AGF and strike this as he requests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly re purpose either to the crime, or to the book by Salme (En bluffpilots bekännelse: Thomas Salmes 13 år i himlen). As evident in even a cursory BEFORE - the incident (a pilot without a flying license - flying for 13 years as first officer and then captain of large passenger carrying civil aircraft (737)) gained very international coverage - continuing coverage - that clearly passes WP:NEVENT/WP:NCRIME. Further more, Salme has penned a book that would seem to pass WP:NBOOK - e.g. coverage here in Svenska Dagbladet on the book in 2012 - [11]. (I'd further note that Salme has publicized this - so we do not have BLP privacy concerns (nor would BLPCRIME be an issue - as he was convicted)). Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but this is not the Swedish Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes... And? Your comment has no bearing on notability - please see WP:NOENG. While we do prefer English language sources, Swedish language sources may be used as well. The book (in Swedish) seems to pass NBOOK on Swedish sources. The incident/crime/event (flying without a license) - passes NEVENT/NCRIME even just with English sources (though the scope of international coverage here is such that a multitude of additional sources in available in other languages as well). Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think people might find your arguments about notability being demonstrated by sources more convincing if you provided a few more. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure - CBS, 2010, book from 2011, Aftonbladet 2012, RTL 2016, Panorama 2017 (seems the book got translated to Italian - [12]), Expressen 2019. (also - also coverage in English on the book, but possibly not independent as he works for Lucire) This is a trivial pass for NEVENT/NCRIME (meets GNG and furthermore - WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:GEOSCOPE, and would seem to be WP:LASTING (given that the subject is mentioned in coverage of subsequent similar cases)). Also trivially meets WP:NBOOK - as I've produced two independent non-trivial works on the book (and more are available). Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book hits [13], major international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call a link to a Google search that merely shows that Salme's book can be found on the google.books website evidence for much in the way of 'major news coverage'. Particularly when the fourth item on Google's list (after three links to their own website) is to a book published in 1737, on the subject of 'The Church History of England'. And nor do subsequent items on books published prior to the Thomas Salme in question here ever entering an aircraft cockpit. Or books published since, on subjects such as 'Social Constructionism', or an autobiography of Sven-Göran Eriksson. Writing a book that Google advertises doesn't make you notable... 86.143.229.185 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You missed the - quite obvious - good book hit, now added to page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think I missed anything 'obvious' from the Google search I saw. Google search does not give consistent results, which is why linking to it isn't a good idea. If you want to cite something as evidence for notability in an AFD discussion, do it properly. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Xe did not miss it. It does not turn up as a search result, for me either; and Google Books does not permit me to search the book for anything. A handwave in the general direction of a search engine, Google Books or otherwise, is not a citation. User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes. Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I added ~~a book~~ 2 reliably published books to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but consider moving) - reading the relevant paragraph of BLP1E "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident [...] For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.". I wouldn't say the latter circumstance arises. But the article could be renamed the "Thomas Salme incident" or such. Alternatively, it could be said that this is a set of incidents, and possibly BLP1E doesn't apply. In any case, the content should be retained, whether retitled or not. I don't know why Nom didn't just consider moving and rephrasing this rather than AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has accrued international and persistent coverage in reliable news sources (CBS, RTL, Telegraph, Il Sussidiario, Panorama, aftonbladet, Der Standard, etc) as well as literature ([14]), from the incident occurring in 2010 to the present. ——SerialNumber54129 13:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, Icewhiz, whose post I omitted to see but says much of what I tiresomely repeated. ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - barely notable, but squeaks over the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read the AftonBladet source. It's a report of someone on Facebook (one Malin Johansson) decrying the book on Facebook. It is not a particularly useful source of information for documenting this article subject's life and works, as it contains little in the way of solid facts. So I read the Panorama source. It's an infomercial for the book that ends with an outright instruction to buy it. I thought to then try the Expressen source. It's actually not about this person at all, but about someone else entirely. This person receives a one sentence namecheck at the end, that does not add any actual information about this person's life and works that could have been sourced years ago. It is not continued coverage at all. ilSussidario is a trailer for a television interview with the subject, promoting xyr book, again that does not actually discuss anything else than the original events.
I think that people need to start actually reading these sources that are being waved around. One needs to actually read the things that one's searches turn up.
Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator: My feeling is that this wiki article is in essence promotion for the person and his book. He's already infamous for his self-promotion, and his friends wrote this article for him. Most of the links I find online are passing mentions or mentions of his book(s). Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMO, and I find this article an embarrassing example of just that. He does not pass WP:NAUTHOR, and his putative notability is strictly his one-event stunt -- which may have lasted over time, but it's still one event. Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've no idea whether the article was originally written as promotion, but I don't feel it reads as such. It certainly doesn't rise to the level to warrant deletion, rather than cleanup. Notability is reasonably well shown, even if not glowingly done. BLP1E seems the most reasonable grounds but you've not specified why you think it can't just be moved to being the event and slightly tweaked. BLP1E isn't supposed to remove content from the encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as textbook WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Followup to Uncle G above, if you look at the book on Goodreads & Amazon, it's pretty patchy and doesn't seem to have been curated at all by a publisher, it looks self published although the Google Play edition is definitely by established publisher Norstedts. It's not actually BY him, it's ghosted, although that hasn't stopped Blair etc al. But if he is to be notable for the book, it's not a very notable book - and not by him! I keep coming back to Nom's assertion of WP:BLP1E... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment revisiting in the light of comments above, I again considered the WP:BLP1E aspects of this pilot's, er... career. Certainly privacy concerns do not have much weight because Salme published a book about the flying with a forged pilots license. But the main thing is, there has been some ONGOING interest in the story over the years. In a book. In articles about the tightening of resume vetting in the wake of this and other scandals. And, most recently for similarity to Fake SAA pilot: How William Chandler flew illegally for 20 years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have thought that the fact that other people have been caught doing the same thing would make this particular example less noteworthy. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a source that makes no mention of this article subject at all prove that point? It would seem to demonstrate the opposite, if anything. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to an article in English, the connection is made in articles published in Swedish and other languages - I put the Swedish article on the page. The point, however, is that there has been ongoing coverage. But it was the articles that discuss this case as part of a group of fake-credential scandals that led to a wave of more thorough corporate resume vetting that persuaded me that this is not quite a BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If 'fake-credential scandals' in general are being discussed in multiple reliable sources, that is a justification for an article on the general subject, rather than this one. 86.143.229.185 (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes our notability guide per WP:RS Tonereport (☎) 18:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- passes WP:RS and WP:GNG barely but still enough to justify inclusion at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a OneEvent topic. Article is not about any single event (eg: his arrest), but about his career, covered thinly but adequately. More than sufficient RS to establish N. The lede sentence could be revised to avoid inadvertent impression of BLPIE: "Thomas Salme is a pilot who flew commercial airliners in Europe for 13 years without a valid license." DonFB (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing the WP:GNG. WP:BLPIE does not apply. I made some improvements to the article and its references before adding my support to keeping the entry. gidonb (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E > WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, do note that this perp self-publicizes his crime, writing a book, and so forth. I can see a NOTPROMO argument for deleting more easily that I can see a PRIVACY argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if someone wanted to create a List of fake pilot credential scandals and propose merging this to said page, I would support such a move. It's quite remarkable how many of these there have been.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ivor Browning (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McGurk[edit]

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

Delete It is of a minor priest and doesn't include details about his career— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Browning (talk • contribs) 07:16, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 07:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm holding off on a final !vote for now, but I disagree that an archdeacon is a "minor priest." Though Anglicans use the terminology a little differently than you might expect, archdeacons are actually pretty high-ranking within Anglicanism - they're almost like assistant bishops. When we have a named article like Archdeacons in the Diocese of Liverpool, of which there were only 2 at any one time until very recently, I am inclined to err on the side of inclusion for holders of the office. But I will wait to see what others have to say. MarginalCost (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Liverpool is a relatively modern diocese, so that there has been little opportunity for a long succession, but we commonly have had articles on Anglican archdeacons and Cathedral deans. They are not assistant bishops, but have an administrative responsibility covering a diocese or part of one. In some dioceses, the suffrigan bishop does this job as well as a bishop's own. Elsewhere it is a freestanding post. Many previous holders of the office have articles, as so the other three archdeacons in the diocese. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - we have more often than not kept such articles. Note that the Episcopalian Archdeacon is ordinary, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk)
Keep as per WP:Outcomes detailed above, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not typically keep clergy below the rank of a bishop unless they are independently notable from RS coverage. This is reflected in WP:OUTCOMES which oddly appears to have been miscited above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Archdeacons are high enough up in the Church of England hierarchy to be considered notable on the basis of their position. We have many stub articles on archdeacons of the Church of England, and I see no reason to delete any of them. I also question the motives of Ivor Browning in nominating this article for deletion when an article he wrote about a Liverpool priest is currently being discussed for deletion -- seems rather WP:POINTy to me. BabelStone (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion and with consideration of the point raised by Enos733 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Mues[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this does not pass WP:NPOL -- people get Wikipedia articles by winning the election and thereby holding office, not by being candidates in elections they have not yet won. But this does not make any credible case that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons, and does not cite nearly enough reliable source coverage to make him a special case of significantly greater notability than most other candidates. No prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a reason why he would already get a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links and the lightening fast review. I'm shocked, a little sad, and confused. I noticed that notability is not temporary. I read Wikipedia:Notability, WP:NPF, and WP:BLP... I think I understand. However, I feel that my Wikipedia article is still valid. Please try to understand my thoughts/feelings on this. I came across this: "On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."^[1]. I know the election of a US Senator is not as important as the assassination of a US president. However, being a key witness in a parade... even if the President was shot, is not as interesting to the public as being a potential US Senator. I felt a need for this page because I live in Montana and I noticed that I wasn't able to fairly compare potential US Senators on Wikipedia. I also thought that it might be unfair or even bias against candidates who were not already small-time politicians. The lack of exposure to diversity could hurt my democracy. In essence I was worried people would not view both candidates because only one had a page(he's a mayor). So I made a page for the second candidate.

As you may know, the United States only has 100 Senators and I was shocked that being one of the two opposing candidates didn't warrant enough notability. It certainty should warrant enough interest.

Just for fun, though it doesn't prove anything, I thought you might want to look at this article. John Mues, since his candidacy is more popular with the world than Howard Brennan. Perhaps there is a fair middle ground we can reach?

Additionally WP:NPF seems relevant.

I can find well over a dozen news articles which solely reference John Mues. Did I just need to cite him more? Saintmeh (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Notable for only one event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. The coverage in Montana newspapers is routine and expected. The proper place to cover this person is in an article about Montana's 2020 US Senate race, where all candidates can be given neutral coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has to be notable outside of their Senate run, which Mues is not, unless the candidate has received an abnormal amount of national coverage. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a place to educate voters about candidates in their elections. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Montana (plausible search term, redirects are cheap). Fails WP:NPOL (and unlikely to pass in 2020 - he has to pass the democratic primary (a few different contenders) and then unseat a sitting republican senator in a deep red state (+20 for Trump in 2016)). Looking at coverage prior to 2019 - I wasn't able to find much of anything about our subject. Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am ok with a redirect, but at this moment, the subject fails WP:NPOL (per Bearcat and Cullen328) and a redirect feels premature at this point as we do not know if the subject will even be the Democratic party nominee in 2020. --Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in agreement with Enos733. We should wait until after the primary before applying a redirect, Mues could very well drop out before then also. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would not object to a redirect. COI alert: I have supported his candidacy as a volunteer on social media. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but no objection to redirecting to 2020 United States Senate election in Montana. How many times do we have to go through this? WP:NPOL says a politician has to get elected before they qualify for an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of roundabouts and traffic circles in Canada[edit]

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

Does not fulfill WP:LISTN and violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOR. Obviously indiscriminate and roundabouts are pretty much non notable. The only one in the list that has an article, Armdale Rotary, probably should be nominated as well. Ajf773 (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the list in its entirety was derived from an all-inclusive source, and there is indicated notability for the whole set (explained in WP:LISTN as per nom), it then also arguably fails WP:NOTDIR as simple listings without context information, in addition to the above concerns. ComplexRational (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is there really less than 200 roundabouts/traffic circles in the whole of Canada? thats less than in the city i live! even if there are sources out there that discuss using them for traffic management in Canada that does not make it appropriate to provide a directory listing. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 200; it's just hard to reliably source them as you note, so this list would likely only include roundabouts that people who knew about the existence of the list could personally attest to having driven on. But also, it's only in the 21st century that Canada has started building any significant number of roundabouts at all — Canada historically stuck strictly to conventional street intersections and highway interchanges, and only started importing the roundabout concept within the past 10 or 15 years as highway design practices evolved. So there are certainly more than 200, but there still aren't as many as you would expect if you're thinking from the perspective of a country where they've been a thing for decades. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above - Fails NOTDIR. –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ten years ago, when roundabouts were still a novelty on the Turtle Island side of the pond, this might have made some sense. In 2019, however, they're dime a dozen, so there's no value in trying to curate or maintain a comprehensive list of them at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - weird and useless article. Fails wp:indiscriminate Nixinova T C 22:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Calvoz[edit]

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

I was brought to this page by an RfC questioning the subject's notability. I've since gone through the page and removed the promotional and unsourced content. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources thus not meeting general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NLAWYER. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a garden variety lawyer whose publications do not stand out enough to support notability. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 10:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLAWYER. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLAWYER Taewangkorea (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Ally Fowler. Sandstein 19:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Fowler[edit]

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

Player does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fl.exic.77, you claim Fowler meets WP:NBASKETBALL because she "played in more than one game at National Basketball League level". As far as I can tell, however, "signing an amateur contract as a development player" for a Women's National Basketball League team doesn't pass NBASKETBALL; that guideline says that a person must have actually played an NBL game, not just signed as a development player. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Bolingbroke, within the NBL amateur contracts are signed so athletes may maintain their college eligibility, Fowler played in six NBL games within the season, therefore I believe it does meet WP:NBASKETBALL. – Fl.exic.77 (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually nowhere does WP:NBASKETBALL say the quote above. Fowler never played in the NBL, she signed a development contract with a WNBL team, which is not the same thing. The WNBA is listed, as is the NBA, but the WNBL is not listed in the SNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me}
Delete and redirect. As Onel5969 points out, WP:NBASKETBALL never says that playing in the Women's National Basketball League gives a presumption of notability. Simply playing "at National Basketball League level" is a really flimsy rationale for inclusion. I can see no other SNG-based reason to keep the article, and Fowler clearly fails GNG. The original redirect to Ally Fowler should be restored, however, since Alexandra Fowler has several incoming links that refer to the actress. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Senegambianamestudy (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.