< 15 June	17 June >

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. Consensus here is to delete. Note that the previous nomination did not run its course, it was closed as a speedy keep and the nominator, closer, and one of the two voters is presently blocked. As for the current nomination, by the numbers we lean in favor of deletion (9 to 6, although one delete voter is under a 2-week checkuser block). The main challenge here seems to be this: If we ignore the material related to facilitated communication, then we fail WP:N, but if we include it, we are ascribing statements/opinions/activism to Amy which may actually be fabrications, and that's a WP:BLP issue. If Amy truly has no agency in the statements that a "facilitator" is making on her behalf, then ascribing this technique to her is unfairly accusing her of advancing pseudoscience, and our article's "criticism" section is criticising the victim rather than the perpetrator. ST47 (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Sequenzia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources claiming that facilitated communication is a valid technique are not reliable. Fails WP:RS. If reliable sources cannot be found, this page must be deleted. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to WP:LUNATICS and WP:FRINGE sources that endorse facilitated communication fail WP:RS as unreliable. Till now, no WP:RS have been WP:CITED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, rephrase: Delete if obeying WP:N and WP:BLP requires us to strongly violate WP:NPOV (more precisely WP:YESPOV) and WP:MEDRS. If the article cannot abide by all these WP:RULES, it will have to be deleted as mission impossible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has yet to be proven that facilitated communication is a fringe theory and that WP:FRINGE applies to this article. "The preponderance of peer-reviewed articles supports FC as a useful tool for developing communication skills." (reference) Based on this, and the number of reliable sources that used to be cited before the page was blanked, there is no reason to delete this page. --Anomalapropos (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is now under a topic-ban.[1] The closer should consider what weight, if any, to give to an argument that was so disruptive that they would be unable to cast or reaffirm this !vote today. Alsee (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source quoted has failed to declare a conflict of interest, the author has co-authored pro facilitated communication material with Douglas Biklen https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Contested_Words_Contested_Science.html?id=T4FtQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:69D1:3200:19D1:833:BDD8:6A2B (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Anomalapropos (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article should not have been gutted before being nominated. It is wholly misleading. Also, although this page doesn't how it, the article was nominated for deletion before and the consensus was keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: The "gutting" was in compliance with WP:GRAPEVINE. The previous consensus was built on the unreliable sources that I "gutted" from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but without prejudice against being re-created from a more reality-based perspective. The article, before the current content dispute [2], was based entirely on overly-credulous sources treating a discredited pseudo-science as though it were real. I can understand (per WP:DESCF) using those sources to establish notability, but it's pretty tasteless to treat them as unbiased fact, especially in a BLP for an unfortunate person who can't share their side of the story through any real method. ApLundell (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD page header was malformed (likely not created using ((afd2))) and not transcluded (now transcluded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 16). I think it's now in working order. —PaleoNeonate – 00:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @PaleoNeonate: Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I apologize. This is my first time trying to delete a page. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and especially WP:BLP. Till date I have found one reliable independent source that covers the subject substantially: Chapter 10 of Speaking for Ourselves: Conversations on Life, Music, and Autism by Michael Bakan, which was recently published by OUP and hasn't itself been properly reviewed yet. The book Sequenzia and Elizabeth Grace edited was published by a niche publisher of "weird books for weird people" and I didn't find any reviews in mainstream publications that would contribute towards the subject's notability as an author. And as for BLP: given credible skepticism whether the subject is "genuinely communicating" the words she is known for, I am afraid that the article, were it to be retained, would either become a battleground for arguments over facilitated communication or (as in the recent version) be overly reliant on weak/unreliable-sources published by true-believers in FC (hence violating WP:FRINGE). That's not what we want for a biography of an actual, living person and therefore I recommend deletion until much more extensive and balanced coverage is available. Abecedare (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rights and wrongs of FC aside it is clear she is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The idea is that FC is a kind of channeling. So how do you write an article based upon sources that assume that channeling is real? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't you write an article based on sources that discus it, and there seems to be a few. The issue therefore if not notability but neutrality, and that is not (to my mind) a suitable excuse for AFD. Rather that is an excuse for a re-write.Slatersteven (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is clear that she is notable. I would love to have an article on her, but a brief google search did not return any reliable results. If anyone can find reliable sources (written from the view that FC is psudoscience) please post them here. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven and Wikiman2718: You both say that the notability is "clear", but having looked at prior versions of the article and searched for sources myself, I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. If you wish I can present my analysis of existing sources. But to save us time, can you just point to some reliable, independent sources that contain significant coverage of the subject other than Bakan's writing that I found and discussed above? Abecedare (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what you mean, [[3]] is not by her (or anyone associated with her as far as I know). This combined with more trivial mentions (two or three paragraphs) and at least one interview with a major media organ tells me she may be notable. Of course part of the problem is that much has been written about her in books about FC (which tend to be rather credulous) but which none the less still means that withing that community she is very notable, and somewhat notable outside it. Notable enough to be mentioned by name in at least one overview of the subject by a scientist.Slatersteven (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The this week article is by David M Perry, a supporter of facilitated communication who has written at least one other article defending facilitated communication as genuine. It is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:69D1:3200:19D1:833:BDD8:6A2B (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that unreliable sources can be used to establish notability. If I am correct, she is certainly notable. However, I can not find any reliable sources on her, which is why I nominated this article for deletion. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. Quick replies for now:
The one sentence on Sequenzia does not qualify as "significant coverage"

No, unreliable sources cannot be used to establish notability under WP:GNG.

I assume the "one interview with a major media organ" refers to this. Note that that is on the now closed HuffPost Contributor platform, and as a blog entry by a non-expert, it cannot be used as a source in a BLP; see the entry for HuffPost contributors at WP:RSP for links to 17 related RSN discussions.

Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to WP:LUNATICS and WP:FRINGE sources that endorse facilitated communication fail WP:RS as unreliable. Till now, no WP:RS have been WP:CITED. Ylevental (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Till now, no WP:RS have been WP:CITED". That's an argument to avoid at AfDs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, having been name-checked in significant detail in publications such as The Guardian, LA Times and Slate. I expanded the article a bit and added a bunch of references. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some RS and she's in a chapter in a book about Autism that I was able to fully access. I don't know about the FC thing, but the scholars at Oxford seem OK with whatever type of communication she is using with her iPad and help from her care-giver. The book is recent, too, from 2018. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are skeptical of facilitated communication, so none of them are reliable. This page again describes her (inaccurately) as a writer and an activist, which is why we must delete it. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two posters above seem to be re-writing the article with the same sort of credulous minor coverage complained about above. One exception may be the the Bakan book. I'm not sure how to evaluate this book as a source of notability, but it certainly doesn't establish acceptance as WP:FRINGE requires,(Author is a musician not a medical professional), so, even if notable, its claims should really still be phrased as claims not facts. ApLundell (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian's not a reliable source? Are you Nigel Farage? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikiman, no source is reliable if he deems the source sympathetic to facilitated communication. How this editor has lasted here without being blocked for an admitted disruptive agenda is beyond me, but I'm not up to fighting that battle.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether or not The Guardian is a reliable source. The question is whether two short paragraphs in an article not actually about her establishes notability. Normally that would not be enough. Lots of people are mentioned by The Guardian in passing.

(And beyond notability, does it illustrate scientific "acceptance" as required to uncritically report WP:FRINGE ideas as fact instead of claims?) ApLundell (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the chapter in the OUP book is certainly convinced about the facilitated communication, but he is an ethnomusicologist, not an expert in autism, and the cases here show how convinced many non-experts have initially been, in cases which were later overturned. PamD 07:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The sourcing is a fair start, and Amy Sequenzia is quite the notable subject. Also, all these attempts to dismiss this article due to facilitated communication not being viewed as scientific is, if you ask me, grossly unfair.TH1980 (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies here. Also, all of the mainstream media sources push a fringe positions. Per WP:NFRINGE, "a fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." --Wikiman2718 (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)--Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article has been victimized by the practice of facilitated communication. Failing to properly acknowledge that the facilitator is putting words in her mouth would be victimizing her further. Also, the subject is not notable outside of the group of adherents to the pseudoscience of facilitated communication. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a source that says that Sequenzia has been 'victimized'? If one exists, it should almost certainly be cited in the article. If on the other hand, there isn't a source, your assertion that victimization has taken place would seem to be based on the assumption that the 'facilitator' is intentionally 'putting words in her mouth', which again would need a source, given that most discussions of FC seem to be based on the premise that the 'facilitators' genuinely believe it works. Being wrong (even very wrong) about something is rather different than intended malice, which is what 'victimization' would seem to imply. Personally, I don't see WP:AVOIDVICTIM as being relevant here, if the consensus is that general notability criteria are met. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source that calls FC “an abuse of human rights”.[4] —Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is a source that says that FC has been called an abuse of human rights by someone else. But it wasn't what I asked for which was a source stating that Sequenzia has been 'victimized'. We don't take general opinions about a topic as evidence for specifics. Particularly when making claims of malice regarding specific people - i.e. the 'facilitator'. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no claim of malice against the facilitator. And we do sometimes take general statements to prove the specific. For instance, the pseudoscientific status of perpetual motion implies the pseudoscientific status of any proposed perpetual motion machine. Additionally, I am not aware of any standards of evidence for victimhood. I believe that we can consider her a victim if we think she’s a victim, and I am arguing that we should. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how one can claim 'human rights abuse' without at least implying malice, but whatever. In general, decisions about permissible content are based on specific sources (and/or the lack of them), and not on what we 'think' or 'believe'. WP:AVOIDVICTIM clearly allows for some discretion in this context, but it doesn't automatically rule out all articles on victims: even victims of actual crimes. We have an article on Patty Hearst for example, which consists almost entirely of content relating to her kidnapping and subsequent events. I think you might do better to stick to arguing the case about notability in the general sense, where policy is clearer. Your opinion on 'human rights abuse' and 'victimhood' will presumably be taken into account by whoever closes this discussion, but they may find it less than persuasive. And I have to say that I find something of a contradiction between the arguments you present here and the fact that you have created an article entitled List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication which seems to consist entirely of content regarding otherwise non-notable individuals. Content which amply demonstrates that individuals were (via misplaced allegations via 'facilitation') victims of a credulous acceptance of the technique. If one is going to rule out content on 'victims' of FC, it should probably be done more consistently. Or at least, in a manner that looks a little less overtly partisan. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are indeed partisans of WP:RS/AC (medical consensus), no doubt about that. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to state that Sequenzia herself is the writer of the writings attributed to her, since that is not an objectively assessable fact. In fact, she could be merely the sockpuppet of her facilitator, who is in the best case self-delusional and in the worst case a fraudster. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu, you should be aware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages. I suggest you keep the hyperbole down. And then read what I actually wrote. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this article WP:N and WP:BLP strongly clash with WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. There is no point abiding by two of those WP:RULES while strongly violating the other two. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I suggest you think again, before violating WP:BLP... 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that [[WP:AVOIDVICTIM] does not rule out an article on this subject. But it is relevant, and if we decide not to delete the article, we must write from this prospective. Actually, I am starting to come around to the idea of keeping the article now that I see how it is progressing. I was worried that we wouldn’t have enough good sources to maintain WP:PARITY.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs)

Damned if I do, damned if I don't, isn't it? We have to abort the article as mission impossible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In as much as I have an opinion on the merits of this article that isn't shaped by my more general opinion that an 'anyone can edit' encyclopaedia is a fundamentally flawed concept, I've reached much the same conclusion. Which is why I've not chosen to !Vote (not that opinions anonymous IPs tend to get much notice anyway). There probably is the potential for a good encyclopaedic article on Sequenzia, I'm just not entirely convinced that Wikipedia is capable of producing it... 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, maybe an encyclopedia which does not take WP:SPOV seriously would be a better choice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just a scientific story though. It is about real people. Some who can speak for themselves. Some who claim to speak for others. One who appears not be able to speak at all. Reducing it to nothing but 'science' would do it little service. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we'd have to violate WP:YESPOV Wikipedia cannot have an article about her. There is a limit upon what can be written inside Wikipedia articles. And that limit is Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. At Wikipedia the burden of proof has never been upon those who say that Gregorian Bivolaru's claim to be in contact with an alien civilization is bogus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clarify the discredited/controversial status of her means of communication: Reading this nomination, alerted to it by the list of deletion discussions on women, I saw "Sources claiming that facilitated communication is a valid technique are not reliable." and thought "What on earth? No way is that a sound argument". But on looking at facilitated communication and in particular List of abuse allegations made via facilitated communication I felt quite shocked and can see where the nominator is coming from. Sequenzia does seem to be notable, but the article underplays the status of her means of communication. Our wikipedia article describes Facilitated communication as "a scientifically discredited technique". At the very least the lead sentence needs to change " produced through facilitated communication" to "produced through the discredited method of facilitated communication" or, more neutrally, "produced through the controversial method of facilitated communication", to alert readers (not all of whom are going to click on the link) to the status of Facilitated communication (just as we'd gloss any other little-known term, or add a geog context to a placename). She does appear to be notable and we owe it to our readers to have an article about her, but it needs to be more informative. PamD 07:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC) expanded 07:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice -- Quite nice. ∯WBG^converse 16:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP asks us to pay particular attention to human dignity. This is such a challenging task here that I lean towards delete. The FC-induced writings are very likely to be inauthentic but structuring the article around debunking them can make it come across as an attack piece with the subject of the article caught in the crossfire. Haukur (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are exactly my thoughts, while the article exists questioning the veracity of achievements within it look like bad faith attacks on the subject rather than rightful rejection of the debunked method of facilitated communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.22.66 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This Article is poorly written, and the Subject has insufficient notoriety. - Nolan Perry ^{Yell at me!} 01:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sourcing at this time to write a policy-compliant article. Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion lists #9 Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I see no reasonable way to reasonably comply with Wikipedia's various policies until we have sourcing sufficiently addressing the communication being attributed to Amy Sequenzia. It looks like at least fifteen policies, guidelines, and respected-essays have been cited above, and that's just the beginning of the mess. The article is intractable without more sourcing. Attempts to deal with the article have unavoidably been dragged into the territory of Original Research and Synthesis, and we can't even include ABOUTSELF in this biography. The nominally "self statements" are supplied by someone else, and there is sufficient question of their authorship that they clearly fail our reliable sourcing standards. In regards to the other available sources, note that the Reliability of any source is not absolute. Reliability is always evaluated in terms of a specific work from that publisher and in terms of the specific information being cited, in relation to the current article. Even a top-line source such as New York Times would be severely called into question at Reliable Source Noticeboard if the NYT published an interview or other information obtained via telepathy or channeling of dead spirits, without even commenting that the communication might be questioned, without giving any indication they even considered the issue and that they actively consider this case reliable.
If Amy is the author of the words attributed to her, I see no reasonable way to simultaneously comply with BLP and other policies until we have adequate sourcing about her communication. The attempts to indirectly attribute the words to her in a qualified manner are atrocious for a living biography.
If Amy is not the author of the words attributed to her, I see no reasonable way to simultaneously comply with BLP and other policies until we have adequate sourcing about the source of those words. The attempts to indirectly attribute the words to her in a qualified manner are atrocious for a living biography. Alsee (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent reliable sources. Some of the sources are even from blogs. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR. Masum Reza^📞 01:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that it fails WP:NPOL and, separately, it does not meet. WP:BIO. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Barto[edit]

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

School district trustees do not generally meet criteria of WP:NPOL. ... discospinster _talk 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After searching on Google and Google news, I found no other reports from reliable sources other than routine press coverage for the school district. Viztor (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. School board trustees are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL just because they exist. In rare circumstances, it might be theoretically possible for a school board trustee to clear the bar, if they can be shown as the subject of an unusual volume and range and depth of reliable source coverage that establishes them as much more notable than most other school board trustees — for example, a trustee in California who was somehow so prominent that she was getting coverage in New York would clearly be notable. But the fact that you can technically reference the trustee's vote totals to a primary source table of election results is not, in and of itself, a notability freebie that exempts her from having to have real media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Being in school board does not make her notable with not enough coverage. Alex-h (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that it fails WP:NPOL and, separately, it does not meet. WP:BIO. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Alegria[edit]

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

School district trustees do not generally meet criteria of WP:NPOL. ... discospinster _talk 23:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL as a area 3 Cajon Unified School District trustees. No WP:SIGCOV of independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. School board trustees are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL just because they exist. In rare circumstances, it might be theoretically possible for a school board trustee to clear the bar, if they can be shown as the subject of an unusual volume and range and depth of reliable source coverage that establishes them as much more notable than most other school board trustees — for example, a trustee in California who was somehow so prominent that she was getting coverage in New York would clearly be notable. But the fact that you can technically reference the trustee's vote totals to a primary source table of election results is not, in and of itself, a notability freebie that exempts her from having to have real media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the general notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 19 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Episcopal Historians and Archivists[edit]

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

One of multiple Episcopalian historical societies, fails WP:NORG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As annoying as it is to have multiple redundant organizations, this article is useful in that they publish "The Historiographer". In the case of "The Historiographer", having this article allows readers to more easily determine the source of the journal (in articles such as Henry Benjamin Whipple), and to distinguish it from Historiographer Royal. This organization is a cited publisher on several EC-USA pages: All Saints Episcopal Church, Waveland (Jensen Beach, Florida) and Christ Episcopal Church (Monticello, Florida).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- It is useful to have articles on learned societies, though it is difficult to find external reliable sources on them. This particularly applies when they publish an academic journal. In this case, The Historiographer is only described as a newsletter, which is why I only say weak keep. Nevertheless, it is worth having an article on the denominational history society of a major denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are reliable book sources and it does have a scholarly significance in preserving church history Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rena Strober[edit]

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

There seems to be no notability other than the game where she voiced in, in which case the game's article should be enough. fails WP:BLP, and is prob WP:BLP1E Viztor (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a working actress with real credits. She is even listed on behindthevoiceactors. Problem is that no secondary sources are writing about her. Doesn't seem to have any deep RS coverage. It's only credit listing sites (aggregators) and her own websites. HM Wilburt (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCREATIVE. Not every actor is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Bartl[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, most search results turned up to be the Brazilian athlete, little about the model, when I look exclusively for the model, there is no significant coverage from reliable sources. Viztor (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find some passing coverage, mostly in gossipy/entertainment sources [5]. As nom says, no depth to coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have added a reference to a nice article about him in Der Standard. As the article stands now, subject does not pass WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 06:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woodridge High School Football[edit]

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

Fails both WP:N and WP:FANCRUFT. High school football teams are generally not notable and this does not appear to be an exception. While article is well-sourced, sources fall under routine coverage, especially for high school football teams. The team has not received coverage outside its immediate area, has 0 state championships, and an overall record well below .500. While a few details of the article could be incorporated into the Woodridge High School article, most of it isn't appropriate for that article either. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a sports article- an activity I have no desire to participate in or edit. I am basically an inclusionist and this appears to be doing no harm and is keeping a lot of people happy- lets say it is Notable in that it is a sports article that is well written and well referenced. What I will say is that if this were added to Woodridge High School it would would be massively WP:UNDUE, and it would have to be culled or spun off as a separate article.ClemRutter (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is still important enough to stay, since it is about a highschool football team, and there are so many less important articles. @BitBytes: put dozens of hours into this article, since he is almost certainly a teacher or student/alumni of the school, and all his work does not deserve to just be deleted. Leave the article be, the school has about 700 students anyways, so there have to be some people from the school who read the article. I think this article needs a lot of work, but it does not deserve to be deleted. Instead of nominating it for deletion, why not help edit out all of the bias and non-neutral adjectives from the article, as well as copyedit it? Bob Roberts 22:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FANCRUFT at its worst. Pretty sure there is a ton of WP:OR also. Clear violation of WP:NOT. John from Idegon (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that I specifically oppose either merge or redirect. There is nothing whatsoever in this article that would be encyclopedic in the school's article and as Jon stated, we do not generally include articles on high school football teams. The very few we have (<10) are schools that are highly successful and have been for a very long time. Every article on high school football programs are about programs that have been the subject of full-length books. John from Idegon (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasoning stated above. Bob Roberts 22:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- BobRoberts14, you haven't stated any valid reason to keep above. Please read the instructions. John from Idegon (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, only local coverage as well as WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, someone really put some work into this! Unfortunately there's no showing the school's program is anything but locally notable - lots of Akron Beacon Journal sources - and the level of detail is far beyond what we would have for an encyclopaedia article for even a college team. Fails WP:GNG since no non-routine sources exist. SportingFlyer T·C 22:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I wonder how many sections of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions apply to the arguments given by ClemRutter and BobRoberts14. Here are just a few. WP:HARMLESS, WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF. None of the reasons given relate at all to Wikipedia policies. If either of those two people wishes to, they are free to propose that the notability guidelines be changed to include such criteria as "it appears to be doing no harm", "it is keeping a lot of people happy", "someone put hours of work into this", "there are so many less important articles", and so on and so on, but this discussion will be closed on the basis of what the guidelines actually say, and NOT ONE of the reasons given for keeping has anything to do with those guidelines. That means that if the person who closes the discussion correctly follows policy they will not take them into account at all.Yhto Plwhm (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence that this subject satisfies any of the notability guidelines, which is unsurprising, as high school sports teams scarcely ever do. Yhto Plwhm (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @BobRoberts14: I will be glad to copy the contents of the article and place it in a subpage for BitBytes (talk · contribs) so that the data isn't lost (he is also free to do such, such as User:BitBytes/Woodridge football), but this isn't a case of the article being proposed for deletion because "it needs lots of work", it's a case of the entire topic failing a number of policies that we use to determine if such an article should even exist. As I said in the nomination, it's pretty well-written and well-sourced; that's not the issue at all. Problem is the overall topic isn't notable, so even paring down some of the details still won't make the article notable. The info in this article would be far better served on the team's own website (and if they don't have one, perhaps a project for BitBytes to create one). --JonRidinger (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @BobRoberts14: @JonRidinger: Would it be a reasonable alternative to simply keep the introductory summary and then the tables with the records and awards? 22:38, 16 June 2019 (EST)

Unfortunately, this is a case of the topic not being notable. It's not a case of the article simply being too detailed or too big, it's that the WHS football team (and just about every other high school football team) isn't notable, at least according to Wikipedia standards, so having a stand-alone article about it isn't appropriate. Again, I would definitely go ahead and copy the contents of the article into your userspace (you can create a subpage by clicking here) and store the article there. You could also start a website that the team can use or refer to. The info is very interesting for people into high school football, but "being interesting" doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia, at least in the article mainspace. I have my own high school football tables, tracking some of the local rivalries on my own userspace (see User:JonRidinger/RidersStatesmen, User:JonRidinger/KentRavenna, and User:JonRidinger/KentStow) --JonRidinger (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly, I wish this level of effort was put into more notable topics. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this article certainly put in a lot of work and created just about as substantial an article as one can for a high school football team. However its definitely a Delete, ~~but try to merge what is relevant into the high school's article.~~ Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- GPL93, if you review the school article guidelines you will easily see there's nothing whatsoever here to merge. John from Idegon (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - John from Idegon Originally I thought maybe a list of its titles but when I dug a little deeper I realized Woodridge's listed championships are for the divisions of its conference, not the conference itself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Conference titles aren't even encyclopedic. For a poorly performing team like this, all we would list is its highest finish in the state tournament and even then, if another sport or activity at the school had a higher finish, we wouldn't even list that. John from Idegon (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @JonRidinger: Just made a subpage for this content here. 17:04, 17 June 2019 (EST)
Redirect to Woodridge High School. It's a possible search term, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Susmuffin. This is a 700-strong highschool, and Wikipedia really doesn't need to be cluttered with articles about individual sports programs for such schools. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Can't WP:TROUT the editor who made this, they did a terrific job, but unfortunately this is more WP:FANCRUFT & WP:UNDUE than not. James-the-Charizard (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My personal opinion, an article on a high school sports team should only be considered if the school has history of being nationally ranked and a history of producing pros in the sport. Even high school teams that have had movies made about them (T. C. Williams from Remember the Titans, T. L. Hanna from Radio just to name a couple of my personal favorites) don’t have pages.--Rockchalk7 17 18:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, as a matter of editorial discretion, we apply greater scrutiny to topics involving athletic competition at the high school level. This practice is memorialized in part at WP:NHSPHSATH. There are approximately 37,000 high schools in the USA, most of which have football programs. IMO, opening the floodgates to Wikipedia articles on each such program is a bad idea. As Rockchalk and others have said, high school teams should only have articles if there is something truly exceptional. Cbl62 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as high school football programs are not inherently notable. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I applaud the enthusiasm of the article contributors! And I will admit that it is possible for a high school football team to achieve the level of notability required for inclusion in this encyclopedia. However, this team (with an underwhelming win-loss record) does not seem to be one of them, having failed so many separate notability measures. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El Paso Suns[edit]

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

The article says the Suns "will begin play in 2011" in the Pecos League, but that article doesn't list them at all, even as a former team. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching via Newspapers.com find no mentions past July 2010; no indication that the team actually was formed and played professional games. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No record of team ever existing. Spanneraol (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can find nothing to show this team ever existed as an adult professional team. I did find some social media posts for several youth baseball teams with this name, but nothing to show any of them are notable.Sandals1 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyu Usman Mani[edit]

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

I am pretty certain this is a wp:memorial. The only notable thing about him was that he was killed in a suicide attack— I don't know what consensus we have to retain articles on all persons killed in such attacks (is there an SSG?) but I suspect that being killed isn't sufficient to warrant an article. He may also be disqualified under WP:BIO1E, as all of the coverage of him appears to be in relation to this suicide attack. A loose necktie (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree insufficient coverage. First ref does not work / says nothing about them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPROF criteria 6 - was director of a faculty at a major Nigerian university. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable academic in Nigeria.--Ipigott (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROF#6 - both in his full professor role but definitely in his director position. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "keep" !votes above (insofar they give any policy-based arguments) misunderstand WP:PROF. Being director of a faculty, even at a major university, does not even come close to meeting WP:PROF#6, neither is being a full prof sufficient. GScholar shows a dismal citation record. I don't see anything that would indicate the slightest notability. --Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do not satisfy NPROV#6. Hospital attached to a university is not a major research facility, the position is unlikely elected, therefore it fell out of the scope. Viztor (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see anything that shows a significant point. --MA Javadi (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Also I support deletion per nominator. Masum Reza^📞 01:20, 24 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of last surviving veterans of military engagements[edit]

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

Newly created article that fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Is partly a cutout of this article List of last survivors of historical events and is pretty much just a WP:SYNTH of news reports and records about old veterans who died and the random battles they served in. There are also random military related actions included like Hitler's failed Beer Hall Putsch. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree that work can be done to clean this article up to address both WP:LISTN and WP:SYNTH, I think that it should stay. As for the article being "partly a cutout of the list of List of last survivors of historical events," this is an important reason why it should remain; at present, there is hardly a place suitable to keep this information. Until recently, there were many solely battle-related entries on the 'last survivors' article and, despite many of these actions (i.e. storming of Bastille, Gettysburg, Verdun) having lasting cultural, political, military, and or technological impacts, (before moving them to other 'lists') I saw hardly any reason to keep these entries on the article as they present the question "why not include last survivors of wars on this list too?" For the most part, wars have significant impacts as well so why do they not belong on the same list? Why should we keep these two separate lists? The most effective answer to me is that providing a list for topic and one for the other prevents one long list from being an WP:INDISCRIMINATE mess of entries. For this reason, having an article devoted to this field of interest will allow both mentioned lists to better focus on information pertinent to their titles, only last vets of wars and, ideally, last survivors of non-directly related combat events, in the future. Additionally, the reason for the temporary WP:SYNTH is because it is my intention to remove all remaining solely battle-related entries from both the 'last survivors' and 'last surviving veterans' (most of which I had added myself years ago and had found no better place to put them) and put them onto one battle-focused article so as to not needlessly clutter up either article. Lemunz (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemunz I admire your passion for this topic, but your defense of this article is a long way of saying WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward keep with much pruning. Last survivors of famous battles get some press, but ones like the Landing at Suvla Bay should be removed with extreme prejudice. Also a distinction between the Battle of the Somme and the first day on the Somme is rather picayune. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend Could you please explain why this article passes WP:LISTN and is not simply an WP:INDISCRIMINATE Syntheses of random news coverage and old records? Newshunter12 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable WP:SPLIT from the historical events list, just on size considerations alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend Please read the third sentence in WP:LISTN and tell me how this article doesn't fail policy? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this article either and personally, I don't think that other article passes WP:LISTN either. I do appreciate that you are trying to improve the article, but the article itself is fatally flawed in its premise. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To be honest I can't see any problem with any of these. The first day of the Somme is the most notable (and bloodiest) day in British military history, so deleting that seems silly. And what precisely is wrong with Suvla Bay? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp The problem is this article fails polices like WP:LISTN. What reliable sources publish lists of last veterans of individual battles/skirmishes/random military events. None do, as this article is a WP:SYNTH of random news coverage and old records. Your defense of the article is just WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no, it doesn't fail any policy. It's well-sourced, verifiable and I would say that the last surviving veterans of notable battles are, if not individually, then certainly collectively notable. It's certainly not indiscriminate, since its criteria are clear. If you think it does fail a policy then you'd better start nominating many of our thousands of lists for deletion, as a very large number of them fall into the same category. Otherwise I'd say this nomination was based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does fail policy as already described. Furthermore, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid defense to stave off deletion. Each article needs to stand or fall on its own merits, and this one falls flat. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp WP:LISTN says "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Please tell me what reliable sources discuss the subjects in this list as a group in a similar manor. None do, do they? Newshunter12 (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Wordpress article is nowhere close to a reliable source. Suvla Bay is one of very many obscure engagements of the war, and none of the major media outlets has paid the slightest attention. Nor do they make a distinction between survivors of the first day and the whole battle Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suvla Bay is obscure?! My God... -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does not fail any policy set forth by WP:LISTN. As long as as it well sourced, it is no different than the List of last survivors of historical events. I agree with Necrothesp, this feels like the nomination was based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT!~~Feickus (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Feickus WP:LISTN says "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Please tell me what reliable sources discuss the subjects in this list as a group in a similar manor. None do, do they? As I said, this article doesn't meet policy. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; this is basically a gigantic synthesis of a bunch of unrelated events, which is absolutely not what Wikipedia lists are for. It's not an actual topic that reliable sources cover, it's throwing together disparate sources to form a hodgepodge. "Military engagements" isn't even remotely well-defined either, having an entry here on the Beer Hall Putsch says about all that needs to be said on that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: this is indeed a wonderful case of indiscriminate synthesis. I may change my mind if keepers exhibit sources discussing this concept as a list. — JFG ^talk 05:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:LISTPURP and as a reasonable fork of List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. LISTN, which is cited by the nom, is not the be all and end all of whether to keep or delete lists. Nevertheless, there is definitely sourcing discussing the last survivors of individual battles. LISTN requires that the list topic (not the individual members together) "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The topic has, so the list should be kept. Of course, we could have hundreds of lists along the line of List of last surviving veterans of the Battle of Trafalgar or List of last surviving veterans of the Battle of Waterloo, but I think that this catch-all list is preferable. Regardless, LISTN acknowleges that Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. This is one such list. A reader or researcher would be done a disservice if this list were removed as, from LISTPURP "If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles." I do agree that the scope of the list does need to be refined, though. schetm (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@schetm Wrong. As stated above, WP:LISTN is very clear about the need to be discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, which in this case would be something like a group list of last veterans from WW1 battles, American Civil war battles, Napoleonic wars battles and etc. There are no independent reliable sources like that. The Times link you provided is not a reliable source or indpendent, it was just a letter to the editor (not to mention about just one battle), and the Waterloo source is an article about one veteran. What your proposing is pure WP:SYNTH to create something out of nothing. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12 Wrong. As stated above, WP:LISTN is very clear that stand alone lists can be kept regardless of the notability guideline if they satisfy LISTPURP. This one does, so it should be kept. schetm (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been explained to you, this is not a real topic. It is a WP:SYNTH of information an editor personally liked that has no basis in real world independent reliable sources and based on the zero real world sources on this topic, basically no one is searching for this, so no, it doesn't serve any purpose and get a notability pass. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Pageview stats say that over 100 have been searching for this in the past day, which is high given the article's only a few days old. You keep citing SYNTH. SYNTH isn't a stand-alone policy: it's part of WP:No original research. It specifically says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim. As there is no original research in question here, there is no SYNTH according to our standards. So then, WP:LISTN, which leads to WP:LISTPURP applies, and this list meets point two of LISTPURP to a tee. schetm (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is quite the notable subject.TH1980 (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TH1980 Care to provide any independent reliable sources to back up that claim which has as yet been unfounded in this AfD? None of the keep voters have been able to produce any evidence whatsoever in reliable sources that this grouping is a real topic. Your vote is really just WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12 I will not be bullied or goaded into a pointless argument with you about this. If the events these last survivors participated in are not notable enough for you, I do not see what can be, so stop trying to "own" this page and beat it.TH1980 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TH1980These individual events are notable on their own, but last survivors of battles throughout history are not a real group or set discussed in independent reliable sources, so this article fails WP:LISTN. This is policy, not my opinion. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "ownership" to respond to what you perceive as a flawed argument. Other than that, I unsurprisingly concur with all of the points above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a reasonable fork. Also WP:SYNTH doesn´t apply. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And how might that be the case? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How might what be the case? ...GELongstreet (talk)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights, SYNTH doesn't apply here because there is no SYNTH. To quote from my previous comments, SYNTH isn't a stand-alone policy: it's part of WP:No original research. It specifically says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim. As there is no original research in question here, there is no SYNTH according to our standards. schetm (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@schetm First of all, there is undisputedly original research in this article, such as: Most last survivors of particular engagements were junior officers or soldiers/naval ratings of non-commissioned rank in the early years of their service careers at the time. That unsourced and unsourcable statement is half of the description of this article. Secondly, putting these people together like this IS WP:SYNTH. No reliable sources group these individuals together like this, and this article is implying that they belong together as a set, so it fails WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not SYNTH. WP:SYNTH forbids the combination of "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." There is none of that here. Reliable sources call the people listed here the last survivors of a conflict and, therefore, they belong together as a set. That's It may be true that "no reliable sources group these individuals together like this," but that isn't SYNTH as defined by Wikipedia, as no conclusion is implied that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This is a navigation list, explicitly meeting WP:LISTPURP, and is not at all original research. If this article is to be defined as SYNTH, then we need to blow up Wikipedia's entire system of categorization, which does much the same thing in code as this article does in prose. You may wish to read Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not for further explanation and clarification of what SYNTH is on Wikipedia. I certainly concede that the lede needs to be rewritten, that the sourcing needs to be improved for some entries, and that many of the entries need to be pruned, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. schetm (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:Verifiability is an issue, particularly for the more obscure battles. I've already started examining them and am finding "sources" that don't support (or even mention) the claim. Even when they do, I have to question whether a newspaper, such as The Toledo Blade, has made any real attempt to confirm something that occurred so long ago. I feel that only the most famous clashes should be included. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with schetm, there are many reliable sources which name the last survivors of significant battles. No original research is needed to identify such survivors, and no synthesis is needed to reach the conclusion that the last survivors of significant battles is a notable subject. Some of the statements may need either better sourcing (if reliable sources do indeed state that most last survivors were junior officers, etc), or editing/deleting - but per WP:CONTN, that is not a reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:53, 22 June 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) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Whiteley[edit]

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

This apparently impressive article is essentially advertising--and the surgeon does not meetthe re DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing Bunch of accounts just here to promote this person. Agree with DGGs concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF and the article appears to be rather promotional in tone. --Tataral (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:58, 23 June 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. Consensus is to delete due to failing the GNG - of the five sources, some contain only trivial coverage and others are not reachable anymore. The claims of her age being 125 are not verifiable - we can verify that she /claimed/ to be 125, but not that she /was/ - and the claim of being 150 is simply laughable. ST47 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fulla Nayak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Time for another AfD. Farcical longevity claim, which all of the few sources here treat with far too much credulity. After the previous AfD people stripped all the unreliable sources out of this, which leaves us with the following 1. a couple one-off articles about smoking weed at a purportedly old age, which is not actually notable, 2. an uncritical puff piece on her age, and 3. a couple obituaries. Maybe a short mention on Longevity myths at most, but definitely not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG because its subject lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV of her life or deeds. Her longevity claim combined with her weed use was an oddity that scammed some coverage, but scam or not, that coverage was not sustained WP:SIGCOV of her. It all dates from around the years she died and made a little buzz. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is SIGCOV in RS. The first part of the nom's rationale (that the sources are uncritical) should be disregarded as it is not based in policy. The second part of the nom's rationale is in and of itself an argument for keep, as he acknowledges that there such significant coverage exists. schetm (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is noting 2 articles about her alleged weed habit and 1 obviously factually inaccurate article significant coverage? I'm open to thinking I missed something here, but that's about what I found. And just because an ordinarily reliable source says something that's obviously wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia has to, or should, repeat it here; factual accuracy matters, and that's seriously compromised if one of the only sources is wildly off-base. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One simply reports that, although the newspapers have called her 120+, she has not been validated as such by any of the normal agencies that do so (GRG, Guinness, etc.) SIGCOV is defined as "address(ing) the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The existing coverage, in my mind, meets that, and therefore gets her over the hump. schetm (talk) 15:21, 18 June 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) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Parliamentary Cricket Tournament 2019[edit]

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

Simply an informal knock about by politicians. A one-off, non-notable event and most certainly cannot be called a tournament - it's a friendly knock about, no different to meeting for expensive caviar to have a chat about world events! Simply because politicians are playing it does not make it notable, as notability is not inherited. StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it suddenly makes lots of serious news coverage rather than fluffy coverage. Say a fight breaks out and war gets declared between two nations as a result - that sort of thing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite their being coverage about the Paki PM entering the tournament, this isn't really something that most of the other teams that are competing in the tournament would probably cover. HawkAussie (talk) 01:34, 23 June 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) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo Type 937[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alfa Romeo Type 937 (2nd nomination)

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

Copy of existing articles, can't be redirected, uses chassis code as name, have confusing values that need to be separated YBSOne (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, no redirect. Very confusing, not really a subject worhy of a Wiki article. This isn't a chassis too IIRC, both vehicles that base their design around this are of a monocoque design. Nightfury 15:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find anything that makes this article notable Alex-h (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NursingNotes[edit]

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

Non-notable periodical. No independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All information on the site is verifiable. MattBodell (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have searched and cannot find coverage. @MattBodell: the issue is not verifiability but notability, as shown by coverage of NursingNotes in other reliable sources. Please also have a look at the conflict of interest guidance. Tacyarg (talk) 17:35, 16 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Ask Me If I Love[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. No claims of notability, no reliable secondary sources Rogermx (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable book. Geoffroi (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With sympathy to Nom and editor above who appear not to have access to news archive searches, where there is coverage of the book and the film that was based on it. I have WP:HEYMANN expanded and sourced the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nom change Delete to Keep. E.M., thanks for your research and edits. I am more than happy to dismiss this nomination. Rogermx (talk) 18:58, 18 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Talish (actor)[edit]

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

Brand new actor at beginning of career. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 18:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Scope creep: @CAPTAIN RAJU: The article a BLP is a stub. I have improved it. Let us keep it and give a chance to editors to improve it. Rickyurs (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRickyurs edits merit more time for improvement.--CryptoWriter (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may have updated and tried to improve the referencing even though it is still poor. The reason for that is that there is no coverage. It is mostly social media links.scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel enough references are already there -- Dawn (newspaper), Gulf News and The Nation (Pakistan) newspapers. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actor is not on IMDB. Doesn't have an IMDB page and is not listed on any of the productions mentioned. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT. Looks like a case of TOOSOON. HM Wilburt (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:HM Wilburt, IMDB is not a reliable source and so as the page on IMDB does'nt matter. He is mentioned in the given productions Suno Chanda 2 and Tabeer. Which productions are you talking about? The thing is that he was nominated on 2 June and at that time he was lacking sources but Gulf News publish about him on 10 June, https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/pakistani-cinema/suno-chandas-raza-talish-on-his-breakthrough-role-1.64496331 and also both of his roles are justified by sources. Also please check https://images.dawn.com/news/1182287, https://www.somethinghaute.com/in-conversation-with-suno-chanda-mithoo-raza-talish/, https://nation.com.pk/07-May-2019/suno-chanda-is-back. He was one of the main lead in Suno Chanda 2. Also passing NACTOR because of his roles in two projects. Regards. Ghazal Pervaiz (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to pass WP:ENT but lacks SIGCOV, most of the sources aren't independent and are just namechecks, others are social media. The article lacks BLP. HM Wilburt (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An actor passes wikipidea notability of article if he passing WP:ENT. It also has three valid news sources which is enough to meet criteria. It lacks BLP info but thats not the point. We can expand it whenever needed. This time he only has three projects (two being actor, one being assistant director). Regards Ghazal Pervaiz (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abiotic (band)[edit]

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

The coverage is WP:ROUTINE and I couldn't find anything that rose above that so fails WP:GNG. No notable musicians, charting, awards, etc. so fails WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The most I could find was this article about their album and the two articles in the Wikipedia article from Metal Injection. Comment: The article on Metal Injection should also probably be looked into for notability. A brief search turns up nothing notable, and the article relies almost entirely on primary sources right now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two albums on Metal Blade Records satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion 5, and while (like most metal bands) the majority of coverage is likely to be in print sources, there are multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources online: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and an interview in Guitar World: [11]. --Michig (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- When I originally saw it, I didn't think the Guitar World interview would help toward GNG for the band. I'm still not sure it does. I did see the AllMusic review, but did not find the other reviews or articles. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes criterion 1 and 5 of WP:NMUSIC with significant coverage in reliable sources such as AllMusic, Sputnik Music, PopMatters, New Noise Magazine and Houston Free Press and has two albums on a notable label, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band is signed to a major label, seems pretty notable. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 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. There's a consensus in favor of deletion here, but only a weak one. Closing as delete because relisting is unlikely to be productive. Please see WP:DELREV if you're able to find additional independent sources. ST47 (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cormac Ó Comáin[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Content was "Hagiographic article, the few sources either aren't RS or don't actually seem to mention the subject, and nothing to support the grandiose claims here." Contrary to the de-PROD reason I did not cite the purported age, though that further adds to the absurdity of this article; Wikipedia should not uncritically parrot ridiculous claims. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually (I having just compared the article against the source), Walker supports everything here except the age at death, the subject being still alive when Walker wrote about xem. The problem is that there is exactly one source for this. All of the books that supposedly document this … are actually reprints of, simple and obvious plagiarism of, or outright cite as their one source, Walker's article. And The Blade of the Northern Lights is not the first to complain about this. The editor of the Ulster Journal of Archaeology (1907, p.53) wrote in a prefix to yet another copy of Walker's biographical memoir that
[This account of Cormac Dall is written in the usual fulsome, and often objectionable, tone of the period, which I have not hesitated to alter and amend. — Ed.]
The problem is that this source is not very good, relating things from other unidentified people ("I have been assured that") and blaming someone named Ralph Ousley for the rest. It really does seem that this is a bunch of hearsay and non-factual opinion, that Wikipedia editors have bravely but in vain tried to neutralize in much the same way as the UJA editor did, and that no historian in over two centuries has produced another separate and independent account with everyone parrotting Walker wholesale. It does not seem very safe to base an article on a single, quite bad, source. I am strongly in favour of multiple independent sources. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (Glad to see you around again!) I did say "either aren't RS", which was meant to cover that; a terrible source saying something isn't any better than no source at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You said that in the Proposed Deletion nomination, to which the reply was "has reliable book coverage". Unless you want the conversation to vainly go around in circles, the next step is to explain why you are asserting unreliability when apparent sourcing can be turned up with a Google Books search. This subject warrants more explanation by a nominator, to fend off the usual "just look in Google Books!" rebuttal that you know it would otherwise get. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough, I'll make sure to be more precise going forward. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG because the one source in the article is a book of dubious reliability and other independent reliable sources could not be found, as all other writings on the subject are mere copies of the Walker book. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hagiography or not, O'Halloran, Clare (1989). "Irish Re-Creations of the Gaelic Past: The Challenge of Macpherson's Ossian". Past & Present. 124: 69–95. seems pretty positive about Walker and his skepticism toward "dubious" material. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Walker's own research is one thing. But this is material given to him (as Walker explicitly notes ahead of the memoir) by Ralph Ousley, who I believe to be (but Walker does not say) the Ralph Ouseley (1739) that you might have heard of. (Although Walker says "Ralph Ousley", that is a known alternative spelling, and the illustration is credited to one "William Ousley" whom I believe to be, but again without support from Walker, William Ouseley Ralph's son.) The editorial criticism of the source that I mentioned before comes from Francis Joseph Bigger, whom you also may have heard of. Bigger is himself regarded as a purveyor of purple prose by serious standards (see Clements 2007 in the AFC submission), and anything that Bigger regards as "fulsome and objectionable" is bad indeed, and way below modern standards for serious historical scholarship. Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don’t we have many notable historical figures for which their true RS aggregates back to one source historical account that may or may not be fully true? I also think that for historical figures, it becomes less about pure WP:GNG, and includes aspects of WP:PRESERVE, as sources, for even unambiguously worthy historical subjects, can be thin. My question therefore is whether this subject is "inherently notable", and thus worthy of PRESERVE (notwithstanding the need for the article to clarify the issues of sourcing; which are also helpful to readers)? Britishfinance (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case it goes back to one source which hasn't gotten a lot of attention and which, of the few other historians who have studied it, most of them agree is wildly unreliable. There's nothing here which can even remotely be verified by modern standards. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - So are we saying that mention in the book aside, this subject would never have really been "inherently notable" – E.g. he was an unremarkable artist. My check is whether he was historically "inherently notable", but his sources are thin/suspect? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we largely do not. For must such subjects, there is at least an identified historian who has done the legwork, even if said legwork results in the historian publishing "I can find birth and death records, and everything else that we know of the subject comes from W.". In this case we do not even know who "Ralph Ousley" and "William Ousley" are. Walker does not say, and it is my educated guess that these are Ralph Ouseley (1739) and William Ouseley. (Drmies now understands why the Limericks.) But we do not even have a historian confirming that. There's the original hearsay, lots of re-hashes and outright plagiarism of the original hearsay that tail off into the start of the 20th century, a note from Francis Joseph Bigger that this is too poor by his standards, and nothing else; no historian doing any sort of legwork at all. And that's the problem. We cannot put in my guesses about the Ouseleys, nor yours or any other Wikipedia editor's, and there's simply no good historical scholarship on this matter to work from. Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest to consider that he's mentioned (as Cormac Dall) by others beside Walker ([12], [13],[14]), as well as in "an eighteenth-century paper manuscript containing drafts of short biographies" and in this in one from 1746, predating Walker's publication. He also has an entry in this British Musical Biography(1897). Between legend and reality, he seems to have established himself. Homer may well never have existed either. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, contrary to what is written in the article, his "Lament for John Burke of Carrentryle" is actually reported on page 58 of [15]. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You make my point for me. You've just pointed to:
  - two outright copies of Walker, the Sedley one crediting Walker's historical memoirs in a footnote and more heavily edited than the Conran one that does not and is largely word-for-word except for the usual editorial exchanges ("simple and honest" and "poor and honest" for example);
  - a short story work of fiction in a "Ladies' Magazine", not history by a historian at all, that contains nothing except the subject's name in a footnote;
  - a manuscript description that far from pre-dating Walker as you claim, has the statement "ultimately derives from Walker’s Historical memoirs of the Irish bards." for the part about Cormac at the top of the page, a historian pointing out what I am pointing out;
  - even worse, a listing of an actual manuscript of these appendices to Walker's Historical memoirs of the Irish bards in a library catalogue (observe the titles, for starters!).
- That leaves the 3-sentence British Musical Biography entry, which we can tell is not based upon a historian doing the legwork but yet again on Walker because it contains the wishy-washy claim that the subject must have "died about the end of the 18th century, or at least after 1786", this deduction clearly made because he was apparently alive when Walker's Historical memoirs of the Irish bards came out. (In reality, he was alive when Ralph Ousley told Walker, whenever that was. Walker does not say.) In Wikipedia "about the end of the 18th century" would have a ((when)) against it in short order, and might well be outright removed for being uninformative tripe telling the reader the blindingly obvious that the subject must have died at some point. The British Musical Biography compilers did to Walker's (Ousley's) account what Wikipedia editors tried to, and ended up with largely nothing.
  Thank you for at least not doing the usual handwave in the direction of Google Books, but for this AFD discussion the bar is raised a lot higher. You actually have to read the sources and check that they aren't yet more re-hashes and plagiarism of Walker, and find one that contains the result of actual legwork done by a historian. More plagiarism of Walker's hearsay, re-hashes of it, or outright identified derivatives of it, with historians and editors making the same points as I am, are not nearly enough.
  Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. a) The first three references are indeed inspired or derived from Walker, but this means that Cormac was widely known. You do not appear in a Ladies' Magazine tale if no one knows who you are. b) Cormac is mentioned in Manuscript MS 12 B 20 , while the reference to Walker is in Manuscript 24 O 22 of the Forde-Pigot Collection. c) I still fail to see how "[42]. ‘Marbhnaoi Sheáin de Búrc cheathramhadh an Tríaill c. na Gaillbhe, le Cormac dall o Comáin (1746)" (that's the Carrentryle ode in Gaelic) could be derived from Walker, who was born in 1760, fourteen years later. Perhaps the date is spurious, but that's a supposition. d) The Carrentryle ode is translated in its entirety by Charlotte Brooke in her book "Maon". This confirms Cormac's fame. The Carrentryle ode was clearly famous and it is still there, in Gaelic and in English. Someone must have written it. Mind, whether Cormac really existed is beside the point. What I am saying is that his literary personality, real or legendary, is established. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 2015 reference to Brooke's translation of Cormac Common's poetry. A curious reader may come to Wikipedia to learn more. After this AfD he may well find NOTHING. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of which addresses the problems Uncle G laid out above, namely that it's all variations on a single source. Wikipedia needs more than one source for an article on someone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of "comments". How about some !votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Inclusion in A Compendium of Irish Biography is sufficient to satisfy point three of WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing is quite weak, though. schetm (talk) 08:38, 18 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Askin[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article describes him as a "business investor and published author": the first is not in itself notable and the second is based on one book from 1979, which is way down the Amazon sales list. Nothing in the article hints at notability within either investing or authorship. The only source is Askin's book (basically that it exists). Note that the page was created on 16 November 2009‎ by User:Shishg, who has contibuted to no other article, with the edit summary "Entry made by Chris Hitman - Personal Marketing Specialist". Emeraude (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 22 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ropate Rakuita Qalo[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep finding more sources as "Ropate Rakuita Qalo", consideration for being from an isolated country in the pacific of just 900,000 people with no major International news outlets does make it more difficult to find online sources. Gnan garra 18:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should be renamed to Ropate Rakuita Qalo Gnan garra 02:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable WP:Notability Mrbuskin (talk) 05:08, 22 June 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) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal-E-Azam (2010 flim)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The article was draftified twice, but then the draft got moved back to mainspace twice by the article creator, so rather than move-warring, we should discuss at AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Geoffroi (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think it's an extraordinary movie, it does not mean that the movie's releases all the movies are notable films.-Nahal (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only ref on the article is a database listing in Wikipedia. The film has not recived any kind of film review or anything else.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:28, 23 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Goldsmith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently non-notable academic, h-index of 9. A number of marks of recognition are claimed in our article: "Richard M. Clewett Research Chair", "McManus Research Chair", "Sidney J. Levy Award for Excellence in Teaching"; a search for any of these on the web gives a good number of hits for this person, and few or none for anyone else. The Kellogg School of Management, for example, appears to be blissfully unaware of the Richard M. Clewett Research Chair (though one junior professor does claim in her bio to have received one). The article is poorly sourced, and there do not seem to be better sources available. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I must presume that the original article was indeed deleted since this apparently fake AfD discussion dated 2006 must have been in response to a live article at that time. The current version only dates from January 2016. My guess is the original deletion was a speedy delete as there appears to be no valid AfD record and the bot generated banner above probably should be changed since there was no previous deletion discussion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it seems to not even have been transcluded, not properly filed (and not a discussion so theoretically this article was never at AfD before). —Paleo Neonate – 13:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. It was deleted on February 11, 2006, per the Brandon Quinton discussion. This is mostly a waste of time because the article was not the same as it is now, current warts and all.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I now see that... —Paleo Neonate – 13:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Quinton is your friend. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is ludicrous at times. The research chairs that you are talking about were taken out in a more cleaned up version of the article by someone who was then accused of having a conflict of interest, and put back in by two Wikipedia editors, one using the vandalism rollback tool to do so. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:07, 16 June 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) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharm Holding[edit]

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

Declined PROD, fails WP:NCORP, exclusively sourced to their own website. No significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Vexations (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, without prejudice. WP:BEFORE suggests it's possible that they should be notable ... but the third-party references don't seem to exist - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm very inline with David Gerard - there are dozens of mentions, but much like smaller news organisations, no-one (else) actually talks about them. Nothing showed up when I hunted for some armenian coverage, but a native-speaker might have more luck Nosebagbear (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, someone local would be good to get opining on this one - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing showed up when I hunted for some armenian coverage, but the third-party references don't seem to exist- --MA Javadi (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pptt226). MER-C 19:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BNaira[edit]

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

Nothing here seems to establish notability. Sources are mainly announcements, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO Ceethekreator (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indhuja Ravichandran[edit]

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

Refs very lightweight and only one with any substance. Article was draftified in March 2019 and moved back to mainspace with no improvement in sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Probably WP:TOOSOON Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she satisfies WP:NFILM criterion 1. The requirement is significant, not leading coverage. She's been the 3rd or 4th actor/actress in multiple films. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in at least five notable theatrically released films, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not enough discussion to agree on any particular redirect target - I have no objection to someone re-creating this article as a redirect to one of the recommendations in the discussion, but there wasn't enough discussion to establish a consensus for any particular target. ST47 (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paperon Intelligence Agency[edit]

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

This article does not follow Wikipedia's notability standards; is more suited to IGN or Wikia/Fandom; SEE:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual,_guidebook,_textbook,_or_scientific_journal GreaterPonce665 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 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 June 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of James Bond parodies and spin-offs if a source can be located. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donald Duck pocket books I think be the best option. Wgolf (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 16 June 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. Both keep !votes were made before sources had been added to the article. Whilst it seems that an editor has disputed that the added sources are WP:SIGCOV, there is not enough of an explanation as to why it cannot qualify as SIGCOV. In addition, it has been mentioned by Just Chilling that there are reliable sources not yet mentioned in the article, who's comment has not been responded to. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University Partnerships Programme[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources in article since 2011. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced entry/listing with almost no information about what this actually is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. I added two references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

......... You added two brief mentions .... On websites called "property forum" and "property wire" ... And scolded the nominator based on that? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was going to do a routine vote to delete corpspam, but this has more hits on Google Scholar than I expected. In particular, the (open access?) [16] ] has a one page case study dedicated to "Jarvis’s specialist business unit, the University Partnerships Programme (UPP)". My main concern is that I am not sure if this is the same entity. If it is the same entity, I'd vote "weak keep", but I am unsure if this is or if there are multiple entities with the name "University Partnerships Programme". Do ping me if there is any further information on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a significant and influential organisation. Searches on this title combined with UPP Group Holdings throw up sufficient sources from which the article can be expanded to meet WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 15:20, 19 June 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) 10:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Vasiliev (ice hockey, born 1987)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has never played in the KHL and the VHL isn't listed among the leagues in #2 and #3. Tay87 (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. NHOCKEY is fairly aggressively written out, but I had a look through the tournament page to see if it would legitimately belong in the listed tournaments. At this point, I do not think IAR could be justified on that basis. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NHOCKEY's as aggressively written as it is in large part because of the article creator, who never met a notability guideline he couldn't reinterpret to suit his purposes, ignore or defy in his attempt to get Game High Score, and who was eventually community banned from new article creation and the revdel process in consequence. Indeed, the subject does not meet any iteration of NHOCKEY there's ever been, although I wonder given his long minor league career whether there are Russian- or Kazakh-language sources. Ravenswing 20:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails NHOCKEY and has no coverage to show that the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 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 Death of Eric Garner. ST47 (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Orta[edit]

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

rather trivia, we're not going to track down everyone in every event, there is very few, if any, way we can expand anything in this article. Viztor (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been established by coverage in reliable sources, such as Time": https://time.com/ramsey-orta-eric-garner-video/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there is a story from earlier in 2019 about his upcoming testimony in a trial of one of the assailants. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The event is notable. It doesn't mean the person is notable outside of the event. Viztor (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a categorized ((R from person)) to Death of Eric Garner per WP:ATD-R (policy). Subject seems to be mainly a WP:BLP1E case that does not meet the basic notability guideline for people, but subject is mentioned in Death of Eric Garner, and as such the article title nominated for deletion here is a valid search term that would be accepted if it had been requested at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. WP:BLAR per ATD-R after a proper WP:BEFORE can always be attempted before nominating for deletion. If redirection is not contested, there is no need for a discussion at AFD. Sam Sailor 10:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)</nowiki>[reply]
Redirect a BOLD redirecting might have saved us this discussion but Eric Garner is an obvious redirect target and this BLP1E (without the questionable BLPCRIME attached information) should be redirected there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The police harassment he has faced since releasing the video seems to qualify as a second event, and this information wouldn't make sense in the Garner biography. -- Kendrick7^talk 13:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Kendrick7 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
No, I wasn't the creator of the page, I just did the merge to mainspace. I did notify the creator though.[17] -- Kendrick7^talk 14:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendrick7: Still does not meet WP:BASIC. The argument "this information wouldn't make sense in the Garner biography" is weak, as the information is already in Death of Eric Garner, please read § After the grand jury. Death of Eric Garner is not a biography. Sam Sailor 10:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam Sailor: How does it not meet WP:BASIC? Multiple reliable sources independent of the subject of which Orta is the main topic are listed, see Ramsey Orta#References. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then write the biography, I can't with these sources. The current revision of Death of Eric Garner has ~121 words about Orta. The article you want to keep has a mere 55. Sam Sailor 22:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This topic shouldn't exist because I don't know how to make it better" isn't much of an argument. I could do another merge though. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kendrick7: Please do refrain from putting words into my mouth, I have not made such an argument: there is a huge difference between stating, as I did, that I can't write a biography with the present sources, and your quasi-PA "don't know how to make it better". Be aware that I have helped save more areticles from deletion than you have ever created. Sam Sailor 07:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I am on the fence about this one. I personally have issues about the credibility of a drug dealer who participates in "Copwatch". I would say the video is notable and if there is a page on the incident or the victim you might merge this into those pages. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"if there is a page on the incident" ... read the above, target is Death of Eric Garner. I do not see anything to merge here. As I said, target has already more info about Orta than does the article under discussion. Sam Sailor 17:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Eric Garner where this individual's notability lies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 21 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrshahr[edit]

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

Per WP:V. I have attempted to find WP:RS for the article but have been unsuccessful. Under WP:DEL-REASON No. 7 Willbb234 (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Please visit the contributions of the creator of this page here. The user had not edited before creating the article, meaning they were inexperienced and most likely wrote this off of their own WP:OR. Willbb234 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve added sources to parts of it and cut the parts which were unsourced ~~additions~~. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but the first two sources state very little about Mehrshahr itself, and more about the Morvarid Palace. The sources don't back up what the article says, for example, the article says that the area was designed by The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation whereas the source says that the palace was built by The Frank Lloyd Wright Society, and nothing about the area it is in. The two sources are talking about the palace and not the town, which is the subject of the article. Also, the third source looks like a tabloid, large numbers of ads and the translation of the Arabic seems very promotional and questionable of whether it can be trusted. This is just my opinion, but I do thank you for your research. (I think this is the palace talked about in the first two sources). Willbb234 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like this subject straightforwardly meets the notability criterion 'populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable' under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Alarichall (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion is not arguing that the article is not notable, but that there is an issue with WP:V. Willbb234 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m limited by not understanding more than the odd word of Farsi. There are lots of Farsi refs for Mehrshahr but most are clearly commercial property sites so not suitable for us. The Farsi ref I’ve added is the one used to support the fa.wiki article. It describes the development of the suburb in phases, supporting the text of the article. The two English refs are about the Pearl Palace but they confirm the location in Mehrshahr, as well as the links with the Pahlavi family and FLW. I agree the sourcing is not strong, but overall I feel we’re not in deletion territory here - cleanup and additional sourcing templates would be adequate in my view. Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep the case article, redirect the draft, no consensus on the individual. OK, it seems like the nominating editor has not given a coherently clear deletion reason - it seems like they are claiming that because the case was thrown out we can't host an article on it? Anyhow, it seems like nobody other than (partially) Nable has been convinced and that there are valid notability-based keep reasons. The merge arguments should probably be processed as part of a dedicated merger discussion. As for the draft, some editors have flagged it as redundant and nobody has indicated a reason otherwise, so it's a redirect. There hasn't been any discussion on the individual so flagging this as no consensus.

Finally and probably unnecessary (in light of DanielRigal's comment), I'll notify legalwikimedia.org about the question raised here just in case there is an actual legal issue on this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ball v Johnson[edit]

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

Speedy-deletion per Db-g10: The application to prosecute and the application to indict discontinued and the summons (to appear, for Boris Johnson) quashed (all understood to be on a retrospective basis, "on the assumption that the summonses have not yet been issued") after the High Court [of England and Wales] (QBD (AC)) was understood [18][19] and reported (judgment reserved and not yet handed down [20]) to have allowed on 7 June 2019 an application for judicial review against the original decision made by Westminster Magistrates' Court on 29 May 2019. COI (undeclared) / BLP (defamation / prejudice [a fair trial]) / Misconduct. I am based in the same jurisdiction [within the same country], so I am of course legally bound, and supposed, to only say that the page should only be re-created if and when Boris Johnson is actually convicted of one, some or all of the said offences, if in the unlikely event that live criminal proceedings in respect of Boris Johnson successfully re-commence with the permission of the English courts. (The same legal territory as Tommy Robinson, really.) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case is notable due to the extensive media coverage it has received, and it is not an attack page to neutrally report on notable topics, regardless of the outcome of the case or what the motivations for bringing it are/were. If the article is not up-to-date and/or not neutral then this needs fixing, but it does not need deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is, if it was Marcus Ball who actually created and largely wrote this here in Wikipedia (or written by someone else on his personal behalf). You can't really otherwise explain the vanity 'Disambig' from that American NBA player [21]. It is therefore necessarily an attack page in and of itself. His wider personal motivations were (and are) irrelevant to THIS discussion as to whether a separate page about a as yet non-existent criminal prosecution case should remain or not on this site. Note, it would only be a Ball v Johnson had Westminster Magistrates' Court actually managed to successfully pass the application over to the Inner London Crown Court for indictment and a (more likely) trial in the Old Bailey. Even the title is so deliberately misleading as to be wrong as well. There is NO Ball v Johnson in the pre-indictment Magistrates' Court stage; that is a 'legal citation' of an actual trial, not the pre-indictment preliminary proceedings! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the Draft: as a duplicate, and I presume there is no need to keep its history because it is by the same author. delete the redirect (Marcus J Ball), let the search engine do its work (or nominate at RfD). No opinion about the article (leaning on delete, as I do not like these current event articles... it is hard to know if these are notable or the news scandal of the week.) but the nominator has not supplied a valid reason to delete, as reporting an existing legal case is not in itself an attack (the case may be an attack, reporting it is probably not an attack) - Nabla (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC) ~~PS: not leaning on delete, stick to no opinion, as I've eared of this in Portuguese news a few times, so it might be notable. 11:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

An 'internationally' widely reported case which did not, and will not (unless Marcus Ball managed to mount a successful appeal), in fact actually happen?! Can you give me another example in the case law of England, of a 'non-case' (it never *really* happened, as far as the Courts of England are concerned) having an article on this site? -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

194.207.146.167: you are missing the point, it is not a decisive factor (though it is ONE factor) if there is a case, what is important here in WP is if it gets talked about (a lot) in the news and by other people / politicians. I don't think this currently deserves a full article, at most this, as is, should be a one liner somewhere; but I understand that this may become huge, thus the excitement. - Nabla (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial UK press coverage, whether this goes to court or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the article. (No need to keep the separate draft.) This is nothing like a g10. Nothing at all. The claim of a COI is unsupported. The rest of the nomination is incoherent gibberish. The nominator claims "so I am of course legally bound" which is utter nonsense bordering on a legal threat. I am a British citizen sitting in Britain right now. While there are laws restricting what we can be report in ongoing legal matters in order to avoid prejudicing potential jury members, there is no legal obligation on British citizens to spout off incoherently demanding that non-UK based organisations do their bidding. Of course, I am perfectly sure that the WMF has no desire to prejudice a trial and that it would avoid doing so without requiring any legal compulsion. The good news is that the issue doesn't even arise as there is nothing in the article as currently written that is doing that at all. The first three paragraphs are OK while the final one does seem to be editorialising a little bit. That's not fatal to the article. It is not clear that this matter deserves an article of its own but it is a notable minor element of Boris Johnson's career and should be covered somewhere, albeit in not too much depth. So... Um... WTF is this nomination really about? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wtf is going on with the huge number of delsorts, some of which seem irrelevant? Men? Wales? Conspiracies? Politics and politicians? Is this AfD enough of a screw up to just knock it on the head here and now? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article seems straightforwardly to meet the general notability guideline 'if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list'. Looking at the event criteria, 'Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance'. As a layman, I'd have thought that this case will have a lasting significance in UK caselaw for its role in determining the scope of Malfeasance in office. Alarichall (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to note that this case is also addressed at Unlawful campaigning in the 2016 EU referendum#Private prosecutions. As I've said above, personally I'd have thought this case deserves its own entry, but if the article is deleted, we could redirect it there. Alarichall (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Boris Johnson article, which already has more information on the case than this article contains. It's a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I've added the important update that the legal case was thrown out by the High Court earlier this month (June). EddieHugh (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty strsightforward WP:GNG. And WP:EVENTCRIT.BabbaQ (talk) 08:38, 23 June 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. Those that supported deleting the article backed up their positions with relevant policies/guidelines while those supported keeping the article did not. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LLamasoft[edit]

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

A highly promotional article on a small company. Almost all the references are mere notices about funding, and do not meet WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable as has an international presence, also had an $80 million revenue in 2017. Uses sufficient sources to back up everything written. May need re writing in some areas as it does have a somewhat promotional tone (maybe in the ‘Awards and recognition’ section). WP:NCORP is not grounds to delete in this situation, although does need work. Willbb234 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a standard that $80 M makes a company notable? DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I’m allowed an opinion. Willbb234 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only have this page watchlisted because of Jeff Minter, and have no real interest in supply-chain networks (I had to follow the link to see what it was,) but it seems a notable article to me? I clicked a few references to see how they panned out and the ones I chose weren't about funding, or rather only in the same way that any article about a business would mention financial prospects. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think LLamasoft is not small, it seems a notable article to me.--SebastianQuilo (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom - none of the references are independent. Most are based on company announcements or business-as-usual reporting and fails the criteria independent content as per WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is surely more of the undisclosed paid editing for which the article creator was blocked. Coverage appears to be poorly sourced, local only, and of routine activities such as fund-raising typical of any business start-up; the "awards" are completely trivial, the usual trade magazine you-pat-my-back-and-I'll-pat-yours. WP:NCORP appears not to be met. To those who think the article should be kept (Willbb234, Chaheel Riens, SebastianQuilo): how many sources have you identified that are (1) significant? (2) independent? (3) reliable? and (4) secondary?. Would you care to compile a table similar to that shown here so that others can evaluate them? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please compile a list of the sources you believe fail in your criteria? That would be helpful, thanks. As I said above, I'm not especially interested in either the topic or the article subject, but a cursory glance seems to suggest that it's notable. Therefore if you believe otherwise you should try to prove it to the rest of us by pointing out the failings, rather than ask others to do the opposite. The article already exists, the emphasis is on those who wish it otherwise.

That's also a pretty harsh accusation of paid editing, to who are you exactly aiming it at? I've edited the article, from your vague broadside are you accusing me of paid editing, and a COI? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, I must apologise – I had thought that when I wrote "the undisclosed paid editing for which the article creator was blocked", it would be clear that I was talking about undisclosed paid editing by the creator of the article. But apparently not – sorry about that! This page is not among those listed here, but I see little or no room for doubt about this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chaheel Riens requested above to "compile a list of the sources you believe fail in your criteria". The guidelines are in WP:NCORP, especially the sections WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The latter explains both facets of "independent" sources - both independence of the author and equally important, independence of the content. Of particular note is the following: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. There are also examples provided on "dependent coverage" such as press releases or material that is substantially based on such.

Onto the sources in the article themselves. There are 33 references. The following are based on press releases or company announcements and therefore fail ORGIND: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 31. References 2 and 31 are Primary sources. Reference 21 is based on a "success story" and information from company execs and customers and fails ORGIND. References 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 33 are mere mentions in a list with no information on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Reference 32 doesn't exist and appears to be a URL searching for the term "Llamasoft" on the website. Reference 1 is a description containing information provided by the company and fails ORGIND. That leaves reference 1 which in my opinion is good and meets the criteria for establishing notability. There are other good references on the scdigest.com website also but we need a minimum of two references from different publishers in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability. For example, have any analysts such as Gartner written an analysis on the company? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis Street[edit]

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

Only directories found on Google search results. No sign of WP:N for the street itself. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability, Wikipedia is not a directory of every street on Earth. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 19 June 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) 08:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Road[edit]

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

Basically no results on the road on Google, even if it's hidden by Hollywood Road's results. There are also no significant places or events on the road, thus failing WP:N, other than existing. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Roads are not inherently notable. Also, with full disclosure that I'm not familiar with any East Asian language, it appears that only the Swedish language version cites any sources, and those are mostly from an indiscriminate database. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google-unfriendly in multiple ways, but nothing to indicate notability, either in its own right or what sits on it. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fort Lee, New Jersey. ST47 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee[edit]

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

None of the building included in this list are notable. I recently nominated the only one with an article for deletion. Also, most of references do not come form a reliable source. Rusf10 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Fort Lee. WP:LISTN does say that the individual items in a list need not be notable for the list to be notable, but I see no evidence of this list as a whole being notable. At the very least move to "List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee, New Jersey", but I don't think that's warranted given the above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unusual to re-name as suggested to "List of tallest buildings in Fort Lee, New Jersey" as not is not standard for Wikipedia for List of tallest buildings in X", but one can understand the rationale. Please see Talk:List of tallest buildings in Gary for discussion. Djflem (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not unprecedented, with such examples as List of tallest buildings in Providence, Rhode Island and List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon. I'm also unpersuaded by the o !votes in the Gary talk page (although it's fair enough that it shouldn't be a categorical rule to include the state), and personally had no idea where Fort Lee was until I looked into the prose (although that might be WP:IDONTKNOWIT territory). All the same, I still think this fails LISTN, as the main external links that include it as a list also include such illustrious cities as Missoula (no offense to that city, but just something I doubt is worthy of "List of tallest buildings in...") and thus is an indiscriminate collection of such lists. Actually, per the above I'll change my !vote to Merge into the main Fort Lee article. Shouldn't be too much trouble since there are only 7 on the list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Collections of tallest buildings in geographic places are notable as well as being standard at Wikipedia as seen at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States. (One project certainly is notable, being one of the world's tallest twin-towers, but that is not necessary for lists, as is made clear at Wikipedia:CSC). Djflem (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides being irrelevant, nominator makes false claim "None of the building included in this list are notable.' Djflem (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a false claim, for the fact that only one of the buildings even has an article. And that article is currently listed at AfD as well (but I already said that above). What is irrelevant is bringing up the fact that the one building is on one of the world's tallest twin-towers, a bloated list where that building doesn't even crack the top 50. It should clearly be removed from the list.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a false claim, since the nominator has clearly unilaterally inserted their POV (invalid non-policy-based criteria for a nom) as well as decided the outcome of an AfD before it has even been completed. Irregardless, all irrelevant as per Wikipedia:CSC.Djflem (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is WP:LISTN which says either the members of the list should be independently notable (clearly not the case) or the topic of the list "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Neither is the case here. Also, did you know irregardless isn't even a real word? I guess not.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless of whether the word Irregardless is a real word, the policy is Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Modern (building) has closed, so I guess Rusf10 is now prepared to admit that his claim was false? And strike is from the nomination?Djflem (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! The result of that AfD doesn't change anything. How about the notability of the other buildings on the list? How about the fact we already have a List of tallest buildings in New Jersey?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was Wrong! was the claim made by Rusf10 "None of the building included in this list are notable." since Wikipedia has determined that the statement is not true, hasn't it?Djflem (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge either selectively into the city article or perhaps with List of tallest buildings in North Hudson, etc. into a List of tallest buildings in Bergen County, New Jersey. It's quite excessive to assume any and every city in the world with a few tall buildings needs its own list of this sort. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A merge may overburden the Fort Lee, New Jersey article as too long.

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists-Wikipedia:CSC states: Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria: Pertinent:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)
Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.Djflem (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fort Lee, New Jersey. Actually, I don't mind a keep either since these lists are generally considered notable and provide useful repositories for information on buildings that don't justify their own article. It is a matter for editorial judgement whether a merge is the best way to go. In this case the page is only seven buildings long and I think a merge would not overbalance the target. Just Chilling (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is considered "generally notable", it has to meet notability guidelines, in this case WP:LISTN. And WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 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 merged into Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower. bd2412 T 20:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doud Eisenhower[edit]

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

No independent notability, and nothing that does not belong on his parent’s pages. Qwirkle (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of detailed coverage means that that the subject passes WP:BASIC. Note also that the Dwight Eisenhower page is tagged as too long and, per WP:SPINOUT, "very large articles should be split into logically separate articles." Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BASIC is, in fact, a strong reason for deletion. DE is famous for a single event, his own death, and the effect that had on his parents.
  Next, this material should not have been spun out of the parents articles to the extent it had been, if this article is correct. Qwirkle (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Article should not have been split in the first place, no notability of his own. Coverage is about Dwight's fatherhood, not Doud. If this level of detail and length of quotations is desired, perhaps there should be an "Early life of Dwight D. Eisenhower" article spun out instead. Reywas92^Talk 05:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - detailed coverage. Seems to pass WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article at Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower and merge this there. See Family of Barack Obama and Family of Donald Trump for guidance. bd2412 T 02:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ....For one child who died before amounting to anything else?
  No-no-no-ditty-effin-no. Qwirkle (talk)
  - @Qwirkle:, it is apparent that you have completely misunderstood my proposal. I'll start a draft for it. bd2412 T 16:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I understood you perfectly, but I think it is a disservice to the reader. More is not always better. Qwirkle (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge RIP, but no independent notability. Not outright deletion, though, per WP:PRESERVE. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson, Reywas92, BabbaQ, and John M Wolfson: I have started Draft:Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower, incorporating this information. Is this satisfactory? bd2412 T 18:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Escudero[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable minor comedienne. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery[edit]

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

Non-notable local medical center. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Inheritance (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niger Delta Museum[edit]

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

Non-notable museum. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London School of Samba[edit]

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

Non-notable local dance school. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 16 June 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. There is a clear consensus that this article does not meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deep trance identification[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable to merit an article (WP:GNG). Alexbrn (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on a single fringe source, treating it as fact. The article quality is lacking as well: Even if the topic would be notable the article would have to be rewritten completely. --mfb (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it appeals to more notable things, literature about this particular "DTI" is scant. If we can't find reliable sources that confirm or falsify some hypotheses presented here like that hypnosis allows people to recover child-like learning abilities, it's non-notable... —Paleo Neonate – 14:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Uncritical presentation of the theory's claims in Wikipedia's voice. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article may be in bad shape, but AfD is not cleanup. I see a few references in reliable sources to this concept. Ex. "Voluntary possession, on the other hand, seems to be much closer to what is known in the literature as deep trance identification, that is..." [22] or " I also had a number of very unique direct encounters with Virginia Satir through an Ericksonian technique called deep trance identification." [23] and otherwise a few Google Scholar hits which imply this is a bit more than some hoax (through I haven't looked into whether those articles are really reliable). Now, I have no objections to removing all uncited/unreliable content from the article, but as far as notability of the concept itself this may be an ok topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this suppose to mean Learning under hypnosis. At least, that is what Vladimir Raikov (noted on the page) was trying to do. If they succeeded is a little controversial, but that is definitely something notable and can be reliably sourced [24]. Probably the best course of action would be to delete this page and create "Learning under hypnosis" if anyone cares. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UT Models[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2009 Rathfelder (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a bit google unfriendly under the Unique Toys name, but while there were lots of mentions, almost all content was in non-independent sources, thus WP:NCORP not established. I considered some redirects, but I don't think any of them are clear-cut. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 16 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Hurwitz[edit]

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

UPE Promotion for Non notable musician. Award is not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but most are not independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. Only reasonable one is is a short Variety piece but one is not enough. Claims a hit on the Hot Singles Chart but a search for that came up empty. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Lecaro[edit]

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

UPE Promotion for Non notable individual. Just another working radio host/journo. Award is not major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but most are not independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of her. Best is the first, a single local puff piece on a "Local radio host and music journalist" appearing in Glendale News-Press, Not LA Times. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 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. Sorry, but we need more than "the article speaks for itself" before we can keep an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Keleher[edit]

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

Mitzi.humphrey has moved on from writing about her relatives to now writing about a colleague of (presumably) her relative Thomas M. Humphrey, Bob Keleher. The Forbes piece is a mere mention, the Official Congressional Directory is run of the mill routine listing and the "monetary approach" book is Keleher's. With the remaining three sources, I don't think WP:GNG reaches that low. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:PROF. Based on this page, I estimate his h-index at about 9 (someone please correct me if I am wrong). This page lists the 2645 economists with the highest h-index; the highest in the list is 91, the lowest is 14; Keleher is far below that, even though he co-authored some work with a notable economist, Thomas Humphrey. His citations and h-index as lead author are much lower (highest cite 19, h-index about 5). Mitzi.humphrey, would you please refrain from editing or creating pages on topics where you have a conflict of interest – this page should have been created as a draft and submitted through AfC. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article speaks for itself. Mitzi.humphrey 13:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
delete I don't see the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG. My search at Google Scholar didn't show me anything that convinces me he's a noted academic. The COI bothers me, but isn't relevant to this discussion.Sandals1 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards for academics as pointed out by both Sandals1 and Justlettersandnumbers. Like them I also share deep concerns regarding COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, the article includes primary sources it needs more independent sources. Another huge problem is COI which may include original research.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 00:18, 23 June 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) 08:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madhusudan Patidar[edit]

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

While I'm willing to accept the record of 22 hours at the summit of Kilimanjaro, I'm not sure that qualifies for notability. The other claim to notability (youngest person from Madhya Pradesh to summit via the North Ridge) seems like a very narrow record to hold. creffett (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’m not sure whether 22 hours on Kilimanjaro is a record or not, and even if it was, I’m not sure if it would be a notable record. But looking at the sources I can understand (English) it looks like we only have his word for it that he ever did this, or that it is a record. The whole article just looks like breathless self-promotion. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 00:11, 23 June 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.