< 7 March	9 March >

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Praxidicae (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historical climatology[edit]

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

Nearly the whole thing was created by a single ed in 2007 with just a single RS. It has been tagged for more RSs since 2015. The majority of the text repeats content at Little ice age and Medieval Warm Period so there isn't much (any?) unique content here, and essentially zero referencing in over 10 years. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well the topic is certainly notable and there are abundant scholarly references for it. Whether it’s best for someone (else) to work on this article or for this to be deleted so we can wait for a new article in due course, I don’t know. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hicks Thompson[edit]

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

Virtually no coverage in reliable, independent sources–all I was able to find was some local news coverage in The Yazoo Herald [1]. The article asserts that the subject has won several awards, but after looking each of them up online, it looks like they are insufficiently notable to meet WP:ANYBIO. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't source it, despite a brief review in Publisher's Weekly [2]. If anyone can, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough reliable source coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks proper sourcing. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Lapablo (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Skabo[edit]

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

GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried but didn't find any in-depth reliably-published stories on her, inclusion in permanent collections of notable museums, etc., that would allow her to pass WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, I also looked and couldn't find anything authoritative in Norwegian, as she supposedly was in gallery in Oslo. Markvs88 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also couldn't find sufficient WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:Artist. Most of the shows are at Galleri A in Oslo, which is not sufficient. --Theredproject (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a large proportion is a direct copy from Skabo's website. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem like we are headed for delete, so that problem will likely be taken care of shortly...! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches failed to find adequate sources, despite unique name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parth Singh Chauhan[edit]

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR at this time; appears to only have one significant role so far. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently has minimal coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gough Engineering[edit]

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

Spam which fails WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’ve looked for reliable independent sources and not found them. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy delete, entirely unsourced and promotional. SWL36 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything beyond press releases and directory entries - nothing that would satisfy CORPDEPTH. Looking at the article's history, a lot of copyvio was removed, and it's been maintained by an editor blocked for socking and undisclosed paid editing - looks like spam. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Independent sources WP:ORGIND and advertising and promotion WP:ADPROMO AmericanAgent (talk) 10:55, 12 March 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 Kazka. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandra Zaritska[edit]

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

Member of a relevant music group who does not seem to be notable on her own, as the only remotely relevant thing she did was a participation in The Voice of Ukraine, where she didn't make it far. Fails GNG and NMUSIC. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 22:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kazka. She doesn't seem notable enough outside the band, but this could usefully be merged there. --Michig (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kazka. I agree with Michig above. --Bsherr (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kazka. Some coverage exists, such as this, but overall available coverage may not be sufficient to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 15 March 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. Merging is possible but there appears to be stronger support for a separate article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um-Shmum[edit]

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

Nonnotable Israeli political pun. Tagged since October 2018 Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable, indicative of a widespread attitude. Suggestion to delete as non-notable shows lack of knowledge about Israel and Israeli culture.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known phrase in Israel. Tzahy (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable phrase. Coined by Ben-Gurion in 1955. The UN itself has related to this - Kofi Annan himself in 1998 claimed that "Um is not Shmum". In wide use in popular culture. Beyond copious sourcing in Hebrew, there is quite a bit in English on this phrase - e.g. - [3][4][5], Avnery, Uri. "UM-Shmum, UM-Boom." Counterpoise 13.3/4 (2009): 16., Cohen, Amichai, and Stuart A. Cohen. "Israel and International Humanitarian Law: Between the Neo-Realism of State Security and the ‘‘Soft Power'’of Legal Acceptability." israel studies 16.2 (2011): 1-23., Adler, Emanuel. "Israel’s unsettled relations with the world: Causes and consequences." Israel in the World. Routledge, 2012. 11-33.. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources seem the same as this NYT piece: a particularly poignant anecdote that is frequently used to add color to a very real discussion. Those books aren't covering the phrase, they are noting its existence and usage. If it were a biography, it'd be a "passing mention." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Icewhiz. Also, is the WP:OR tag really justified in this article? Seems a pretty simple article on a phrase for which there are solid RS on its WP:GNG notability? Perhaps this OR tag could be fixed using the refs quoted above? Britishfinance (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article since it is the most known quote of David Ben Gurion. --Midrashah (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could be adequately covered by one sentence in an article on the relation of Israel to the UN. Zero^talk 11:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A.Jacobin (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zero. This could be covered at Israel and the United Nations in a couple of sentences. Having a standalone article is ridiculous. Number 5 7 18:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability seems fairly clear from the in-article sources (and only the original Nom takes that deletion argument). While it could be merged, I don't believe it is in violation of REDUNDANTFORK, so a Keep is a logical route, followed by a merge discussion (as the merge is not necessary). Nosebagbear (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per Zero and N57. This "article" is six sentences, and even that is too many. This is a perfect candidate for the content to be merged into Israel and the United Nations with a simple redirect left behind. It's clearly been used but I don't see this as meeting GNG — it has been frequently noted but that doesn't make it notable in its own right. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:26, 16 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Douglass[edit]

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

In 2009 this article came to AfD together with another (that was deleted) and there’s a complex history I can’t follow of bio articles and company articles being deleted and recreated. Anyway I can’t see from this article why the subject is significant and the sources provided look very doubtful in terms of supporting notability. I looked for other sources but didn’t find much that was better. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill businessman. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:25, 15 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vigo Industries[edit]

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

No evidence this is a notable company and to be quite honest, given their subject area, I'm not sure how such a company could become notable but I see no evidence they've received the necessary coverage anywhere that would make this suitable for an encyclopedia article. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not encyclopedically notable per WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's been deleted twice before and was obviously created for promotional purposes. I believe the same person is at work here. Deb (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:MILL Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything beyond passing mentions in press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appearance in a Technavio analyst's industry sector report verifies this as a company going about its business, but neither that nor appearance in an Inc Fastest-Growing list, nor anything found in searches indicates that this meets the WP:NCORP requirement. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 15 March 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 Akrotiri and Dhekelia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Akrotiri and Dhekelia[edit]

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

Basically every link on here is a redirect to the main page on Akrotiri and Dhekelia, or to X of Cyprus (e.g. Climate of Cyprus). Thus, it provides no useful information that isn't covered by Outline of Cyprus or the main article on this topic. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't need an outline of every geographical entity. Links to Europe etc are useless to someone trying to understand this topic. I think the outline confuses the reader instead of informing them, leave this unusual "colony left over" entity to the main article. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it provides a geographical outline of a current overseas territory and as such serves its purpose as a useful navigation tool. SportingFlyer T·C 02:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is limited coverage on Wiki with regards to the Sovereign Bases and Cyprus as a whole, which is strange as it is an Anglophone nation. As per WP:PRESERVE, I think this article should be retained but heavily restructured. It can be easily argued that the SBA is effectivly a self-governing country, in that whilst the Privy Council and the UK Parliament have precedent, its own administration can set laws and acts as a legislature, along with the fact that whilst claimed as Cypriot territory, the Republic of Cyprus recognises their existence and there are numerous joint agreements set in place. As a result of this, the territory falls well within the bounds of a firm keep as far as outlines of territories and countries are concerned. UaMaol (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You argument would seem to be directed at Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which is fine, of course that should be kept. However I'm not sure why you think this list of wikilinks found in that article should have a seperate article - isn't it confusing? --Pontificalibus 14:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a series of links to the main article. A bit like creating Outline of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Akrotiri and Dhekelia containing a link to each comment in this AfD. Unnecessary and confusing, an obstacle to navigating this encyclopedia efficiently. Compare the table of contents of Outline of Akrotiri and Dhekelia with the table of contents of Akrotiri and Dhekelia - which better directs readers to useful content? --Pontificalibus 14:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to Akrotiri and Dhekelia), the primary page's content is so not particularly long, and I generally feel the outline pages only make sense when the main article has sub-pages that makes it very slow to pick up an outline. Strictly speaking, WP:REDUNDANTFORK is probably the correct blue text to use. Redirect in case there is any content there, and it might one day become a reasonable fork, and certainly does no harm. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other delete !votes present. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Candy Media[edit]

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

This article is sourced almost entirely to the Austin Business Journal, part of the Business Journals group. There's also a dead link to something called austinphoenix.com. A basic BEFORE in newspapers.com, Google News, JSTOR, and Google Books fails to find additional sources. I'm not 100% certain this meets the standards of WP:SIGCOV required to meet the WP:GNG. (At the same time, I want to be sensitive that we're sometimes too hard on advertising and PR agencies and hold them to higher standards than other companies, so I'm open to being convinced this does meet the GNG if I'm perceiving this too harshly.) Chetsford (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, Thanks for starting this discussion, and for acknowledging we are sometimes too hard on certain types of companies. So we're taking updated sourcing into consideration, I should note I've shared some additional links for consideration at Talk:Rock Candy Media. Turns out the company is opening additional offices in California, and was named one of the 50 fastest-growing Austin-based companies, as of 2017. I'm not sure either of these are enough to help demonstrate notability, but wanted to share just in case. Between coverage of RCM, Rock Candy Life, and Annie Liao Jones, I assumed a single entry was appropriate, though I admit I wish there were more coverage in national publications. I found a book and Digiday source to add. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note, there are several helpful paywalled sources in LexisNexis, which I'm trying to list on the talk page and incorporate as possible. Again, I hope editors will consider all available sourcing before making a notability decision. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclaimer, article creator): I acknowledge this article currently has a lot of Austin Business Journal sources. However, I've posted some additional sources on the article's talk page for additional consideration. I found a book source, this in-depth article by Digiday, and others (some ABJ and some not). The company is among Austin's fastest growing companies and has opened an additional office in Los Angeles. I believe this article needs work and expansion, but there is sourcing for editors to consider, and given its current trajectory, likely more on the way. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer - thanks very much for your very thorough reply; I'm sorry I didn't realize you were singularly involved in creating this before I AfD'ed it or I would have addressed my questions on your Talk page instead of taking it to AfD. I've been drawn away for the next two days but will come back and give it a more detailed read in order to withdraw the AfD nomination as I'm sure the additional sources you've supplied are redemptive. Chetsford (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nom. AGF additional sources discovered by AB address my concerns. Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 8 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Airdash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources in article. Inability to find sources that satisfy both reliable and independent, especially to the tune of meeting WP:NBAND. Previous 2013 discussion was NC as no-one else contributed Nosebagbear (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination; article has a promotional feel to it.TH1980 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article clearly fails notability criteria based on WP:BAND. AmericanAgent (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeKalb County United[edit]

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

Non-fully professional team which does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeKalb County United should not be deleted from Wikipedia as we are government sanctioned 501(c)4 non-profit. We compete in a USSF sanctioned league. We have regional tv news coverage, newspaper coverage, local magazines, and additionally, several other teams at our level exist on Wikipedia that do fully meet the requirements outlined by Wikipedia. We are able to fully show our validation with reliable sources, provide replays of matches, highlights, stats, attendance records, profits and losses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Bavarian_SC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Stockade_FC
https://www.wifr.com/content/sports/Stillman-Valley-grad-helps-build-DeKalb-County-United-481995951.html
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/displayAll.do?dispatchMethod=displayAllInfo&Id=5043967&ein=821900787&country=US&deductibility=all&dispatchMethod=searchAll&isDescending=false&city=Sycamore&ein1=&postDateFrom=&exemptTypeCode=al&submitName=&sortColumn=orgName&totalResults=194&names=&resultsPerPage=25&indexOfFirstRow=50&postDateTo=&state=IL
https://www.daily-chronicle.com/2018/01/30/soccer-new-semi-professional-team-hopes-to-spark-excitement-around-dekalb-county/ap9aa1e/
https://www.daily-chronicle.com/2018/07/23/dekalb-county-uniteds-inaugural-season-ends-with-win/alx8kir/
https://www.daily-chronicle.com/2018/04/06/soccer-dekalb-county-united-board-overwhelmed-by-community-support/dbeyukv/
https://mycujoo.tv/search?q=dekalb%20county%20united — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnewquist1228 (talk • contribs) — Cnewquist1228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - WP:NFOOTY is the notability standard for players, not teams, so the nomination is inherently flawed. There is no requirement for a team to be fully professional to have an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ChrisTheDude is absolutely right. I meant to put WP:ORGDEPTH. My apologies.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Substantial coverage seems to exist for this club. Bashum104 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the user who is responsible for the first major change the this article that set off this course, I am more than willing to make any necessary changes/edits that may be required to keep this article up. With that said I am new to the Wikipedia editing game, and therefore do not know most of the lingo. If u/ChrisTheDude or u/onel5969 can tell me exactly what needs to be done for that, I would be glad to make any necessary changes that are required for the maintaining of this page. Bholda
Comment a few things on this. First, I think OP is referring to the guideline WP:FOOTYN, which this article would fail, as it neither plays on a national level nor has played in the U.S. Open Cup. Surprisingly though, there is a large amount of coverage for a team at this level, so it might squeak by on WP:GNG. And finally, it should be noted that there is a possible WP:COI conflict here with User:Cnewquist1228. Jay eyem (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this does pass WP:GNG (the proper thing to look at, as some of the teams in this league pass and some don't: FOOTYN is irrelevant here.) The only articles I can see on the club are the daily-chronicle.com articles, one of those is very short, the other is routine coverage, the other qualifies. The WIFR.com article is more on a player than the club. While I personally think routine coverage can get teams over the WP:GNG line in the absence of any other coverage, I also think the routine coverage needs to be consistent and not just a one-off send a reporter to the final game of the season. I also can't find any other articles on the team. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably just scrapes by on GNG. Giant Snowman 11:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge https://www.dailyherald.com/sports/20180704/how-suburban-semipro-soccer-clubs-are-helping-to-grow-the-game There is this article in a broader audience paper however the depth is limited as one of the few examples of teams among handful of teams of suburban semi pros. I can support merge and redirect into a semi pro football related article or existing page relating to DeKalb County, IL but I don't think this should have a standalone article It lacks the notability to be of interest to the entire English language readers. US IRS 501c statuses has nothing to do with notability. Graywalls (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Donuts[edit]

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

no evidence of notability , The references are promotional. (and the article is apparently written by undeclared paid editng group) DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references appear to be from reliable sources, including daily newspapers. While Wikipedia articles should be free of promotionalism, an article in a reliable source with a promotional tone is still reliable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a couple local news articles noting a store opening count as satisfying GNG, then be right back, I have about a billion articles to go write. This coverage is not independent in many cases (multiple interviews with the founder and other articles that are rather clearly just press release/promo pieces). In others, it is not significant, representing just routine coverage of a business opening. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a stub more written like a promotional blurb than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources currently in the article don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH; a search for more sources is hindered by the fact that there appear to be many companies/brands around the world called Super Donuts; weighing the number of Google News hits on the first couple of pages, it's not clear that this is the most notable (or least un-notable?) amongst them. There's no unpromotional content at the article worth saving; delete.GirthSummit _(blether) 17:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted above the sources fail NCORP on depth and independence grounds. And no, that was not an intended coffee shop pun. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article supported by routine announcement coverage, two Q&As, and a 5 paragraph description of the shop's wares bylined to one TNS. None of these provide the in-depth coverage required for WP:NCORP and searches are finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the additional sources found during the course of discussion demonstrate sufficient notability per NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imad Salamey[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIO of a political scientist, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced -- the only attempts at "referencing" present here at all, until I poleaxed them as WP:ELNO violations, was each book title offlinking to its own primary source profile or abstract on either the self-published website of its own publisher or an online bookstore. There's no evidence of proper reliable source media coverage, such as journalism about him or critical reviews of his work, being shown here at all, and the article's been flagged as such since 2015 without improvement -- and, as always, our conflict of interest rules prevent people from starting poorly sourced articles about themselves, so the fact that the article's primary maintainers have been "Salamey2015" and "Isalamey" is a problem as well. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN: we are not a place where people are entitled to post their résumés just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the article needs work, and it's definitely problematic that it seems to be being maintained by the subject. I did a search for some sources however, and it's possible that he'd be notable. He seems to have published some books with respectable publishing houses, which have received some attention - This and this are reviews of his books in what appears to be respectable journals, and this indicates that another one of his books is recommended as a reading on a masters course at Edinburgh University; also this is an interview in what appears to be a decent news source (I've never heard of it, but it has an editorial board etc.). GirthSummit _(blether) 16:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is Lebanese and the official languages of Lebanon are Arabic and French. Both the Arabic and French wikipedias do not have a page of this person so why does he need to exist on English Wikipedia? Besides, this article is currently a short stub and he has not made any major accomplishments to the world at large. --Ernesztina (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of that remotely resembles a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And both the French and especially Arabic WPs are far smaller than the English WP. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no sources at all in article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Salamey has a decent citation score at Google scholar. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It's not even a competent WP:AUTOBIO, no proper sourcing, just a list of papers he has written. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Concur with Nom that we delete this per WP:COI. If he's notable, someone will write a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers - two books published by Routledge suggests a respected specialist academic. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews linked above, to which we can add this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tag it and give someone a chance to use those reviews. I would probably do it myself if I had full access to them.White Siddiqah (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In light of the second review that Phil Bridger linked to above, I'm coming down on keeping this. I think that The Government and Politics of Lebanon book has received enough attention to pass criterion 3 of WP:NAUTHOR - his work is obviously well-known in his field, and this book has been the subject of multiple periodical articles/reviews. I do think that the page needs to be tagged, and the subject needs a stiff COI warning, but he does appear to be notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per book reviews brought during discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus for Keep through several different notability routes suggested, but primarily WP:CREATIVE. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megumi Sasaki[edit]

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

No sources which looks tame, but the article is nowhere passing the WP:BLP and WP:NFILM due to being all minor since of her career beginning. Sheldybett (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bit fast don't you reckon? The article only got made an hour ago, by a new editor, google shows there are Japanese language sources about her, plus English youtube interviews... Spacepine (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a nomination that, frankly, raises WP:CIR questions about language ability. "No sources which looks tane" or "due to being all minor since of her career beginning" seem to be Google Translate output. In any event, the fact that she created a film with a blue link (Herb and Dorothy) is one clue that she's notable. Another is that a Japanese wikipedia article exists, with sources. Another is that a simple search finds that her film "Whale of a Tale" has received reviews in The New York Times [6], Washington Post [7], San Francisco Chronicle, [8], The Guardian [9], etc. So, in guideline terms, she "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" that has been the primary subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", thereby passing WP:CREATIVE#3. We all contribute how we can, but this nomination is a waste of editor time and attention. Bakazaka (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bakazaka. Dekimasuよ! 17:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion, passes WP:Creative and deserves to be kept in the encyclopedia Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep - Article is now sourced. Spacepine (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep good sources and clear notability. --Theredproject (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This article does not in fact currently contain any reliably sourced biographical information about the subject herself (as opposed to two of her films), since the Gendai piece is an interview, and therefore a primary source, and therefore only useful for notability purposes if we start down the slippery slope of speculating on whether her being notable enough to have been interviewed by this or that specific source. But it does indeed appear to be the opinion of the community that we can have biographical articles on artists whose works have been profiled in a large number of reliable sources, at least as long as they are white men, so we might as well allow this one on a Japanese woman. I do think some of the topic-specific notability criteria, including WP:CREATIVE as cited above, are at odds with WP:NOTINHERITED, but apparently very few others do, so why bother fighting it? That being said, the above two "speedy keep" !votes should be reprimanded for the either (a) making a strawman argument that anyone was claiming the article should be deleted because it didn't happen to cite sources at one time, or (b) saying that notability is "clear" despite the fact that we cannot apparently write anything about her biography without relying on primary sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, the !vote was more a reaction to the poor judgement of the nominator than the merits of the article in question. "Speedy" was uncalled for. Changed to keep.

Additionally, I see this as the opposite of what WP:NOTINHERITED is design to prevent. If someone is not notable through her actions and creations, then there would be very few Wikipedia articles for creatives. Discretion is obviously required, but there appear to be enough sources to justify the articles inclusion. --Spacepine (talk) 03:00, 12 March 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jugal Devi Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Kanpur[edit]

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL, all schools must comply with WP:NORG. Now that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is quite rightly considered silly, I'd like to see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and I just can't find it for this. Opting for AfD to allow native speakers of Hindi to analyse such sources. SITH (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced. Run of the mill school. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-notable institution. WP:NOTDIRECTORY Legion X (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed to show notability. Unsourced. --Hiwilms (talk) 13:41, 11 March 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 Sabrina Carpenter discography. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Singular: Act II[edit]

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

No sufficient references, release date nor track listing Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be kept. It’s a confirmed album, with a lead single. When Thank U, Next was in the same position, nobody disputed its notability. – Joesimnett (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Joesimnett. I can confirm many albums that are in the same position as Singular: Act II at the moment that are not being put up for deletion. Hurts 2B Human, In My Defense, Treat Myself, Joytime III, Music Is the Weapon, LSD (album), Lines (Unthanks album), Lilac (album). Life Metal (album), Gravity (Gryffin album), Notes on a Conditional Form, The One (Trina album), The Off Season (mixtape), My Criminal Record and I can go on but I think I have made my point. LOVI33 (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the references. I don't know what better references then ones that come from the artist herself soo. LOVI33 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sabrina Carpenter is the appropriate result. Both of the above comments are simple WP:OSE, which are extremely weak in this case. I understand why it's at AfD, as the redirect keeps being reconstituted into a poorly sourced article which doesn't pass WP:NALBUM. Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - To keep the article history, I have no issue with a merge as a valid search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @LOVI33: "I don't know what better references then ones that come from the artist herself"... almost anything is better than ones that come from the artist. Please read WP:SPS and WP:RS – sources should be from reliable, independent sources, not ones from the artist's social media. You and Joesimnett are both using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments – and in any case, some of those albums, like Notes on a Conditional Form and Life Metal do have several independent sources to verify the statements in the article. Singular: Act I was put up for deletion for exactly the same reasons as this one: trying to create an article too soon, without any independent sources or verifiable facts. Of course, Act I DID become notable once it was released and charted, but it meant having to go through the whole debate about notability first, because the article was created too soon. This album almost certainly will pass notability as well in a few months, but right now, all we know is it will be released "some time in 2019". It's not even 100% confirmed that "Pushing 20" will be on the album. About the best source right now is this one [10], and it doesn't tell you very much. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard3120 I understand your argument and I do agree that it maybe is a little to early to create the article but if it does get deleted I would like it to be re-created when the album does have more information. Although Carpenter did comfirm that Pushing 20 will be on Singular: Act II via Instagram Live on March 8, 2019. Also if this article does get deleted I do ask that some of the ones I metioned above get put up for discussion as well. LOVI33 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not currently pass WP:NALBUM: no prejudice against recreation as and when. Eagleash (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or move to Draft:, with a friendly advisory note to its creator as to how to continue working on it until notability is shown. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is almost zero information about the album. Perhaps once more details on the album are released, an article can be created, but for the time being, it fails WP:NALBUM and WP:TOOSOON. Gemsweater1 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sabrina Carpenter discography until such a time as more concrete info becomes available. Literally 8 of the 10 references are to social media (Twitter and Instagram), YouTube videos, and e-commerce sites. The two news sources are talking about Singular: Act I and the tour respectively. I don't think the coverage is there yet. Ss112 10:30, 15 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Walberg[edit]

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

Walberg is a journalist and author of books about politics in the Near East. He does not appear to have an advanced degree or regular employment. I found a review of one of his books in a minor academic journal, and reviews of 2 others in sources deprecated as FRINGE or not reliable on Reliable Sources Noticeboard: iranreview.org and foreignpolicyjournal.com (this is NOT the journal Foreign Policy,) and one review on a partisan website [11]. Sourcing is PRIMARY, and searches produce material he wrote, not articles about him. His Twitter page [12]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (note: EMG discussed the subject with me prior to nomming). Seems to mainly produce fringey oped material, published in places such as www.eurasiareview.com. Does not seem to be covered as a subject himself in reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (page creator)- A quick search shows that his works have got reviews in academic peer-reviewed journals such as this one and this one. One review of his works is published by the Arabic Aljazeera. His 'Postmodern imperialism : geopolitics and the great games' is found in 196 libraries around the world with the 'The Canada-Israel Nexus' being in 50 libraries around the world. His article on 'Great Game' is used and cited in "The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism". I've updated the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st, of the 2 reviews your mention "Islamic Resistance to Imperialism," by By Joseph J. Kaminski, International University of Sarajevo. in ReOrient: A Forum for Critical Muslim Studies reads: "Walberg’s argument is based on essentialized binaries relating to Islam and the West. On 'the good side' is everything and anything that fits within the rubric of Islam: whether it’s Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, Hasan al Banna, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), Sufism, or the Muslim Brotherhood; it does not matter. They all get defended or rationalized in one way or another throughout this work because, at least, they stand in opposition to the West, or 'the bad side.'" and concludes: " In my opinion, Walberg’s book lacks the nuance and depth necessary to properly tackle such an important subject."

The 2nd is the review of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games, by Joseph Michael Gratale, is the one that I mention in my Nom as published by a "minor" scholarly journal of a book put out by a very minor publisher claritypress.com. According to the review, Walberg's book focuses on "the unipolar dominance of the USA," “new developments in financial and military-political strategies to ensure control over the world’s resources," "extensive coverage of CIA sponsored coups, interventions, and wars orchestrated by the US in order to maintain a dominant position," "the Israeli lobby have a tremendous influence in shaping US policy," and "discusses at length the role played by Jews in global finance." FRINGE territory. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that for fringe theories and promulgators thereof we have a higher sourcing and notability bar per WP:FRIND. Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Such scholarly peer-reviewed works are not reliable...? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it useful to take a close look at WP:AUTHOR. Note that two reviews in minor journals is not enough to establish notability. His citation of FRINGE theorists, and the fact the author of one of the journal reviews found his scholarship inadequate, adds to the difficulty of establishing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on the discussion of sources above. Almost nothing about the person published in 3rd party RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Also agree with other contributors above on the aspect of fringe theories. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:26, 14 March 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Db technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I found brief mentions and press releases (also a few general announcements), but nothing that equates to in-depth coverage on the company. CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:04, 28 February 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 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The text of this WP:SPA article describes the company's product features and funding history but makes no claim to notability. Searches are not finding better than routine listings for this company (noting the distinct UK-based testing firm). Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything beyond press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There don't appear to be any 3rd party sources and the article even lacks a claim to notability, the only sources it includes only indicate that the company exists SWL36 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echoing SWL36 Graywalls (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dj sadcat[edit]

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

This highly promotional article cites a single source, which only mentions the subject in passing; I have looked for better sources, but can find no independent, in-depth coverage. Subject appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I basically agree in full with above. Melmann (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete' as blatantly promotional article that would require a fundamental rewrite to comply with WP:NPOV. Pichpich (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:G11. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete as an obvious attempt at promotion. Can find no sources in which his works have been noticed by the media, and he is only present at the usual retail/streaming sites. (In the unlikely event that the article is kept, it should be moved to a title with proper capitalization.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Post (radio presenter)[edit]

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

No evidence he is notable outside of his role in The Christian O'Connell Breakfast Show and as the redirect was contested, no choice but to afd + delete and redrect. Praxidicae (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jack Post isnt just on the Christian O'Connell breakfast show, He used to work as the panel operator on the Hamish and andy show, and still works on their podcast. He was basically their on air sidekick as well, and was on their show for years. The thing is that there isn't really any evidence to prove that apart from listening to the Hamish and Andy show, But he was. the irony is that a Band that was formed on that Radio show, between Hamish, Andy and Jack, has a wikipedia article, with seemingly no issues. People would only know who that band is, unless they listen to the show, in which, if they listen to the show, they would Definitely know who Jack is. I Dont see why these Discussions need to be made, as Jack is notable enough in Melbourne and Australia, to deserve a Wikipedia article. plus he has 42k instagram followers, I believe that shows that he is notable in Melbourne Radio — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBarker123444431 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some "media personality" reporting but it is all very routine as far as I can see. Subject does not seem to have done anything notable / creative yet. The one, minor award is not enough to get over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable as an on air presenter for multiple radio shows and TV series. Most notably with well known Australian comedy duo Hamish and Andy, who have their own article. He was the on air producer for their radio show as well as being the third host of four seasons of "Hamish and Andy's Gap Year", a Logie award winning tv series. He has recently been on the Christian O'Connell show, which I agree is less notable, but his time with Hamish and Andy, should more then qualify him for a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.134.11 (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe Jack Post is notable enough to be eligible for an article entry. The way I came across the disambiguation entry for Jack post was because I was trying to locate a page for Jack Post (radio presenter). I saw the initial article once it was created by another user and I spent a good time rewriting and properly referencing the article with quality independent sources. The Hamish & Andy Show is arguably the most successful radio show ever created, networks around the world have used it as a case study and tried to emulate it. Outside of the two main hosts, Jack Post was the third host and show producer as well as being heavily involved in most other things under the Hamish & Andy brand name. Now that he is creating a lot of content outside of Hamish & Andy such as The Christian O'Connell Show and his image in Australian media is building, it makes sense that the subject should have his own article. I believe it is within the encyclopaedic scope to include Jack Post in Wikipedia when considering the Australian audience. Fingman (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jack Post is a notable person in Australian entertainment. His contribution and involvement to the Hamish & Andy show alone is enough to warrant him a Wikipedia article. Hamish & Andy have said so themselves in interviews how integral Jack is to their show and its success. His work on the Christian O'Connell Breakfast Show is another good example of that. He is heavily involved on that show on air. In Melbourne he is very well known. He has a blue tick on instagram too. BungalowUnit (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI "keep" !voters above. Please note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so unless the subject had some specific and reliably referenced contribution to the H&A Show's success that stands up in its own right then it does not count. If the subject's claim to fame is mainly derived from the H&A Show then the best course of action would be to have a paragraph or two, or even a short section, in that article for the subject, for example about being the third host and producer, with a redirect to that section. Aoziwe (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:27, 8 March 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 deleted as A10. (non-admin closure) samee converse 22:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naqshbandia Mujadadia Aminia[edit]

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

Content is duplication of Naqshbandi. Any other unique material non-notable and unreferenced. Content has little to do with article title. AhmadLX (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with nom's assessment, but am wondering whether it would be more appropriate to delete or redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a separate article,it is sub lineage of Naqshbandi lineage,a book has been writen in urdu on this,here is the link i am sharing here,some expert in urdu language can read and confirm,the information given in this article are authentic,as it is sub chain of Naqshbandi so some similarity in names do exist but are not the same at all. https://www.thelibrarypk.com/tazkira-mashaikh-e-allo-mahar-sharif/)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locozinho (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find enough evidence of RS coverage for notability. Eperoton (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No Need to Delete i find ths article quite useful as a branch of Naqshbandi islamic chain,I have personally visted this place Allo Mahar,where there is center of Naqsbandia Mujdadia Aminia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do palmar (talk • contribs) 12:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How strange that right after registering you came straight to this page and comment "Keep" ;) And "useful" is no useful argument here ;) As above comment points out, notability established by reliable sources is required. AhmadLX (talk) 17:07, 10 March 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 Tom Rogers (baseball). Close per an agreement that the game doesn't reach independent notability. There is already some content on the perfect game in the Rogers' article, but more can be added as editors see fit. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rogers' perfect game[edit]

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

Not notable minor league sporting event. Please note this recent AFD. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are either from local news reports or stat references, none of which confer notability.White Siddiqah (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consensus is that minor league perfect games don't rate standalone articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any independent coverage, which suggests NPOV issues may arise. While I imagine there was local coverage at the time, without continuing coverage, it seems this would be better discussed (as it is) in the article about the pitcher. Much of the content is not terribly encyclopedic (why should an encyclopedia include the game-day roster of two minor league teams for a game known only for the success of one player). The encyclopedic content (if it is so) already exists so no merge is necessary. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Rogers (baseball), where this is already covered, and possibly merge some content if desired. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect -- I cannot believe we need a separate article on a single match a century ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Rogers (baseball), per Patar knight and Peterkingiron. The first two AfD's were pretty clearly non-notable, but given the age of this one, I suppose it's possible that additional offline sources could exist (though it's not terribly likely). But, redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Patar knight. Rlendog (talk) 18:39, 12 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Brown (Texas politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the thresholds of WP:NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES. Nor is there anything to meet WP:GNG. Contested PROD. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lufkin TX is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist — but the article doesn't even try to claim a reason why he might be more notable than the norm for smalltown mayors, and is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG. The notability test for smalltown mayors is not just "as soon as one news story in their local media verifies their election", because every single mayor of anywhere can always show that — the notability test for smalltown mayors is the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article about their significance as a mayor, which is not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLOUTCOMES, WP:POLOUTCOMES states "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD", and "smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors", a "small town" is considered to be a town with less than 20,000 residents. Lufkin is categorized as a "large town", it has 35,000 residents or over 20,000 residents. Plus Lufkin is the largest town in Deep East Texas, and is in the top 10 largest towns in the East Texas region which could is "regional prominence."Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has very little other than stating that he is the mayor of this moderate-size town, and a few personal details. According to WP:POLOUTCOMES, municipal mayors are only notable if they have some specific notability other than holding office. Bob Brown has no such notability. Red Panda 25 22:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, RedPanda25, WP:POLOUTCOMES doesn't state that mayors need to have notability outside of office for larger towns. It only states that for mayors of small towns.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of "smaller towns" in WP:POLOUTCOMES is not the same as the definition of "small towns" you are thinking of. Generally speaking, WP:NPOL doesn't apply to mayors of municipalities unless its at least a moderately-sized one (100,000+). Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:POLOUTCOMES meant by "smaller towns" is the actual definition of smaller town. What you think it means is irrelevant unless you have evidence to support your claim of (100,000+). You're also not taking in account the "regional prominence" of Lufkin.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, GPL93 is correct about what POLOUTCOMES meant by "smaller towns". The rule is most definitely not that as soon as a place reaches 20,000 in population, its mayors suddenly get an automatic guaranteed right to have Wikipedia articles regardless of the quality of sourcing or substance those articles actually contain: the notability criterion for local politicians is "who have received significant press coverage", which is not what this article is showing. You need to be familiar with the actual outcomes of past AFDs on similar topics if you expect to be taken seriously as an authority on Wikipedia's notability criteria — and past AFDs have very clearly not supported a population of 20,000 as an instant notability-maker for a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, you have no evidence that I'm wrong either. It doesn't state that a "smaller town" is a town of less than 20,000 in WP:POLOUTCOMES. I am basing the population number on what I have seen in previous AfD's. GPL93 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLOUTCOMES does not specifically state below 20,000 as a "small town" but Settlement hierarchy does state that as the definition of a smaller town as a town below 20,000, I do have a source for what WP:POLOUTCOMES could have meant by small town. There has been no source given stating a town at least 100,000 as no longer a small town. We are also not taking in the account that Lufkin is the largest town in the Deep East Texas region which is "regional prominence." WP:POLOUTCOMES doesn't state that population significance is based off the result of other AFD's.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm telling you, you don't need to show a "source" for your interpretation of what "small towns" means in POLOUTCOMES — Wikipedians who've been around here for over a decade, and know much better than you about what was intended by it, are telling you what it is. And at any rate, POLOUTCOMES is simply a summary of common outcomes, not the trump card in a notability debate — the trump card for notability of mayors is WP:NPOL #2, where the notability test is "who have received significant press coverage", but that's not what you're showing. NPOL trumps POLOUTCOMES, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that settlement hierarchy is a concept that is used for Land-use planning in the United Kingdom, doesn't particularly apply here for a US municipality. It's also a theoretical concept that has some drawbacks. Also note that Deep East Texas is a sub-region and that, additionally, simply being the largest or one of the largest towns in an area doesn't mean that it automatically meets "regional prominence". GPL93 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen us delete articles on mayors of places with over 100,000 people. Clearly when we are under 50,000 the place is not large enough to give a mayor default notability. This is a clear case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Castaneda/reiman[edit]

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

Non notable duo of contemporary artists. All of the references are dead. Has non notable awards for the duo. Fails WP:ARTIST, and WP:GNG. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep I saw a few in-depth sources in Google Book snippets, and many more general mentions in a web search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

changing to plain old Keep. Looking at their CV, it's clear that SIGCOV exists but we do not have access to many of the articles, which occur in Flash Art, Art in Ammerica, San Francisco newspapers and so on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect most of the coverage on their CV is event listings, and reviews of their exhibitions, such as these ones quoted from the San Francisco Chronicle [13], [14], [15]. Whether that gives you enough information to create a biographical article about them, I don't know. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research! I don't know why you would not think reviews like the ones you posted above are not RS: they are an extremely significant contributor to notability of artists. Look also at these items, which I found partially through their CV page and partially through good old search, are more in-depth:

A KQED profile that follows the artists in their studio. This is more than an interview. Eight-minutes of TV coverage is in-depth coverage.
A Flash Art article, circa 1999, shows up as a Google snippet:"Castaneda/Reiman Thomas Healy Collaboration is a fact of life for Charlie Castaneda and Brody Reiman. Forming their alliance in art school, the two women became partners in a construction business, then opened a dog-walking service..."
The book Bay Area Now Two includes coverage on them. Google snippet says "Castaneda/Reiman Castaneda/Reiman is the professional name for a two-woman art team whose beginnings date back to their undergraduate art school days. Their work is an elegant combination of Arte Povera and Minimalism, merging ..."
more coverage is in Artists of Invention: A Century of CCA - Page 139
this 300-word review in SFGATE is not insignificant as it goes into detail on their work,
There is a review in a 1998 issue of Art in America that I do not have access to,
A 1998 volume of The New Art Examiner says this in Google Snippet:"For their first New York show, castaneda/reiman a collaborative team based in San Francisco, converted the gallery space into a ... a very elongated Cornell box, a plus- free-standing Newman zip, and an early Bourgeois sculpture confined to an upright coffin. ..."

So there you are. As much of the coverage is circa 1990, much of it will not be available online. It's easily enough for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP: I never said the SF Chronicle was not an RS, it certainly is. I was just trying to show that there is access after all to some of those articles quoted on their CV. I simply don't know whether descriptions of their exhibits, rather than biographical detail, counts towards passing WP:ARTIST. Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of exhibtions, aka reviews, are the thing all artists look for and one of the main ways to establish notability. If a reviewer thinks a show is worth reviewing and writes about it, that is an independent form of validation akin to a reporter thinking a politician is notable and doing a profile piece. It's tough to get reviewed, and when it happened in good publications, it is a direct contributor to notability. It's really no different than coverage of a subject in a newspaper. Reviewing the "work" also happens in book reviews, and we certainly accept those from reliable publications. WP:ARTIST also mentions "critical attention" and "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", so reviews are definitely valid. I do agree that the subject of the writing (the artworks) can be sometimes arcane though.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:CREATIVE. Admirable though the effort to promote artists might be, Wikipedia is not the place for that. -The Gnome (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion on ThatmontrealIP's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. They very nearly meet WP:ARTIST #C4, with works in two notable galleries or museums (Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive [16] needs to be added to the article). Of ThatMontrealIP's sources, I note that the SFGATE source is by the same journalist as the three San Francisco Chronicle articles, but the others do appear to be independent of the artists and of each other. Other sources also exist - I also found Bark, with an article 'castaneda/reiman Concrete canines provide foundation for collaborative artists. by Samantha Schoech' [17], and there are probably other sources which are not online. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's close in on those sources. First RebeccaGreen's: The link to the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive takes us to a dry exhibition listing and nothing more; yet no one disputes they exhibit. Then, there's a write up in a magazine devoted to "the serious dog enthusiast" ("the indispensable guide to life with dogs"), which probably cannot be used as a relevant and significant source. Beyond this all we haveis that there are probably other sources out there" which we can never find though since they are offline. Emphasis added.

Then ThatMontrealIP's sources: Α single, brief mention in the yearly tome of New Art Examiner; a description of the subject's work in an exhibition brochure (Bay Area Now), which is not exactly a reliable source; a duly attributed picture of one painting in the Artists of Invention tome; and we get one acceptable source in the KQED series on artistic collaborations where the subject gets an episode. And that is all, really. The rest are obscure or impossible-to-find sources, much as we are assured that they must be out there.

I truly admire the effort but, at the end of the day, this is yet another art creator trying for space and wider recognition through Wikipedia. But this is not the purpose of this project. Personally, I look for my marginal and not-widely-known artists elsewhere. -The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you've cherry picked the sources and left out Flash Art, Art in America and several others. KQED, for example, is an 8-minute television program that looks in-depth at their work.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My link to the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive is not to an exhibition: it is to the Art Collection of the museum, ie the permanent collection, which includes work by these artists. As I said, "They very nearly meet WP:ARTIST #C4, with works in two notable galleries or museums" - not exhibitions in galleries or museums, but works in the permanent collections of galleries or museums. As for Bark, WP:GNG says nothing about relevant sources, it says ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." I don't think more sources are necessary anyway - the San Francisco Chronicle, KQED, Flash Art, and Artists of Invention are all "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources which we can't access online are allowable per WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." and per Wikipedia:Offline sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to second what RebeccaGreen is saying about her excellent research and the Berkeley museum. Permanent collections are serious indicators of notability. If we find one more, it is automatic notability per WP:ARTIST. The fact that the Berkeley museum is willing to keep an eight foot by 3 foot by 15 inch sculpture in perpetuity means something. Coupled with the reviews here, it's an easy pass for notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now checked Ebsco databases, and found other sources including 'castaneda/reiman at DCKT', Cash, Stephanie. Art in America. March 2004, Vol. 92 Issue 3, p122-123; and 'Castaneda/Reiman', Tanner, Marcia. ARTnews. May 1998, Vol. 97 Issue 5, p177. These are in addition to the sources above. They definitely meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:24, 9 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Sztando[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF. It is a nicely written biography, but of an academic who is just not notable yet (WP:TOOSOON). No major awards or positions held, no significant impact, google scholar citation numbers are not bad but don't indicate much of an impact ([18]). And not much to pass WP:NBIO in general. PS. Also a likely WP:VANITY article written by the subject or someone connected closely to him. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both User:StraussInTheHouse and I found this subject notable through the AfC process and that he meets WP:PROF. Subject has written an extensive number of publications and has won some more local awards. Allegations that the subject wrote the article are countered by the author's plan statement on talk that they are not the subject just interested in this area of study. Many academic articles are written by people that know them, but I don't see where the nominator asked the author if they have a COI. Legacypac (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Legacypac: Hoe does the subject meet WP:PROF? His two-digit publication record is rather average (ping User:Randykitty for sanity check), and the local university awards are the lowest possible type of an award one can achieve, and often they are handed to all members of the faculty after working for several years in a given position. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm no fan of WP:PROF, in fact, I unsuccessfully tried to get it altered so it would have to be subservient to GNG. But, rules is rules and consensus is clear that WP:PROF serves a valuable function on Wikipedia. Sztando meets criterion 2 of the aforementioned guideline, by virtue of being a Medal for Long Service recipient. My decline was based solely on advertisement and while there are undertones of puffery left, they can be easily ironed out. SITH (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @StraussInTheHouse: I am sorry, I keep forgetting that not everyone may be familiar with obscure Polish awards. First, PROF#2 refers to "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Medal for Long Service is NOT an academic award. Worse, it is an award given to any and all government employees after being employed for a given number of years (i.e. a service award). You are not required to do anything except don't get fired for X years to get it. In the Polish award order of precedence, the award just after it is the... Medal for Long Marital Life. I kid you not :) MfLS should not be treated as contributing to notability in any shape or form. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Medal for Long Service does not contribute to notability, but his contributions to city planning and economic development are notable. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Can you explain how his contributions are notable? He didn't receive any awards for them. The bloated sections entitled 'Application of scientific research results' is simply a list of few articles that cited him. His citation record as shown on Google Scholar is average - not bad, but does not suggest major impact (plus, again, significant impact would usually be documented by awards and/or significant coverage). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Seems to pass WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Scope creep: Hoe does the subject meet WP:PROF? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked at it a second time it is clear he is not notable. h-index isnt great for an economist who did his habilitation 18 years ago, and who is still not a full professor. Moving from assistant to associate is another indication of a career economist who is non notabile. The medal for long service length as a criteria for notability is exceedingly poor. I showed up for 18 years and now I'm not notable. Not a chance. scope_creep^Talk 22:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scope creep: I am sorry but you are twice wrong. Firstly, he did habilitation not 18 years ago but in 2018, it means 1 year ago. See: http://www.ue.wroc.pl/p/wydzialy/ne/WNE_2017/uchwala_rw_w_sprawie_nadania_st._dr_hab.__sztando_.pdf And it was with all three very good reviews of habilitation reviewers appointed by Central Commission for Degrees and Titles, see: http://www.ck.gov.pl/promotion/id/16755/type/l.html Secondly, the academic career path in Poland is as follows: assistant professor (before phd), adjunct professor (after phd), associate professor (after habilitation), extraordinary professor (after habilitation with significant achievements), full professor (after obtaining professor title from President of Poland). Sztando is now on position of extraordinary professor, see: http://www.ue.wroc.pl/pracownicy/andrzej_sztando.html (in Polish "profesor nadzwyczajny" means "extraordinary professor"). So moving from assistant to associate is regular, not bad but good career move. When it comes to full professorship, the average age of people on the day of awarding them the title of full professor of economic sciences in 2007 was 60.5 years. See table 4: http://mazowsze.hist.pl/35/Rocznik_Towarzystwa_Naukowego_Warszawskiego/874/2011/33813/ I do not have newer data, but as we see in this table, it has grown since 2003, so probably is not smaller today. It means that is not easy to become a full professor of economics in Poland... For Sztando it is last career step to have full professor title, but he is now 48 years old only, so he has time to do it. Thank you Iszop63 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion Sztando passed three WP:PROF criteria:

Criterion #1: Sztando's scientific publications have been cited 388 times in peer-reviewed scientific publications till 23rd of August 2017. Here is a list of them submitted during his successful habilitation procedure: https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=91593&_k=uvcl4t (tab scientific curriculum / achievements) Is 388 a lot? When it comes to public management, yes. In addition, Criterion #1 says: "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account" and says: "Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences". Public management is a young scientific discipline with small number of scientific journals and with no comercial support/interest like traditional, old management, but is extremely important because society, economy and environment deeply depend on it. Criterion #1 says as well: "For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: ...named lectures or named lecture series". We can see Sztando's certificates/confirmations on named lectures delivered at universities in 11 countries of 4 continents, here: https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=91593&_k=uvcl4t (tab scientific curriculum / recomendations). In Criterion #1: "There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: ...service on editorial boards of scholarly publications". Sztando serves as a member of the Editorial Committee and the International Scientific Program Council of the journal Economic Alternatives (Bulgaria) (see: https://www.unwe.bg/eajournal/en ), as well as member of Editorial Team of Urban Studies and Public Administration (USA) (see: http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/uspa/about/editorialTeam ). I think that it is also important that he is an expert monitor of Research Executive Agency of European Commission which agency manages the research and innovation program Horizon 2020 - the largest one in the European Union. See: https://www.ue.wroc.pl/pracownicy/andrzej_sztando.html

Criterion #2. He received Bronze Medal for Long Service. Polish State Act of October 16, 1992 on Orders and distinctions (Journal of Laws 2019, item 25) in Article 18a. says: "The prize for exemplary, exceptionally conscientious performance of duties resulting from professional work in the service of the State is the Medal for the Long-Term Service", see: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19920900450/U/D19920450Lj.pdf The executive ordinance to this act is the Ordinance of the President of the Republic of Poland on the detailed procedure in cases concerning the awarding of orders and badges and templates of relevant documents. This ordinance contains a template of the application for a discussed medal and in its 18th point it needs "justification of the application, with particular regard to exemplary, exceptionally diligent performance of obligations resulting from professional work, awarded prizes and distinctions", see: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20140000064/O/D20140064.pdf It is not true that the President of the Republic of Poland gives these medals for just being at work for specific amount of time (this is only a one of formal prerequisites of application. It would be illogical by the way). He gives them for "exemplary, exceptionally diligent performance of obligations resulting from professional work, awarded prizes and distinctions". In the case of Sztando, it was a scientific work, the application of its results in the practice of Polish public management and the scientific awards won.

Criterion #7. He has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. His research results are largely utilized by public managers/authorities in not only Polish practice of strategic management of local and regional development. There is a number of local and regional development strategies implemented in Poland (for voivodeships, provinces, counties, communes, cities etc.) which use those results (public management methods, tools, procedures, rules etc. developed by Sztando). Additionally he is an full author of dozens of them. We can see examples in projected Wikipedia article. It is rare that the research results in public management are so widely used in practice. And we have to remember that each strategy deals with number of long term investments and other public activities, the value of which is calculated in from hundreds of millions up to few billions of PLN (1Eur=4PLN). If it is not "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", what is?

Summarizing, in my opinion, Sztando is notabile academic measured by their academic achievements. Thank you Iszop63 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iszop63: It is always nice to have the creator contribute here. Your arguments are certainly throughout. Regardless of the notability of the subject, however, and irrelevant of this discussion outcome, could you comment on whether you have any WP:COI in relation to the subject? (Basically: are you the subject, have you been paid or ordered by the subject to write this entry?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus and Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: I am the author of this article but it is not my autobiography. I am not a subject of this article. I can prove it by meeting personally anyone interested or talking by him/her by phone - according to wish. I am/was/will not (be) connected to the subject in any private, professional or other way as well. Andrzej Sztando is not my family member, friend, client, employee etc. and vice versa. I do/did not have any financial and other relationships with him. There is no WP:COI in relation to the subject. I am just passionate of local and regional development (not academic, not authority member), so I am going to enrich Wikipedia with information on categories and persons connected to it, from Central European Countries especially. And I want to do it fully in line with Wikipedia rules and vision. In my opinion categories and persons connected with local and regional development' paradigm and successful practice (it happens rarely) are important to economy, society and science, especially to ones from developing countries. This is also the reason why I devote my time and energies to this discussion. Thank you Iszop63 (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iszop63: You have just described somebody who fails WP:NPROF exactly. If he only habilitated last year, he is certainly not notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: The date of habilitation is not a criterion of notability in WP:NPROF Achieving habilitation or not at all is not criterion in WP:NPROF as well. Please let's keep our discussion within WP:NPROF criteria. If we use other criteria, it will mean that we completely ignore WP:NPROF and the consensus of its authors and we want to issue judgments based on our private views. Regards Iszop63 (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Habilitation is a certification to enable a person to teach. The Habilitation article states in the lede:

is the key for access to a professorship in many European countries

This is indicative of a the person that is at the beginning of their career and is therefore non-notable. Combined with their low h-index is more evidence of non-notability. Iszop63, I have posted an entry up at coin regarding you clear conflict of interest. That should get a few more eyes on this. scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: You are wrong because you do not distinguish used in Poland names of positions at universities from the names of academic degrees and the name of a scientific title. In Poland, habilitation is the highest scientific degree, after which one can still apply for the academic title of professor (professor is not scientific degree but title given by President of Poland) see: [[19]] Under the habilitated doctor are doctor, master, and bachelor. In addition to the names of academic degrees and title, the names of positions at universities function, and in each of them is the word professor. Starting from the lowest: assistant professor (after master and before phd), adjunct professor (after phd), associate professor (after habilitation), extraordinary professor (after habilitation with significant achievements), full professor (after obtaining professor title from President of Poland). So Sztando as with habilitated doctor degree at position of extraordinary professor is not at beginning of their of their career but almost in the top of it. When it comes to conflict of interest I have putted my statement on it firstly in article talk on 1 January 2019 and secondly today in this discussion as an answer to @Piotrus and Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus:. By the way, I repeat, habilitation is not a criterion of notability in WP:NPROF Please let's keep our discussion within WP:NPROF criteria. Thanks Iszop63 (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iszop63: Thank you replying re COI. I accept in WP:AGF that you have no COI here. I also agree that the date of habilitation is not relevant here. Overall I think this is a borderline case, but TBH I think I will stop nominating borderline PROF cases here, since I think PROF needs to be more inclusive (it is much more difficult to pass PROF than some SPORT-related criteria). Right now this discussion may be closed as no-censensus if there are no other comments, and I will not challenge that, through I am open to further comments from other editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the WP:COI case up at coin. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet any criterion of WP:PROF. I don't have an h-index calculator any more, as it required using Chrome, which I won't do; but based on this page, I estimate his at 7 (someone please correct me if I am wrong). This page lists the 2577 economists with the highest h-index; the highest "score" is 90, the lowest is 14. Sztando does not have a full professorship, has not received a major academic award, etc. The page may be "nicely written", but is simply a copy of his bio (suitably licenced, so no copyright violation). As far as I can see, there's no coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources here (again, do please correct me if I'm wrong), so WP:GNG is not met. Almost all the "references" are in fact his own publications; once those and the copied content are removed there's nothing left. His self-written bio belongs on his university webpage, where it already is, and not here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: out of interest, why won't you use Chrome? I have a few issues with it regarding privacy so I'm thinking of switching to Firefox. SITH (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GS h-index of 11 not enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 16 March 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. It's not gonna be any less of a hoax if we keep discussing it for several more days. DS (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury Hare[edit]

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

This article is a suspected hoax. All mentions of this subject found online lead back to Wikipedia, and the references are suspect. Two are not about the article subject, and of the other four, only one is available online, and this subject is not actually mentioned there. In fact, nothing that this source used to cite is actually found in the source. Going through them one by one:

1. A Bibliography of Folklore. Folklore Society (Great Britain). 1961. (This source exists, but is not available online.)

2. Folklore: vol 15. Folklore Society (Great Britain). 1904. (Available here, no mention of this subject.)

3. Leach, Maria (1949). Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend vol.1. (This source exists, but is not available online.)

4. Johnson, Paul (7 May 1967). "Hare we go, a strange encounter". Salisbury Journal. (This ~~source~~ [publication] exists, but [that year] is not available online.) Edited for clarification. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5. Berry Judson, Katherine (2009). Myth and Legends of California and the Old Southwest. (Not available online in the original form, but the eBook published a few years later is, here. Totally irrelevant to the article subject, though.)

6. Flanagan, Barry (1983). Barry Flanagan: recent sculpture, October 28-16 November 1983. (Irrelevant.)

The article is not linked from any other Wikipedia article, and has not received any significant edits since its creation ~7.5 years ago. The creation of this article was the creator's only edit to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would also copy the following IP comment from the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]
This article may be entirely false.
1. The Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre have confirmed there is no mention of a hare sighting in the Imber Parish Record for 1318.
2. The Foklore Society have confirmed that neither Wilfrid Bonser's A Bibliography of Folklore (London: Folklore Society, 1961) nor Folklore: vol 15. Folklore Society (Great Britain, 1904) contain any mention to a hare connected with Salisbury, Imber or Wiltshire.
3. There was no edition of the Salisbury Journal published on 7th May 1967. The nearest editions (4th May and 11th May) do not contain the article referenced here. 79.78.116.255 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated; almost certainly wholly untrue and misleading. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Folklore topics are sometimes tough, but there's no real question that this one's a hoax. Google Scholar returns a big fat zip. A text search on the Internet Archive's digitized collection returns only false positives. Google Books gives a handful of hits, but they're mostly self-published; none of them display academic rigor, and all postdate this article's creation, so citogenesis (rather than legitimacy) is the parsimonious explanation. Creating editor was a drive-by with no other contributions, which further tends to support this argument (many of these types of hoaxes are so created, sadly almost certainly by people who know precisely what they're doing). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems very likely that this is a hoax, as the comments made above well illustrate. Even if it is not an intentional hoax and was a genuine attempt to create an article we have the issue that the references do not seem to be genuine meaning that the article is based on no sources or a bad misinterpretation of sources. Moreover there is no evidence of the topic being notable, especially given the fact it does not seem to be mentioned anywhere else. So almost certainly a hoax, but even if not would fail notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wingo[edit]

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

Non-notable career minor league baseball player. Lepricavark (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCOLLATH. Wingo's professional career is not particularly notable, but his college career was. Being named College World Series Most Outstanding Player is a major award, which is one of the highest in the sport and thus he meets the requirements of notability.--TM 10:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the highest awards for college baseball, but not for baseball in general. And college baseball does not have nearly the national following of college basketball or college football, so that award by itself is not enough to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOLLATH #1 simply states that the college player is notable if they "have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport)", which Wingo has. The CBWS MVP is listed in the equivalent infobox.--TM 02:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the guideline needs some serious reworking. Lepricavark (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NCOLLATH #1 as having won a major national-level award. Wingo was the 2011 College World Series Most Outstanding Player. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sindiso Mazibisa[edit]

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

This article does not meet biographical notability standards because of various sourcing issues which shall be elucidated below in my source analysis. The sources cited using inline citations are all directory-style entries which do not confer notability, however the majority of the sources are inline external links. Here is the analysis of them:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.southerneye.co.zw/2013/06/21/city-lawyers-eye-mdc-tickets/	Doesn't appear affiliated.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	~ Slightly, he's mentioned in the title and two lines are dedicated to him.	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20131103001937/http://www.chedalaw.com/pages/ourpeople/profile/partners/mazibisa/	Self-published.	~ For biographic details, sure. For assertions of notability, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
http://www.africanseer.com/news/african-news/general/287898-sindiso-mazibisa-sets-up-empowerment-programme.html	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/zimbabwean-riot-police-tear-gas-students	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Coverage is given to a group for which he is a spokesman, not Mazibisa himself.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110908135731/http://chedalaw.com/pages/ourhistory/	Self-published.	~ For biographical details, yes, for notability assertions, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
https://www.newsday.co.zw/2012/03/2012-03-01-mugabe-parentage-stings-mpofu/	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	About a dispute between one of his clients and Mugabe.	✘ No
https://bulawayo24.com/index-id-news-sc-local-byo-10996-article-Chitrin+vs+Tayali+case:+Be+the+Judge.html	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	About a case, mentions him once in passing.	✘ No
https://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-7006-Mthwakazi+trio+get+bail+extension/news.aspx	Affiliated by context.	? 404	? 404	✘ No
http://www.aurecords.com	Affiliated by context.	? 404	? 404	✘ No
https://www.sundaynews.co.zw/?option=com_content&view=article&id=29891:seqamabhilidi-out-to-silence-critics&catid=43:entertainment&Itemid=135	Affiliated by context.	? 404	? 404	✘ No
http://www.gospeltimesonline.com/	Affiliated by context.	? 404	? 404	✘ No
http://myafrica.allafrica.com/view/people/main/id/0DZilQvYzFKikncW.html	No apparent affiliation.	Appears to be user-generated.	Completely unrelated, does not mention him once.	✘ No
http://ypia.org.za/publications/long-live-zambia/	Affiliated by context.	? 404	? 404	✘ No
https://www.voazimbabwe.com/a/mdc-youth-threaten-to-protests-over-stalled-disbursement-of-companies-fund-159203515/1476943.html	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Totally unrelated, does not mention him at all.	✘ No
http://idc.co.zw/subsidiaries_sub.php?linkid=42	Affiliated by context.	? 404	? 404	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110708122311/http://www.tn.co.zw/tn-bank-home/advisory-work	Self-published.	~ For biographical info, yes, for claims of notability, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
http://nydt.org/?reqp=1&reqr=pzRhnaM4qzAlpKMhYzWyqN==	Affiliated by context.	? 404	? 404	✘ No
http://intwasa.org/	Affiliated by context.	~ Affiliated stuff can be okay for biographical data, not for notability.	Doesn't mention him.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110717160109/http://www.zimpapers.co.zw/	Affiliated by context.	~ Ditto.	Doesn't mention him.	✘ No
http://myhararetimes.com/impeachment-motion-shallow-and-pedestrian-bulawayo-lawyer/	? Appears to have been replaced by a phishing site.	? Appears to have been replaced by a phishing site.	? Appears to have been replaced by a phishing site.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

This article is sending my COI-dar into overdrive. An unreferenced "Early life" section, a close-up headshot uploaded by a user with the "Own work" rationale, and the use of peacock phrases such as:

one of the most flamboyant campaigns
proud producer of the 3 kings music band
has a distaste for imperialist or dictatorship tendencies from white, black, yellow, green or whatever man and he is a fighter for the people, and his freedoms
Without apology

The use of weasel words surrounding unverified allegations is also concerning, for example:

allegedly tortured
It is suspected that because of his outspoken nature

Quite frankly, I was considering proposing this for deletion per G11 but I think it's a borderline CSD case. To conclude, this article is a biased advert about someone who appears not to meet any of the applicable specific notability guidelines such as that for politicians, and who certainly hasn't received enough independent significant coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable per the general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Delete: Sourcing definitely isn't up to required standards - thank you for the thorough analysis SITH (talk). Overall definitely a lot of COI and quite some puffery. Here's my current favourite: "...has a distaste for imperialist or dictatorship tendencies from white, black, yellow, green or whatever man and he is a fighter for the people, and his freedoms." What makes my vote a weak delete, is that I also cannot account for the full range of sources and, with a lot of adaptions, cuts and rephrasing I feel like it could be a case of maybe looking beyond GNG and have it be a trimmmed down business / political stub. --Ruhri Jörg 15:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Had forgotted to add the "weak". Also, in addition to my last comments, "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted" seems to be a good summary of what I felt. The question in this case seems to be the "eventually" ;) --Ruhri Jörg 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree that this subject does not pass WP:GNG and could probably qualify for speedy deletion. I can not find reliable sources. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Has enough sources to pass WP:GNG, but questions over whether they fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brent R. Taylor[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Mayor of a community under 20,000 and most of his media coverages derives from his military service and death. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article, per GNG guidelines and per WP:Memorial & WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete (without redirect) brief two-or-three sentence mention to North Ogden, Utah. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. North Ogden is not large enough to make all of its mayors automatically notable just for existing, but the sourcing here is not demonstrating a compelling reason why he would be more notable than most other smalltown mayors. The media coverage shown here is entirely in the context of the circumstances of his death, not in the context of anything he accomplished as mayor, so it just makes him a WP:BIO1E — and even with the death coverage taken into account, the citations are still more than 50 per cent to primary sources, such as internal city memos and raw tables of election results, that aren't support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he was a local but elected official and his death was covered by both national and international media. He was an elected official who was killed while in office, which rarely happens. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he was killed, rather than dying of natural causes or in a vehicular accident like thousands of other politicians have been, is not in and of itself a reason why his death is more special than the deaths of other mayors who died in office. It still just makes him a WP:BIO1E, not a person who passes the ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The cause of his death is exactly why it received international news coverage. If he died of natural causes or in a vehicular accident, it would not have received that level of news coverage. It's a notable case among U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan. That plus him being an elected official should be reason enough. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough to make him more than a BIO1E? No. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Taylor was the first elected mayor in the State Of Utah to use an obscure law allowing an elected official to serve in active duty and temporarily resign his/her office during that deployment. He was also the first Elected Mayor to be killed in action during his elected term. Both historically significant in the history of the State of Utah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.191.0.95 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is this [20] January 2018 article from the Deseret News on Taylor's deployment. However I do not think that would be enough to make an article on him if he were still alive, and I don't really see it as adding to enough coverage to save the fact that this is basically news coverage of the death of a serving mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article, Brent and his extraordinary life are well worth saving and highlighting. His is some of the best blood spilled for our nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.99.79 (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does he pass NPOL? Probably not. Does he pass SOLDIER? No (Major, hasn't been awarded congressional medal at least yet). Does he pass GNG? Yes. We he have various local coverage on him being mayor (gnews prior to 2018). We have national level coverage - e.g. Washington Post, Washington Post2. We have continuing coverage in 2019 - [21][22]. Apparently a mayor/major dying in combat is a rare enough thing (and it doesn't take a big WP:BALL to assume various buildings/etc. will be named for him). The entire ensemble - rises up to WP:GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings being named after a person isn't a notability criterion in NPOL either, so that possibility isn't relevant at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL is a SNG for presumed notability. This individual clearly meets WP:GNG per SIGCOV. Coverage of him as a mayor alone (of a 17k pop town) probably did not rise up to GNG (though it was not insignificant). The combination of the wide national coverage of his death, post-death coverage, and pre-death coverage as a mayor - rises up to GNG. He's also, quite clearly not a BIO1E (as he was covered both as a mayor and as a notable combat casulty). Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while he doesn't pass WP:NPOL he has enough WP:SIGCOV to pass notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virinchi[edit]

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

Company which does not seem to have received the necessary depth of coverage to be considered notable. All of the sources appear to be either affiliated or press releases, neither of which constitute independent, reliable and significant coverage. An analysis of the sources is included below.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://in.reuters.com/finance/stocks/company-profile/VIRC.BO			It's a database entry which all publicly-traded companies have.	✘ No
http://corporateethos.com/tech-terrain/virinchi-partners-us-based-financial-provider-for-qfund/	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/Virinchi-Technologies-acquires-KSoft-for-2.6-m/article20286608.ece	? Unfamiliar with publication.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Appears to be a press release.	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/virinchi-arm-sets-up-rs-300cr-multispeciality-hospital-in-hyderabad/article8788086.ece	? Unfamiliar with publication.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Appears to be a press release.	✘ No
https://virinchihospitals.com/	Self-published.	~ For basic information, yes, for claims of notability, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/board-of-virinchi-technologies-approves-scheme-of-amalgamation-116012800274_1.html	? Unfamiliar with publication.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	It's a press release.	✘ No
https://www.equitybulls.com/admin/news2006/news_det.asp?id=217641	? Unfamiliar with publication.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	It's a press release.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

SITH (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above analysis; and none of the coverage I could find from searching were in-depth per WP:CORPDEPTH. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:06, 12 March 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor housing inequality[edit]

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

This appears to be an essay which has been created by synthesis. Synthesis is discouraged as it is a form of original research and essays fall under what Wikipedia is not. There does not appear to have been a major conversation about housing inequality in Ann Arbor more so than there has been in other locations, as is evidenced by the lack of such debates in reliable sources. Eleven out of the fourteen sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) are just run-of-the-mill documents ranging from demographic statistic dumps to visa information to lists of student accommodation prices. The remaining three sources are a local newspaper discussing house prices (5), a local news story about a plan to attract 3,000 immigrants (13), and a community pressure group (14). It's important to note that these three sources were all published in June 2017 and there has been no coverage of the matter since then. This event likely fails event notability guidelines, and certainly shouldn't be used to prop up an essay about the underlying issue, which appears to not be notable enough for its own article. SITH (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator stated, this is a violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTESSAY. This is just a policy paper and has no place on Wikipedia. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook WP:SYNTH SWL36 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this article was created as part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Michigan/Social Inequality - Winter 2018 (Winter 2018), i have notified Shalor (Wiki Ed) as the course's wikicontent expert editor. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 9 March 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 Move to draft space.. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Farmington, Missouri[edit]

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

List article of mostly not notable politicians aka Mayors of a place of under 20,000 people. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strictly speaking, the question of whether the mayors would qualify for their own standalone biographical articles or not is not relevant to the question of whether there's merit in maintaining a list of their names or not. Lists with closed-ended inclusion criteria, such as lists of holders of a specific political office, aren't subject to the "an article must already exist before an entry can be added to the list" rule that applies to open-ended lists where self-promoting wannabes keep trying to add themselves for publicity — for a list like this, the overarching principle is completeness rather than bluelinkedness. The more important problem here, rather, is that the information isn't actually reliably sourced as being accurate: the only "references" present here at all are some (but not all) of the listed mayors' Find a Grave entries, and a user-generated list on Ancestry.com. So if somebody were to edit this list to change one or more mayors' names, there are no genuinely reliable references in place to verify which information is right and which is wrong — and if we can't be entirely sure that it's even accurate, then we shouldn't be keeping it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Bearcat's reasoning, in that the list itself may be notable, and the only question is whether it is properly sourced. My preference would probably lean toward adding a "needs addition references" tag or draftifying the article before deletion, as the current information is not reliably sourced (largely because it is possible to find the proper sources of the current officeholder and work backward). --Enos733 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Enos733. Article should be draftified in place of deletion. Centralknights (talk) 13:23, 13 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Al Awadi[edit]

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

Article was previously dependent on copied text that was removed as a violation. Without that, there is very little to talk about on this gentleman that confers notability. A search finds little more than routine listings of his works -- typically YouTube videos of his lectures and social media chatter about them. This article looks like an inappropriate attempt to promote those lecture videos. He will have to ask for hits elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A search in Arabic shows him to be very noteworthy, and among a number of preachers who have had their Kuwaiti nationality withdrawn for radical religious ideas. Discussion of this in a couple of sources says that a number of people have been stripped of their nationality, ‘most notably’ Awadi. There isn’t a huge amount of coverage in mainstream Gulf media because the press is heavily controlled by the state and he’s an undesirable, but there certainly are sources from reliable mainstream publications such as Al Arab where even if you can’t read Arabic you can see the article is all about him and not just a passing mention; likewise this one in Al Hayat and this one in Al Khaleej online. Mccapra (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll save it , he's notable person , Thanks . -Imad_J (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Translate of Mccapra's finds convinces me: three independent mainstream news sources which single him out by name, not just in passing. Narky Blert (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Will add sources later, but this guy definitely has several independent and reliable sources talking about him. (Search on Google News, not Google proper-- the first few pages of Google results are not independent of the subject.) Gilded Snail (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but page needs cleanup, maybe some sort of protection. I just added 2 brief sentences to lede, sourced to some intense reporting by Andrew Gilligan at the Sunday Telegraph. Before that page had been cleansed of the terrorist/ ISIL ties that make him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator - The article has been improved nicely since my deletion proposal, which is a fine outcome to this process. In fact, I should have noticed the obscure news sources located by the folks above. It appears that the ultimate decision will be to keep the article, and I will not oppose that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:21, 15 March 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McIlwain[edit]

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

Not clear that this person meets WP:BIO. Being 75th on a list of tech investors and 94th on a list of venture capitalists doesn't seem to be that notable. only (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply a man with some money who makes investments, doesn't pass WP:GNG. SWL36 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely undisclosed paid advocacy. I have blocked the creator for this reason. MER-C 15:08, 10 March 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FocusVision[edit]

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

This page is a festival of corporate peacockery, close to a full house of buzzword bingo. Even in the earliest versions of the article, before all the promotional edits, I don't see any evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom is right about the promo, see [23] as the pure PR version before I trimmed most of it. Bakazaka (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for the trim. But looking at the sources in your trimmed version[24], I don't see much RS coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. Just trying to focus our vision, so to speak. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally created by a WP:COI WP:SPA, with edits shortly afterwards by another WP:SPA. Aside from provenance questions, though, routine announcement coverage (including this about a recent company strategy announcement) is not sufficient to establish notability, nor is a bronze Stevie award in a specific category inherently notable. There is summary coverage in a 1998 book but stated as being based on primary information. Enough to verify this as a company going about its business, but fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:28, 8 March 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 Legal advertising. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The people vs. Kreuzer, Turnwald-Wacker, Müller[edit]

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

Both English and German source searches for the name of the case, its official number and the situation surrounding the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant turn up nothing other than official documents relating to the case. There is no secondary coverage and a search in Scholar and JSTOR turn up little indication the case has had a significant impact on German jurisprudence. Much of the article appears to be original research, including the transliteration of the title. I'm nominating this for deletion as it appears to fail the general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that GNG are met, just a sidenote in the history of lawyers in Germany. Also, no improvement in more than 6 years since I last looked at the page. —Kusma (t·c) 21:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article into a section on Germany within Legal advertising, which this will work much better in rather than a little-visited title like this. Nate • (chatter) 02:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to legal advertising with a brief mention in legal advertising. This case can be summed up in one or two sentences in that article and it would do the same job. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:41, 12 March 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.