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. T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayogu Kingsley[edit]

Ayogu Kingsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We've already agreed once not to have an article about this person; Fatherred apparently thinks we were wrong, and has moved this draft to mainspace without waiting for it to go through AfC review. It seems to me that this person does not meet WP:ARTIST and that the previous consensus was indeed correct. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources in the article post-date the previous deletion discussion, so this is not a matter of whether the previous consensus was indeed correct but of whether the subject has become notable in the meantime. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BBC is reputable, so the sources are worthy, and then this is a notable subject. Page should be tagged as a stub and future info can be added.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are quite a few RS in the article already. Meets GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have to echo the previously stated sentiments favoring the retention of the article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It now seems we have a clear consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, firstly per WP:SNOW, further the article has mulitple sources which shows the article subject meets WP:SIGCOV. SSSB (talk) 19:23, 17 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darian Kovacs (professor)[edit]

Darian Kovacs (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sufficient evidence that he is notable Sonnetman (talk) 22:13, 10 May 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 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There's not a lot of great independent and significant sources about him specifically. What's provided in the article is about stuff Kovac is involved with, but don't specifically focus on him; that said, he's still suitably mentioned and quoted in them that if there were more along those lines I'd say he passed GNG. But I can't find much beyond what's there once removing his own written Forbes blogs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing notability criteria at WP:ACADEMIC and, as User:David Fuchs points out, it appears to fail WP:GNG as the subject of the article really isn't the subject of any of the references. Ifnord (talk) 22:20, 17 May 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 Margot & the Nuclear So and So's. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Edwards (singer/songwriter)[edit]

Richard Edwards (singer/songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This musician fails WP:GNG. I can't find any info on songs that made charts. Tinton5 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tinton5 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Margot & the Nuclear So and So's. No significant RS references outside of his role in that band. He does have an individual All Music bio that references his two solo releases, but otherwise the bio mostly is about his band. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Margot & the Nuclear So and So's - WP:MUSICBIO says, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band" - Epinoia (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above and include a paragraph about his solo albums referenced to his AllMusic bio. This article does a poor job of establishing any independent notability as it is wholely about the group, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Alosio[edit]

Ryan Alosio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search that shows he meets notability criteria. This article was created and very largely editied by users claiming (probably truthfully) to be the subject of the article. The only reference is IMDB and social media. Clearly a vanity page. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are several passing mentions in less than reliable sources (e.g. Daily Mail) to the effect of "Ryan Alosio, the voice actor for" X video game... GNG fail as there is no in-depth coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article makes a number of unsubstantiated claims about Alosio as an artists that -should- be easy to verify: a gallery-shown and sold abstract painter (OK, well, which gallery?, sold to whom?), work featured in: Rizzoli International's Modern Americana (https://www.rizzoliusa.com/book/9780847862849/), Modern Magazine (http://modernmag.com/), The New York Times Magazine (https://www.nytimes.com/section/magazine), The London Sunday Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/) Style Magazine (not sure which style magazine is meant here) I think that means he may have contributed photographs, because he's clearly not one of the subjects of Modern Americana (furniture designers who worked between 1940 and 1990). He's too young) As for the other sources, I found nothing. Not a single mention in any of those sources. No gallery seems to represent him. The only exhibition I found a mention of is the 2016 “Crime on Canvas” exhibit at Life Is Beautiful Music & Art Festival, but his work as an artist has not been critically assessed, reviewed or otherwise noted. Vexations (talk) 21:07, 11 May 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 Isotopes of zinc. As noted by the last comment, the text is basically a copyright violation from this source, so we cannot really merge. I'll clean the page history Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc-68[edit]

Zinc-68 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This isotope appears to fail WP:GNG because there do not appear to be any sources with a specific focus on this isotope; at best, there are passing mentions or generic references to many isotopes, and no non-trivial applications or properties are given. Furthermore, most of the content of this article is about the element zinc rather than the isotope zinc-68 (in which case it is duplication). Expansion from new sources seems difficult if not impossible, and invoking WP:IRI would leave no non-trivial content in this article. Hence, I propose a redirect to Isotopes of zinc in the same format as redirects for other non-notable isotopes. ComplexRational (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Not independently notable but the isotopes article could mention which isotopes have applications. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge per nom, with whose arguments I agree. Most isotopes (especially stable isotopes) aren't independently notable, and this is one of them. Narky Blert (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect without merge as originally proposed - The only thing on the entire page that is referenced is the fact that it is an isotope of zinc, and those references are to a company's catalog entry, and a 404 error page. As per nom, the remainder of the text deals with zinc in general and not specifically Zn68, except for the sentence: "Zinc-68 is considered non-toxic in healthy doses but can cause nausea if taken in excess" which as a health claim should not be said without a MEDRS citation. While there are some details in the infobox not on the target page it is likewise uncited and does not fit with the layout of that page. In other words, there is nothing to merge that isn't more trouble than it's worth (that is not to say the Isotopes of zinc page couldn't use some work, but that work wouldn't be appreciably furthered by what little could be added from this page). Agricolae (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with merge, the isotope within itself is not notable, while the category it is a part of most certainly is. Would like to keep some of the content on the current page however, even if it would be redirected in the end.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What specific content would that be, that is 1) sourced, 2) relevant to the target page and 3) not already on the target page? I'm not seeing any. Agricolae (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Redirect and merge' just means 'check before blanking'. Narky Blert (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to isotopes of zinc; I'm not seeing any content that needs to be merged. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and no merge, as the content looks like a copyvio/close paraphrase of the American Elements Zinc-68 Metal Isotope page. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:08, 15 May 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. This AfD is a disaster on wheels and should be linked as an example at WP:TLDR. That said, I have read it through, twice in detail and skimmed a third time. Discounting at least one keep as very possibly a sock and the argument being outside PAG it is clear that there is nothing close to a consensus to keep. While the discussion appeared to be trending towards deletion I am not satisfied that a sufficient consensus to that end has been established. I very rarely relist discussions more than twice and this one has already become far too unwieldy. If someone chooses to renominate this I would encourage a notice be posted at the top of the AfD reminding editors to keep their comments on topic, cite WP:PAG where possible, do not keep repeating points already made, and for the love of G--, BE BRIEF. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Brain[edit]

Electric Brain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fairly obscure UK video game magazine from 1989 to 1993. Fails WP:GNG. Probably should not be a subject on Wikipedia, but it could be useful for a source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep-it might need more sources I believe or more info. It might be worth a look or a redirect to something else if not. (Though I wouldn't be opposed to delete either). Wgolf (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC), changed to delete-unless if good redirect can be found. Just might not be notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Changing back to keep as there are sources. Wgolf (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It currently has zero RS. One is just the ISSN page listing, and the other is a fan site. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I meant if it can find sources. On another note-it's not even on the List of video game magazines (To be fair it only lists ones with articles though), I might just change this to delete upon looking further. Wgolf (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find fansites and forums. And considering it's obscurity and short run, that's likely all you'll find. Magazines themselves often don't get talked about. That's why most of these old mags should be seen as sources rather than subjects for Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually changing my vote to delete, unless if someone can find a place it can be redirected.Wgolf (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the author of the Electric Brain page, I own a few issues myself and thought it was worthy of an article. So I took some time to do some research to get some information. I'll happily do more hunting and editing if required. As well as my own collection of issues for reference, I tracked down the publisher (who now runs an advertising agency), tracked down owners of other issues to confirm certain details, and more besides. I've taken this opportunity to expand the article with more references and links to other wiki articles and have added it to the List of video game magazines, both of which address some of your concerns @Harizotoh9 and @Wgolf. I vote keep, obviously, with my reasoning being that the magazine covered very popular systems, has good editorial/reviews/artwork/discussion, and had a run of 35 issues which is more than many other magazines featured in the List of video game magazines (over double in some cases). Examples: Amiga Force (16 issues), Amtix (18 issues), Atari Age (11 issues) and those are just from the letter A. Case in point, I'd never heard of Amtix but I'm happy to have read about it now and learnt some new things. Thanks for your consideration! Mattsephton (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal, just noticing it doesn't have coverage in third party sources. I have noticed myself that many gaming mags are likely not notable and probably should either be deleted or redirected to their publisher pages. I'll have to go through them and I'm putting that off right now. I just decided to nominate this one and GameGo! seemed to be the most blatant, as they were super obscure. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion I have addressed: short run (not true in comparison to some others), obscure (not if you talk to somebody who was around in the UK at the time, see videos reference), no believable source (there are scans available, publisher still exists, advertisers still exist), lack of sources/references (I have added more, plus wiki cross-references), not in list of video game magazines (it now is). What are your current thoughts? (GameGO! as one issue and a single PDF should go, I concur) Mattsephton (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep, on the basis that it had a run of at least 35 issues that I know of, and I own all the issues. The magazine was produced at a time when there was poor coverage of console systems and games within the mainstream magazines and so there is a history of games reviews that don't exist in printed form elsewhere. The magazine is of high interest to collectors, in the same way that a rare video game would be sought after. I would be happy to contribute value that helps this magazine earn it's placeUchet67 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC) — Uchet67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It doesn't matter if it' interest to collectors or not, what matters is if it passes WP:GNG by having third party coverage. Which it lacks. It's of interest to niche audiences. Thus it should not be on WP. If you want to create a fan wiki for lost magazines or gamer mags, then that content can go there. But not here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote keep because the current video games climate for historic preservation covers not only ‘retro’ video game files, but all other media as well. Many publications/fanzines have already been lost, either through original servers shutting down, fan sites being forgotten or just lack of knowledge leading to disinformation.

The more popular video game systems have many different avenues of preservation. Lesser known systems such as the humble PC-Engine need as much information available as possible, especially if not known about/available in many countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVBuk (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC) — PVBuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Again, literally all that matters is sources. Does it have any? It doesn't. If it doesn't, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-thanks to the new info, I want to change my vote back to keep like I had originally. Wgolf (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What "new info"? There have been zero WP:RS posted showing notability of this magazine. That is ALL that matters. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There seems to be some confusion over this debate. A lot of people are commenting why they think that this topic is important, but the only issue that matters is how much this magazine has been covered in third party reliable sources. Topics can be important to niche groups, while not being notable enough for Wikipedia. This is where fan projects, fan wikis, and other things come into play. This is a fine topic for one of those, just not here. Let's examine the sources for this page:

• 1. Videogameden. - Nice website, but it's not a WP:RS. Fan site.
• 2. "Electric Brain Magazine". Archive.org - Citing the magazine itself. Not proof of notability.
• 3. anime-nostalgia-facility.blogspot.com - Fan blog.
• 4. portal.issn.org - Just the ISSN listing, which lists literally everything. Not proof of notability.
• 5. youtube.com/watch?v=7CcSDASu1iA - Video with 68 views. Self published and not RS.
• 6. magazinesfromthepast.fandom.com - Fan Wiki
• 7. neogaf.com - Thread on a fan forum.
• 8. digitiser2000.com/ - Fan blog.

Conclusion: Not a single RS has been found to demonstrate the notability of this magazine. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just educated myself and read the page about WP:RS, and now that I am aware of what they are I disagree with your appraisal. Also, Notability is a different ask than that of Reliable Sources so I am keen to not confuse those two. Definition of source, the piece of work itself (the magazine) which we have scans and physical copies of. The creator of the work (we know about the staff, some still around and contactable), the publisher (they are still around, I am in contact with them). Definition of published media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist (both of these are true for Electric Brain). I just added many more sources from scans of old printed magazines, where it was mentioned (as PC Engine Fanatics) in The Games Machine, in New Computer Express and others (as Console Ma'zine or Console Magazine), and mentioned (as Electric Brain) in N-Force all reliable, verifiable, published sources of years gone by. Age matters I feel this is the main problem we have, this magazine was 25 years ago, pre-internet - written letters - fanzines - pen pals - shopping with your gran on a Saturday, so finding information about it is slower and more difficult than I would like. I would also like to ask for understanding that the article is being edited frequently, as more information comes to light. It is not a dead article that has been sat unedited and unloved on Wikipedia. About your appraisal of 8 sources (there are now more than double that)

6 - is an trusted archive of staff lists of magazines.

8 - is the current presence of Digitiser, the advertiser on the back of EB issues 33 through 35, you can read at the reference link a story of how they had to pay "real money" to advertise in Electric Brain.

Right now, there are a bunch of votes to keep, and your delete vote. I'll continue to edit and add to the article as I have been. Hopefully the newly uncovered printed sources are enough for you to reverse your delete vote? Mattsephton (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've added more citations, but it's the same pattern: not a single RS among them. More forum posts, fan blogs, and trivial references. Also, these debate discussions are not votes, but attempts to find a consensus through reference to Wikipedia policy. Unless RS can be found, this magazine fails WP:GNG. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there are no RS. That's all I'll say on the mater, good day to you. Would like to request WP:SK Mattsephton (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very confused about WP:GNG and WP:RS. Super Play is a RS, and it has one profile on GAP, the successor magazine. And I believe it did a profile on Electric Brain as well. However, these two short profiles are not enough to establish notability. The rest of the references are trivial or not reliable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you're missing the point. The point about Super Play 23 is that, whilst mentioning GAP, they give a brief history of Electric Brain and its perceived importance and weight in the UK video game industry/scene at the time. Please be open to new information that is added to the article, as it is already quite different to what it was when you added the AFD. Recently I added reference to The British Library's holdings of Electric Brain. Mattsephton (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article reads like a CV and doesn't explain why this fanzine is notable in the first place. Excessive linking to other articles therein doesn't change that, nor does a staff writer having moved on to write for other video game publications. Any attempt to establish notability is steeped in puffery ("Possibly the biggest coup..."), unsourced namedropping (John Fardell) or merely "being mentioned". Citations are either nonviable (a wiki, blogs, YouTube, an online forum) or primary (other video game mags and related sites), and a Google search under "Electric Brain magazine" came up empty. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Nom. I would like to see a HEY (I almost refrained) but don't see it. There does not seem to be significant, in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. @Mattsephton: -- with all due respect you might want to restudy on sources including "significant coverage", Wikipedia:Party and person and Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources and hope to get a video magazine genre fan for a closer. A source that is totally acceptable for content may not be acceptable at all towards notability and this is what I see. I like the layout of the article but there are some problems.
  • 1)- The source assessment above is correct and the additions do appear to follow suit.
  • 2)- The clear lack of reliable sources means this has to be considered from a fan base point of view as "but we are fans and like it".
  • 3)- Consensus arrived by not voting is not generally the same as a head count. A plus would be a favorable closer that might agree with the "climate for historic preservation" part or give extra consideration to the "preferences of the participants". If that is not considered then a collection of lessor references (multiple insignificant sources) might be considered collectively.

Please note: WP:Notability (being "Worthy of note) is determined by sources. Reasoning of "climate for historic preservation", it had "a run of at least 35 issues", "The magazine is of high interest to collectors", and my personal favorite "keep as there are sources" (any might just do) are secondary to availability of reliable independent sourcing. The main issue is that "IF" the article survives this AFD it may still be in danger of being nominated again unless it can be properly sourced.

Second note: A negative is that one editor has a total of one contribution and another has a total of four. This will only bring suspicion as both also have similar styles of !voting and very likely be discounted. The result is actually one !vote stating there are sufficient sources and three from established editors (one including a review of sources) stating notability is lacking. If this goes against a keep maybe it can be requested to userfy or redirect somewhere? Otr500 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of third party reliable sources, they have a short overview of GAP and Electric Brain magazines in Super Play magazine that's only three short paragraphs. That's a start, but a single tiny article is nowhere near enough to establish notability. They need significant coverage. The other references to game mags are simply pointing to short listings that mention that the magazine is available for purchase. These aren't articles, rather these are just listings and short ads. That's a MASSIVE stretch. Considering this was a tiny fanzine which only part way through the run got a publisher and transitioned into a more standard game magazine, this should not be shocking. Fanzines by their nature are pretty under-ground. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, very useful discussion. John Fardell is listed in the staff credits of all currently available scanned issues, linked from the page. But I'll add that as a citation so that interested parties can easily view the reference. Mattsephton (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: would appreciate your thoughts on whether you think this article is closer to WP:HEY after new sources, refinements over the past couple of weeks and reference to WP:DEFUNCTNEWS? Thanks Mattsephton (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:DEFUNCTNEWS as there are elements of all appraisals offered so far that I disagree with as I continue to uncover references and sources. One final point: to say that Electric Brain was a tiny publication, without any sources, references or citations to back that up is quite ironic, given the discussion in this AfD. I'll reiterate that a run of 35 issues, over 3 years, in the early 1990s, pre-internet when friendships were forged in pen and ink by posted letters, for a topic such as videogames, was really quite something. You'd have loved it if you were there to witness it. Mattsephton (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This is a duplicate "keep" !vote. Please see: "I vote keep" at 11:26 am, 25 April 2019 above. Otr500 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also politely ask why, say, Super Play is not AfD despite having only 3 references? Mattsephton (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short version is: maybe it should?

Long version: I've been actually thinking that a large chunk of gaming mags aren't notable, and should either be deleted or redirected to their publisher page. If you were to mass throw them all into AFD, I think maybe no more than 50% would survive. Thing is though, some of them are notable, and it's difficult at first glance to see which are notable and which aren't since they all have low amount of sources. It would take some time to research and to sort through them, and that's a bit of a pain and I have enough on my plate. Instead, I sent what I felt was the most obvious low hanging fruit, this and GameGO! to AFD, since I felt it was pretty uncontroversial. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Play is hanging on by a thread because despite the lousy sourcing in the article itself, the magazine got a bit of viable third-party publicity upon their brief 2017 revival, and Kotaku used a graphic from one issue for a 2012 feature about the high prices of SNES games. That's pretty much it, but if you want to compare the two, it's miles ahead of Electric Brain in terms of third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even If it wasn’t ahead that would be a case for deleting Super Play and not a case for keeping this article.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Beemer69: for your answer. @Harizotoh9: your reply was not a useful answer to my question as it was not specific to Super Play. @64.229.166.98: I'm aware of that, I never suggested such, I just wanted a rock solid description of why Super Play is OK. So I've just added a citation to a Nintendo Life feature on the Electric Brain's 1992-published interview with Shigeru Miyamoto. Mattsephton (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NL article brings it to two single articles, so that's still not enough. A tiny Super Play article, and a NL article mostly focusing on Shiggy. Also, reading the comments in the NL page, it says the interview was taken from Famitsu, and that Electric Brain merely translated it without giving credit. Which explains why some minor fanzine has an interview with someone like him. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Brain "merely" translated it? Really? Can I reiterate that this was 1992, 20 years before the next time this interview was to be seen in English, and 24 years before the interview was seen in full in English. And this is an interview that has - this very month - been reprinted by Famitsu in Japan as one of the most important interviews of the last 30 years (their words). To trivialise this fact shows a fair amount of disrespect, so I'd like to ask again if you could be a bit more open minded. Thank you. Also, I've mentioned many times that the raison d'être of Electric Brain and its contemporaries like Super Play was to bring coverage of the nascent Japanese video game industry to the distant shores of the United Kingdom in a time where such information was not easily available. As to the credit, I don't know. All I can say with certainty is that Electric Brain give credit in all their other interviews (such as with the Yuzo Koshiro Interview featured in issue 24, watch this space). So it may have been a slip up, or maybe not. But I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, given that this all happened more than a lifetime ago for some people. Finally, your repeated, unsubstantiated statements such as "some minor fanzine" make it sound like you have a vendetta against this publication for some reason. Mattsephton (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one has a "vendetta" against this magazine. Rather, you're betting all your horses and then some on the longevity of a single interview to prove the article's notablility, which is still lacking due to no reliable sources, including those newly added. I did some trimming because what does posting the same interview three times in a single paragraph prove? Furthermore, one of the recently added links to the interview mentioned you by name. That doesn't help the cause. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, both Nintendo Life and Super Play are WP:RS for video games. The issue is that these are brief and tiny articles and don't amount to substantial coverage. One tiny Super Play article, and one NL article that spends one sentence on the fanzine are not significant coverage. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: I don't see any reason to make this discussion personal - this is about the Electric Brain article, not me, or any others discussing the AfD. Thanks again for your editing, it was appreciated. The interview was my recent focus and as new information and sources come to light in the near future I'll continue to add to the article with more sources. Mattsephton (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to be well sourced and notable given the age. If this magazine had run from 2013-2017 instead of 89-93, no doubt there would many more online sources and we probably wouldn't be having this debate. ed g2s • talk 15:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page and sources. The author is WP:REFBOMBing the page, adding refs for superficial and trivial mentions. A lot of the page is fluff and padding. In terms of sources that actually mention Electric Brain, there's just Super Play and Nintendo Life. That's way too little and brief. There's also no exception to notability for old print sources. There is nothing stopping gaming magazines from talking about this fanzine, and indeed Super Play did just that. Why didn't others? Remember, this was an underground fanzine with low readership and was made via photocopying. Only 3 issues were publisehd with a proper publisher in like stores.

Let's take a look for example at NL's coverage of Electric Brain vs Super Play. Superplay got a 3 page retrospective going over its history, while Electric Brain got one news article that has 1 sentence devoted to the fanzine. The sort of sources we're looking for are more like NL's in depth retrospective. Are there any more sources of that kind of in depth coverage for this magazine? Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that "Only 3 issues were publisehd with a proper publisher in like stores."(sic) is demonstrably incorrect/false: check the British Library reference.

You say "low readership" but offer no proof. If you're aware of circulation numbers please add them to the article.

"And was made via photocopying" is not wholly true, particularly when talking about Electric Brain and not any of its earlier incarnations. We have the publisher and ISSN for part of the run.

I'm adding references only for things that need citations - no more and, obviously, no less.

Magazines don't generally go around talking about their competitors so the fact Super Play even mentioned Electric Brain at all is an oddity.

You demand sources. I add them. Then you say they are not good enough? That's your personal opinion, I disagree with that vehemently.

Super Play received a 3 page feature at the time it had a revival issue printed. Before that it had much less coverage, naturally. Mattsephton (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the magazine does not meet WP:NPERIODICAL: made no significant impact in its field, did not receive a notable award or honor at a national or international level, was not the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association, and has not had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works - therefore, unambiguous delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent a large proportion of my life in the field of video games and video game writing, I'd argue that without Electric Brain, and in particular its staff writer Jason Brookes, Super Play would not have been as successful and influential as it was, nor made the lasting impact that it did. In this regard, Electric Brain could be considered a prototype for Jason Brookes' later input into Super Play. That would be significant impact in my opinion.

Given that digital versions of Electric Brain are only now becoming available, new scans are uploaded frequently, citations will surely come and the Nintendo Life feature is the first example of this. The same would be expected of other recently introduced publications or any new information.

As WP:NPERIODICAL states "Many periodicals are notably influential without being the subject of secondary sources" which I think is a good summary of this issue. Especially regarding the "Non-contemporary periodicals" clause WP:DEFUNCTNEWS. Mattsephton (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Researching obscure fanzines and gaming history can be a laudable goal, but that's not the goal of Wikipedia. This is what fansites, and fan wikis are for. This is niche info. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, over and over. It makes no sense and shows real lack of understanding of what this article is even about. It's not obscure and it's a magazine with an ISSN. If you're not from the UK, you might not understand this, that's fine. Perhaps you had not even been born when his magazine was printed, that's also fine. But to say this doesn't belong on Wikipedia without addressing the comment you're replying to is really not adding anything useful to this discussion. I hear your point, no need to keep restating it. It would be more productive for you to address the comment you're replying to. Mattsephton (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For all of the blue-in-the-face insistence that EB is so influential like it's some poor man's EGM, at the end of the day it's a fanzine that had a short shelf life due to, well, low readership. There's next to no third-party coverage on just a Google search alone, and pretty much anything can be added to archive.org. The Nintendo Life piece with Jason Brookes cited in the article makes no mention of Electric Brain at all, so anyone unfamiliar with EB is not going to automatically correlate the two. The writers didn't get their foot in the door of other publications solely on the basis of their work for EB, which was more or less a stepping stone. Gaming fanzines advertising in other gaming magazines also means jack in terms of notability because that was the norm in the pre-internet days. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, false information or personal opinion with no facts to back it up, or ignoring relevant cites.

1. "fanzine"? it was a printed, retail magazine with ISSN record, at least for the part of its run this article is about.

2. "short shelf life"? it ran for 35 issues over 4 calendar years. this is not short.

3. "low readership"? ^{[citation needed]}. if you are aware of circulation numbers, please add them to the article.

4. "so anyone unfamiliar with EB is not going to automatically correlate [to Super Play]" if they've read the preceding sentence in this article before they follow the reference that will know exactly the relationship.

5. "writers didn't get their foot in the door of other publications solely on the basis of their work for EB"? You have no proof of this. I read it as implied in the Super Play retrospective feature.

6. "like it's some poor man's EGM"? I've made no reference to EGM, and given that I'm not from the USA I have never read an issue of that publication so have no idea about it other than to have heard its name. Similarly, most people from the USA will have never heard or read an issue of Electric Brain at the time it was printed and in circulation. Finally, when you are deleting things from the article, or adding reliable sources or peacock please note the specific references or words that are problematic so they're easy to locate and resolve. Mattsephton (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattsephton: There has been a reprieve. Please use this time to possibly neutrally advertise at relevant places as this relisting is "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus". Above you curtly dismissed an editors comments and I would refrain from doing that. Also, you use the wording "Again, false information or personal opinion with no facts to back it up, or ignoring relevant cites". All consensus building hinges on the "opinions" of the editors giving comments hopefully based on policies, guidelines, and even community backed essays, so you disagreeing might not mean an editor has "intent to deceive".

There are at least two editors that edit in the video gaming field. I take this into account when considering comments with substance according to the "rules" (interpretation) when I am reviewing. I don't consider ANY comments that include Appears to be well sourced, even or especially, if offered by an admin, and give little thought to non-policy based SPA comments. Those types of comments are directly counter to what not to state in an AFD and shows what I consider to be trivial comments. Some of us take the time to check individual links as apposed to "counting sources" so as long as I see reviews in earnest I will be swayed more by those editors comments. The one editor you summarily dismissed took the time to list (advertise) the discussion and it has been relisted twice. This means there is extreme fairness going on so PLEASE always assume good faith and present civility.

I started my "gaming" on a Commodore (64 and 128) and when I went into PC's I progressed from the 8088, 80286, 80386, and up. My first "powerful" PC had an amazingly fast turbo speed button of 12 Mhz. I still have gaming consoles and games so could not be considered against the gaming world. I would offer the same about those editors that work in the subject area especially when you cursor over their user name and it is prominent they do so and they are established editors.

I am somewhat perplexed concerning your comments about WP:DEFUNCTNEWS. You stated, "Many periodicals are notably influential without being the subject of secondary sources", and I read, "It is possible for a periodical to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Verifiability.". I am all about history and certainly obtaining knowledge so the "defunct" part to me would be historical value.

When or if you find a source that might signify notability share it here for opinions instead of just "adding it" and then requesting others to re-review. This will lesson the fact that an editor will have to view diff's to see the edit and give a chance for input (reliability) that will stop assertions of refbombing. Just some thoughts.

If there is not significant coverage in reliable independent sources advancing notability then I will submit that in approximately 7 more days the result will still swing to delete. Any bias in editors from the U.S., possibly caused by an inability to find sourcing, can be overcome by someone providing such sources. Otr500 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the level headed, neautrally-positioned discussion.

My WP:DEFUNCTNEWS quote was from the top of that page, section titled This page in a nutshell.

I will add the next source I find here for discussion as you recommend; we appear to be roughly the same age and have the same values so I appreciate your advice and recommendations on this.

My aim here is to point out any AfD discussion that is not based on citable fact, and I will continue to do so.

Aside: I thought this was the 3rd relist (which as I'm sure you know is not advised) but perhaps it is only the 2nd relist and the original AfD does not count towards the relist tally? This is my first AfD so... I really don't know which it is. Mattsephton (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, please quit removing the article tags atop the page until these issues have been explicitly addressed. Just one example of puffery in the article is, "Electric Brain also featured content that other magazines would shy away from." The citation? Not an independent third-party source, but the magazine. It's not viable information, just opinion. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quoting a specific example - I've addressed it. In the past I also addressed specific citation links that you had issue with and took the time to mark individually. I'll address every specific example that is raised. Globally tagging a page isn't much help as I'm sure you can understand. Cheers! Mattsephton (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise @Beemer69: @Harizotoh9:, let's discuss the issues you both feel need to be tagged on the page, an increasing number with every back and forth, rather than tagging without talking about them? Let's work together to make this article better rather than against each other? Until then I have issued warnings for vandalism as I consider successive, increased tagging of the page an attempt to influence the outcome of this AfD. Mattsephton (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: @Mattsephton: I have been involved in more than a few AFD's. If you are around my age then welcome to "old[er] age". My only complaint is that I am living in my "age of retiring gunslinger" period. I strive to be "nicer" in a growing older age but sometimes this "being nice" is confused with or perceived as a weakness. That is generally a fundamental error as I am neither weak nor timid if provoked so continually must check myself. I was born before the first artificial satellite was launched and when commercial jet liners were in their infancy. Considering the cool cars of the era at least the round wheel was invented.

WP:DEFUNCTNEWS is a section and particular subject "Non-contemporary periodicals". The quote you used is actually pretty clear: "Many periodicals are notably influential". While not named this was mentioned by user Harizotoh9 at the beginning of the AFD, "Probably should not be a subject on Wikipedia, but it could be useful for a source.", and this is echoed by, "It is possible for a periodical to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject.", This clearly defines a difference between "notability" and "notably influential". Hopefully some acceptable in-dept coverage can be located.

It is a good idea to address issues (perceived or not) resulting in a tag before removal especially if there is an accurate edit summary or talk page mention. Those that perform maintenance can get riled up if an editor just arbitrarily removes tags and can get an admin involved. I do remove what I consider vague and long term (career) tags but leave an edit summary that if the issues do not seem to be resolved please be more specific. Otr500 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old cars are the coolest cars, no doubt about it. My first car was a 1972 FIAT 500, marginally older than myself. Of course I bought it long after it was new, at a time it was already considered vintage. Cheaper road tax! Anyway, I digress. As for the tags, I have not been arbitrarily removing them, but rather addressing specific tags and marked targets in the body contents. Once all of these had been addressed I removed the tags, only to see the tags, plus more new ones, were added back without any further information. This seems arbitrary and unfair. I have left more detailed edit summaries for the most recent edits because of this. A little bird told me a recent book quoted Electric Brain so I'm trying to get hold of a copy. Exciting! Mattsephton (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've gone through all the citations, and they're all either unreliable, trivial coverage, or both. This doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPERIODICAL. - MrOllie (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Any thoughts on how this applies to the Non-contemporary periodicals section of WP:DEFUNCTNEWS? Mattsephton (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It hasn't been widely written about, as that section suggests should be considered. Generally, topic specific notability guides don't override the general notability guideline anyway. Without good sources to start from there is no way to write a policy compliant article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mattsephton: That is why I hope you find the book you mentioned. I didn't look to see but some of you belong to a Project and maybe someone else there knows, has access, or can help. When I dig a little deeper on something and I cannot find anything I have to go with (and many other likely also) that it needs proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)

  Still waiting for the book to arrive. I'm also trying to track down archive TV footage of a feature about Electric Brain that was aired on Central News in the UK at the time the magazine was published by Space City. Staff members Onn and Dan were featured. Mattsephton (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. The WP:VGSE drags up nothing, so today's sources are not writing about the magazine. A review of Gbooks indicates a similar dearth. The sources presently on the page do not meet the requirements to pass the WP:GNG. No prejudice to later recreation if sources are later identified to meet the GNG. --Izno (talk) 18:03, 16 May 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Phillips[edit]

Nathaniel Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Yet to make his senior debut JMHamo (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JMHamo (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. --MrClog (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, as the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. INeedSupport ^:3 17:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A clear case of WP:TOOSOON. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails notability and WP:NFOOTBALL, Alex-h (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:33, 17 May 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Rings[edit]

The Wild Rings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just like Sheldybett has said, this video game fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I have removed Giant Bomb and GameFaq as references since both are unreliable to use as citations per WP:VG/RS (in Giant Bomb's case says "Do not use the user-contributed content from the site's wikis for citations"). Not able to find any WP:SIGCOV of the subject in reliable sources besides a paragraph on IGN pre-release. Neoseeker reference is just an entry, and may also be unreliable per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_21#Neoseeker. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable. --MrClog (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Month Keep we are giving sources. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaminkirsc I have no idea as to what a "Month Keep" or your post means, so a clarification would be nice.I would recommend the closer to ignore this if not as it's not based in any guidelines or policies nor it is a coherent comment. Not to mention "we" is used which could mean WP:COI. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanmilic97 Okay, a month keep is you keep it for a month Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaminkirsc And the reason is? The first AFD ended in a no consensus and lasted almost a whole month. Sources have not been found. Sorry, I will assume WP:AGF but this doesn't make any sense. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanmilic97 in fact maybe it should be Delete. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a month keep. Either there are sources, or there isn't. They don't neccesarily need to be in the article, the subject is either notable or not, not the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Delete - With this being a Japanese release, it's possible there is some Jap print/internet sources out there which can point towards notability. Found nothing in English sources, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - according to WP:NVIDEOGAMES, "A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer."- this game has not won any awards or achieved any notability - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Avoid citing an essay as the primary justification in a deletion discussion. Citing the WP:GNG would be just as appropriate in this context. --Izno (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. fails WP:GNG- -MA Javadi (talk) 17:41, 17 May 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Origins of the Onyx Sun[edit]

The Incredible Origins of the Onyx Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A self published book of dubious notability. Despite the claim in the opening line, it did not, in fact, actually win any awards. It was, instead, just a runner up in two, fairly non-notable, awards. I have not been able to find any reviews from reliable sources on the book, as well. The article says that Publishers Weekly created a review of it, and though that review seems to be now unavailable, the entirely of it is included in the article, which consists only of a short paragraph. Searching for any other sources brings up nothing but its pages on online marketplaces or listings on pages such as Goodreads. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. --MrClog (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, found a small Midwest Book Review review (under "The Fantasy/SciFi Shelf" here), unable to find the PW review, nor here (doesn't mean there isn't a review), doesn't appear to be widely known: library holdings of one, so more is needed for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:NBOOK which requires appearances in two or more non-trivial sources, so one brief write-up in Publishers Weekly does not establish notability - and has not "won a major literary award." - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBOOK, and the article was also created by a WP:SPA and written in a pretty promotional style, so I think it also fails on WP:NOTPROMOTION grounds, too. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:35, 17 May 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Varga[edit]

Zach Varga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY (no games in a fully-professional league), fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage). Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 16:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass NFOOTY's yardstick. Fails GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted by others, this player does not appear to meet notability criteria establish at WP:NFOOTY. TimBuck2 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) INeedSupport ^:3 20:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We Beat the Street[edit]

We Beat the Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage. The only source is the book itself, which is a primary source. INeedSupport ^:3 16:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:NBOOK#1. The book has received a bunch of reviews, some of which I added to the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:11, 11 May 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 Marketing automation. Clear consensus against retaining this as a standalone article. Anyone interested in merging some content can retrieve it from the page history. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise marketing management[edit]

Enterprise marketing management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was deleted at AfD, then brought to deletion review. I'm listing this here as a result of that review. This is purely an administrative action on my part; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Haven't we already discussed this multiple times? I thought the consensus was it was a violation of WP:NEOLOGISM. In any case I don't see how it is a material benefit to WP. Skirts⁸⁹ 19:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skirts89 I'd comment (from memory as I am on the road) support for WP:NEOLOGISM is not totally clear and unambiguous given the previous AfD's for EMM and MOM which unfortunately were subject to heavy disruption. I also don't believe you participated in the previous AfD for EMM ( but I stand to be corrected if necessary). I intend to repeat my nom. for the previous AfD as a !vote when I can carefully prepare it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two textbooks on the subject are cited in the article, so this is obviously not a made up neologism. No material benefit is not a policy based reason for deletion. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (edit conflict) A significant concern in the previous AfD was the descision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing operations management (2nd nomination) to redirect Marketing operations management (MOM) to Enterprise marketing management (EMM) during the AfD of EMM but without notification of the result being brought to EMM AfD for discussion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @RoySmith I know your willing to userify MOM but simply refunding the MOM redirect (incl history) would I feel be useful without causing any harm as far as I can see. It would merely rollback to status-quo as it was the the point of termination of the previous EMM AfD. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Marketing automation, which describes the category of software that includes "enterprise marketing management" software. Search Engine Marketing, which is cited in the nominated article, defines enterprise marketing management as "Automated marketing". It would also be appropriate to add a ((Redirect)) disambiguation hatnote to Marketing management after the article is redirected. — Newslinger talk 11:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Marketing automation. Marketing automation (MA) is a good target, except for the fact that Enterprise marketing management (EMM) is not discussed in that article. In fact EMM is a type of marketing automation, but not synomynous with it. Merging the content of the EMM article, or a subset of it, along with the reliable sources included, would improve the MA article and preserve verifiable content per our policy of WP:PRESERVE. A merge of verifiable content would be preferred over deletion according to our policy in WP:ATD. "Keep" would be fine, too, as there is demonstrated notability, but a merge to provide context for the stub is a reasonable compromise. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: (Bringing forward my nom. at previous EMM AfD as a !vote): Marketing WP:NEOLOGISM that the community seems to indicate it does not wish to accommodate.. I confess reviewing the prior AfD's/DRV's for EMM and MOM with the lack of support explicit support for this reasoning together with the MOM Afd redirect result I have some lack of total confidence that my argument is in fact the community view. However the EMM closer on his (archived) talk page did state the close was made solely on DJM's points related to neologism and point of view and DGG's point related to duplicativness. I am minded the arguments above for a merge/redirect to Marketin Automation (MA) may have some traction however I have concerns of the current quality of the MA article and the WP:SURPRISE of a redirect of EMM there, albeit fixable by creation of a small suitable section in MA. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see the need to redirect or merge, there isn't much to merge, and it isn't likely that anyone would use this exact phrase to search, and if they did, marketing management would show up anyway. This is essentially marketing management with the word "enterprise" tacked on. WP:NEOLOGISM, aka buzzword. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect anywhere mentioned by another user. Deleting permanently is not the right way to go, especially considering it was relisted here at AfD due to issues with the first deletion. Retaining edit history may be useful, and WP:ATD definitely favors this. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails on WP:NEOLOGISM grounds. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:33, 17 May 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marisol Grondin[edit]

Marisol Grondin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I see refs to a zumba class she runs, but I don’t see multiple refs from reliable, independent sources attesting to her notability. Mccapra (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems to fail GNG. CobaltBlue101 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. Info 07, where the two references appeared, seems to be a reliable source. At the time the article were published, it and the affiliated newspapers were owned by Transcontinental (company), a large Canadian newspaper publisher and printer. The corresponding article in the French Wikipedia at fr:Marisol Grondin has been deleted for not being notable by French Wikipedia standards. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unfortunately as there is no sign of notable music albums or singles, no indication of passing one of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC and there is a lack of coverage as for example there is no entry at all at AllMusic. However, it may be WP:TOOSOON and she may become notable in the future with a hit album or songs, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 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 resolved. The disambiguation has been reformatted into a list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese apple[edit]

Japanese apple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

These are examples of apples that have originated in Japan, not apples that are known as "Japanese apple". None of the articles show "Japanese apple" as valid alternative names, so all entries fail WP:DABMENTION as well. For example, Akane has a few synonyms per [1], including Prime Red, Primerouge, Tohoku, Tohoku No.3, Tokyo Rose. Searching that site for "Japanese" or Japanese apple" gives no results. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree now that I see it that this doesn't quite work as a disambiguation page, but it could be rewritten as a set index article; see, for example, Asian pear or Chinese orange. I was hoping to find one that was better developed than this but there are 1,559 pages in Category:Set indices on plant common names and I'm not going to spend all day going through them. There's some evidence that "Japanese apples" are a sort of common unofficial name or categorization for several varieties of apple, for example [2] [3] [4] [5] (I am aware that some of these are not reliable sources and they're not meant to be, they're just demonstrating common usage. If your reply to this is all about source reliability, keep it to yourself.) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work as a set index either. Per the guideline (my emphasis added) A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. If nothing is named "Japanese apple", you can't have an index saying otherwise either. As an example to your counterexample, Pyrus pyrifolia has a source showing "Asian pear" to be an alternative name for that pear, so that is okay. The sourcing that you provided seems to indicate that an actual article on apples from Japan would be desirable, and it would be nice to reserve the title for something of that sort. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My first AFD for something I've made; exciting! This was written as a response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 7#Apple (Japan). I will hammer this out when I get home based on the above feedback. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – probably should be expanded into an article about Japanese apples. It could also be a list of Japanese apples. "Dab" and "set index" are beyond my level of competence, but I did a quick search and found lots of sources referring to these apples as Japanese apples (though, like Ivan's list, not all of these are RSes, but that's not the point): [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Leviv ich 15:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any apple from Japan can be called "Japanese apple" as a descriptor of what the apple is, but that is separate from an apple having the name "Japanese apple" (which is what dabs and SIAs cover). I agree with you that the way to cover this group of apple cultivars would be with an article of the sort. A stand-alone list should have more than three entries, but I'm sure a list of "Japanese apples" can be included in such an article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: I just made the page into this before rolling back my edits. Would a list of Japanese apple cultivars be a more acceptable scope? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I would be fine with that. Thanks for the work you put into it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Okay, I moved the page to List of Japanese apple cultivars and applied the appropriate rcats to Japanese apple (ie. Page move, From a list topic, ((R with possibilities)), etc.). Also it didn't take much to make this list once I found the other entries which was really thanks to this AFD –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:18, 10 May 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dike Eddleman Athlete of the Year[edit]

Dike Eddleman Athlete of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable award - shockingly little coverage of any kind (doing a search for "Dike Eddleman Athlete of the Year" with quotes only comes up with 60 unique Google results) and not the kind of RS that would support LISTN. This is not even necessarily notable for the individual athletes either - in the well researched GA Dick Butkus this award isn't even mentioned for him. It's a gorgeous table but given its size I don't know that there is a good merge target for it either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, plus an encouragement to the initial editor to create equally beautiful tables for slightly less obscure awards. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the award is not mentioned on the University of Illinois website - I would recommend a Redirect, but the award is not mentioned in any of the University of Illinois campus articles - does not meet WP:GNG - has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 04:14, 15 May 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 James Hadley Chase. Tone 16:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly for Cash[edit]

Strictly for Cash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article doesn't meet any of the 5 criteria at WP:NBOOK. MrClog (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to James Hadley Chase. As nom states, no evidence, either in the article or on the web as faras I can find, of meeting NBOOK. No reason not to redirect. MarginalCost (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to James Hadley Chase. In general I would expect something from a notable author at this time to be notable but I'm finding a complete lack of coverage beyond an advertisement in the Sydney Herald. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to James Hadley Chase - book not notable on its own - does not meet any of the 5 criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT - therefore, redirect - Epinoia (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above and keep the categories, which are useful search tools. Narky Blert (talk) 10:10, 17 May 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AzireVPN[edit]

AzireVPN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This hasn't been prodded before, but I think this is borderline enough to merit a discussion in either case. I can't find any in-depth review outside torrentfreak entry (https://torrentfreak.com/review/azirevpn-reviews/]) but while I think reliable, TF does list pretty much every VPN. And a single non-promotional review is not sufficient for WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG. Can anyone find any other decent sources for this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are plenty of hits on Google News but I am unsure of their reliability. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 15:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've wikilinked the article back to WireGuard where there is a substansive review among the references. I'd also note the AfD notice is not at the top of the page where I think I read its meant to be so might be missible by people.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just a VPN.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NaFIRS[edit]

NaFIRS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. There are some passing mentions of this in few academic paper, but no in-depth treatment. There's also some technical documentation, the most in-depth seems to be [15], but it seems WP:PRIMARY and not sufficient to establish notability of this. At best, a soft delete and merge to Distribution network operator or another better target if found could be considered. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: *Merge: To Distribution network operator or better, unless I can sit listening to Wichita Lineman in Chi by the busker of the Sussex Declaration BBC news snippet fame for an hour and it gives me some inspiration. On dePROD I noted Ofgen reference, Infrastructure Asset Management with Power System Applications isbn: 978-1498708678, Handbook of Reliability Engineering isbn:1852338415, Control and Automation of Electrical Power Distribution Systems isbn: 1351837354 but I can't remember for the life of me their content at the moment. But I feel a merging humming in the wires.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC) per nom.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:59, 17 May 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bullen[edit]

Andrew Bullen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

He is IT coordinator for the Illinois State Library, which we do not even have an article for. And he has written two books. Likely that this fails WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:NBIO as far as I can tell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF and WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above comments. --Tataral (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see where either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Nath Kak[edit]

Ram Nath Kak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. ∯WBG^converse 08:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 08:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 08:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/retitle. Sources are about the book, not him. Perhaps his book is notable, and the content of this article could be salvaged by rewriting it into an article about the book, not its author? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Piotrus, can you list the reviews? ∯WBG^converse 13:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2 reviews are on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just added 2 book review, one from The Hindu, the other published in a small literary journal years after the book was published. This sort of retrospective, literary review is a strong indicator of notability. Noting tha tthis is an autobiography, or memoir, which makes it seem reasonable to have a single article on author and book. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a small literary journal; it's a mill publication with no indicator of reliability. Forewords don't count as a review. ∯WBG^converse 15:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a small, non-notable literary journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• currently there are 2 reviews from solid sources on the page, and a foreward to the book, which was posthumously published. It looks as though it was published by his children, eash of whomhas a page. Frankly I am unsure whether the children computer science professor Subhash Kak, computer scientist Avinash Kak and literary theorist Jaishree Odin are notable or whether this is a family that self-promotes on Wikipedia. I am withdrawing , at least for now.
• Delete - one minor book is not enough to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - notability is not inherited from his children WP:NOTINHERITED - delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noninterference (Buddhism)[edit]

Noninterference (Buddhism) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

From searches on Google Scholar and News there does not appear to be a notable connection between Buddhism and the concept-of non-interference. Standard reference works like the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism and Thomson-Gale's Encyclopedia of Buddhism do not contain any mentioning of the subject, let alone an entry on it. The wiki article as it is now, is completely unsourced and contains no evidence of notability. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG; article is unsourced, I found no reliable source in Google, Google books, G scholar, Jstor etc. Appears to be WP:OR. JimRenge (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The recent lengthy addition, which probably prompted this AfD, is entirely WP:OR and runs afoul of WP:NOTESSAY, while its promotion of Buddhism in Wikipedia's voice is WP:POV. That definitely has to go whatever the outcome of this AfD. That leaves us with the original single sentence that sounds to me like it could be a Buddhist principle, but I'm not seeing any verification of it. There is the Buddhist idea of detachment through meditation, but that is not quite the same thing and in any case a single sentence will say no more than is already in the Buddhism article. I'm seeing references in sources to two meanings of Buddhist non-interference, neither of which matches the definition given in this article (...the idea that all things are impermanent, with a resignation to events beyond human control.). The first is the idea that Buddhist monks should not interfere in worldly affairs (e.g. Encyclopedia of Monasticism) and the second is non-interference with local religious practices (e.g. Encyclopedia of Buddhism). I have no objection to creation of a well-sourced article at this title, but there is nothing worth keeping in the current offering. SpinningSpark 11:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Spinningspark, Thanks for pointing out that instance of non-interference that i missed in Buswell's encyclopedia. Still, my argument holds, so I am glad we agree on this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this appears to be completely original research WP:NOR and a personal essay WP:NOTESSAY - does not meet WP:GNG, has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK 2A /3, with a dose of WP:POINT thrown in. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 11:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting[edit]

University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am proposing this for deletion to test Wikipedia deletion policy against the huge number of articles created in relations to shootings in the United States. Wikipedia doesn't need a repository of every documented school/shooting event, there is already a list for this List of school shootings in the United States. The number of victims involved in a shooting doesn't warrant Wikipedia creating a new article, in my opinion, a new article should be created only if new content or issues are introduced. The relevant policy to this discussion I think is Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Per my comments elsewhere this AfD is intentional disruption and should be treated as such; if you want to change Wikipedia policy to exclude an entire class of articles because you personally don't find them interesting, start an RFC. ‑ Iridescent 09:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Responding your comments 'elsewhere', I understand that you agitate the position that Wikipedia doesn't operate on precedence but apply policies to each nomination separately. This argument is logically inconsistent, if some fact is used to apply a policy one way, the same logic can be used to apply the policy to a similar set of facts. Otherwise, there would be no need for policies in the first place, if they are going to arbitrarily applied. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 09:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not "agitating", it's a straightforward statement of fact. If you really want to go down the Wikilawyering route, a topic in automatically notable in Wikipedia terms provided it meets either WP:GNG or an SNG, and doesn't violate WP:NOT. Since this clearly meets WP:GNG the onus is on you to demonstrate that it demonstrates WP:NOT. When Wikipedia:Notability (events) talks about crimes not being automatically notable, we mean that we don't include an article on someone who was convicted of drink-driving or allowing their dog to foul the sidewalk, even if it was reported in multiple sources; we're not talking about this kind of major incident. If you want to get our notability policies changed, head on over to WT:N and start an RFC; Wikipedia doesn't work on precedents and even if by some miracle this AfD does close as anything other than "speedy keep", it will have no effect at all on the notability or lack thereof of any other article. ‑ Iridescent 10:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: I wouldn't call a routine occurrence a 'major' incident, there is already a list of school shootings in the United States. The fact this shooting occurred warrants documentation from a historical perspective, which is achieved through the list. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 10:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Other editors recently invovled in another shooting releated delation discussion. Chandrani876, Blackknight12, Hirunika Balasuriya, Cheesy McGee, Randeepa Steven (Editor) --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 11:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As we dont have a page for every fallen soldier or every military deployment in war, just as we dont have articles for every murder or homicide; however, any major events which pass WP:GNG or WP:SNG which covered by WP:SIGCOV of independent reliable sources, would suggest the article merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:03, 10 May 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 G5'd by Oshwah a couple days ago. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol destruction of Iran[edit]

Mongol destruction of Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

POV content fork of Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 13:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or rather redirect to Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia). The article suggests genocide on an incredible scale. If this were correct, a substantive academic source would be needed, but destruction of an army does not necessarily imply the killing of all the people. If it did, several cities that have remained occupied would have disappeared. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia - which I concur this article is a poor fork of. I do think that the title, with the more modernly used Iran, is a plausible search term (as is Persia). Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Icewhiz-, I also suggest central Asia of article Mongol invasions and conquests and Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia- MA Javadi (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above, as the non NPOV goes to the core of the topic in context of pages on other wars. Also find Destruction under the Mongol Empire alittle off, but that is for another day. One page for every war and other for the destruction caused during it, seems unnecessary. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• Some problems solve themselves? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:20, 15 May 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 (can be seen on bottom of the discussion). (non-admin closure) SSSB (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Leclerc (disambiguation)[edit]

Charles Leclerc (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pointless DAB page as the racer is the primary topic, so hatnote there to the general's article would suffice and reduce clicks to get there Joseph2302 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are several other notable people with that name. See fr:Charles Leclerc in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Third entry (per French Wikipedia) makes hatnote less viable. Wknight94 ^talk 14:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The other two people referred to in the page are notable. No reason for deletion. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. There are now 3 names listed in the disambiguation and there is a draft for what will be a fourth, the reason for deletion no longer applies. ​ SSSB (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep snow keep. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm happy to keep this now there are 3 people on the DAB page (only 2 when I nominated it). Consider this as me withdrawing my AfD nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geethaiyin Raadhai[edit]

Geethaiyin Raadhai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

the unremarkable movie does not qualify WP:NFO thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, this does not meet WP:NFO, the article's "sources" also consist of a description on a movie buying website, an opinion piece on a blog, a description and review on a movie review forum, and a spottily page. any expansion of this would violate WP:OR.Grapefruit17 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet any of the five criteria of WP:NFO - refs given in the article are sketchy (IMDB, Spotify) - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford[edit]

Edward J. Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only source that actually mentions the subject in any depth is [16], which mostly just quotes him speaking on behalf of a company he founded. Does not meet WP:GNG. I don't think a Bronze Star Medal meets WP:ANYBIO on its own. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete what a roundabout WP:SYNTHy article. None of the sources appear to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources as needed to satisfy WP:GNG. The only source in the article that focuses on him is an announcement of his wedding in a local newspaper. Cbl62 (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Peace Corps, Naval Intelligence, Goldman Sachs, political funder, charity funder, founder of a private equity firm. Great resume. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 12 May 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 06:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route 432[edit]

Washington State Route 432 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is a minor 10-mile road that passes through suburban areas on the rural Washington state. Has no coverage except some secondary sources, mainly state transportation department mention. Little coverage in local daily papers, almost all of which is WP:ROUTINE coverage. However, I do admit it cosmetically looks ok, with photos and official looking logos.

• SNOW keep as a long-standing GA and as a primary state highway (which is deemed notable through dozens of previous AFDs as precedent; see also this FAQ. This nomination is being made as a point in retaliation to 41st Avenue (Vancouver), hence the strange reasoning given. SounderBruce 05:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the FAQ link! It says all state highways are notable BUT it is an editor's essay. I looked and state highways are not automatically Wikipedia notable. This article that is subject to this AFD is an obscure article, not like Interstate 70. Aerostar3 (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ cites precedents that were forged at AFD by consensus, which generally allows primary-level state highways to exist as standalone articles. Given that this highway is also an expressway and has a well-documented history, I think that alone would qualify it for general notability. SounderBruce 06:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 05:31, 10 May 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 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep per WP:USRD/P. --Rschen7754 05:47, 10 May 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. Overwhelming consensus to keep. While @MyanmarBBQ, Zanhe, Cawhee, Horse Eye Jack, and MA Javadi: have provided good rationale and reasoning... none of their reasoning or rationales exist in the article. Perhaps you all could work on the article and provide the notability that you've given here? @Ansh666: was correct in nominating the article as, on first look at what we have right now, there's no mention of notability. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Fumei[edit]

Mao Fumei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Classic case of WP:NOTINHERITED. While she was an important relative of two very, very notable figures, she doesn't seem to be notable herself. The article seems to have been unsourced since its creation in 2006(!), and the six foreign-language articles are similarly source-light - the Chinese version has two books, neither of which seem to be particularly useful notability-wise, and a few deadlinks. I'm just not seeing it. Possibly redirect to Chiang Kai-shek#Wives, at best. ansh666 05:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ansh666 05:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep IMO, she have support his husband's policial issues and major act in the history of Republic of China see [17]. And she have big article on Chinese wikipedia zh:毛福梅. This article needs more work/expand and refimprove, not deletion. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She is notable for being the wife of a president, the mother of another, and the way she died (killed by Japanese bombing). Her death was sensational news at the time. There's a ton of coverage in Chinese about her life, and multiple biographies have been written (together with her mother-in-law), such as this. The article is in terrible shape but her notability is beyond doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As a notable figure for her role in Chinese history, she must be kept. That being said, I do believe the article is in need of some TLC, but it also appears that the Chinese Wikipedia's article could be a great starting point for sources. Cawhee^Talk 17:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @MyanmarBBQ, Zanhe, and Cawhee: I addressed all of that in the nomination statement. Having an article on a different-language Wikipedia doesn't provide notability, as they may have different standards for inclusion. The zh-wiki article may be long, but it has no sources that are useful for en-wiki notability. Nor does being the wife or mother of someone notable make one notable, and especially not being a civilian victim of a war (could you imagine the mess that would be?). Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Zanhe's contribution is a start, but IMO there needs to be much more. ansh666 18:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a civilian being killed in war is no big deal, but the wife of a major country's president and the mother of a future president? Can you imagine the coverage in news media if an ex-wife of Trump were killed by his enemies? And that's what happened to Mao 80 years ago. As I said, there are a ton of sources in Chinese, including dozens if not hundreds of books. It's simply ridiculous to claim there's no significant coverage. I've added "Find sources" links for her Chinese name, click them to see for yourself. (Google News returns almost 800 articles about her, 80 years after her death!) -Zanhe (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, her tomb was vandalized by the Japanese and then by the Red Guards, so she was repeatedly in the news years after her death. It's been repeatedly rebuilt and forms part of a national cultural heritage site (see Mohe Hall zh:摩诃殿). -Zanhe (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep article should be expanded not deleted, we should not abet the erasure of clearly notable women from Chinese history. Subject unquestionably has merit outside their role as a wife and mother, not to dwell on the subject but its a little insulting to even suggest such a thing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She is notable figure for being the wife of president, just needs to add some more reliable sources and should be kept- -MA Javadi (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Albert La Roche[edit]

Raoul Albert La Roche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing a lot of notability, and some degree over inheritance of notability. Not helped by also being poorly written as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This person has an entry in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland: Link. Therefore it should be kept according to this notability rule: "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." (ANY:BIO) --Hadi (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.".Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This person is know in different countries in Europe (Germany/Swiss/France...) and he is connected about some art work (like Villa La Roche) and art collection in different museum in France and Swiss (look the internal links of this article or this external link about kunstmuseumbasel [18] for exemple). We can also find many references of him in google in some books or news. --Siemanym (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the house is notable, hence why I says there may be some issues with inherited notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but stub to get rid of what looks like an awful machine translation of the French article. An entry in the quite selective Historical Dictionary of Switzerland basically establishes notability. In addition, there is a monograph about him in his function as patron of Le Corbusier. Sandstein 15:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His entry in Worldcat says: "18 works in 49 publications in 4 languages and 919 library holdings" Link. --Hadi (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Quote from the NYT, April 9, 2013: "some of the world’s most celebrated collections, including those of Gertrude Stein, the Swiss banker Raoul La Roche (...)". Link --Hadi (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An other quote about an exposition in the Museum of Fine Arts, Basel: "Having bestowed upon his native city one of the most outstanding collections of Cubism in the world, Raoul La Roche invested the museum with great international importance in the field of classical Modern Art. The endowment consists of 3 paintings by Picasso, 19 works by Braque (...)." Link --Hadi (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note sources have to be in depth the establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. --Hadi (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Single sentences (or even paragraphs) or brief mentions are not enough to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - few of the references are about La Roche himself, but about his house or people he knew, therefore WP:INVALIDBIO - no particular notability - does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Roche was an important art collector (Picasso, Braque, etc.). In other articles this seems establish the notability (for ex. Michael Friedsam). Is a list of the famous collected paintings necessary? --Hadi (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fine example of why this sort of thing is bad, its just a list of paintings.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As well as the entry in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, there is an article about him called 'Raoul La Roche, Art collector and Builder of the villa "La Rocca" ' in Architectura - Zeitschrift fur Geschichte der Baukunst (39(2):171-184 · January 2009) [19] (I just noticed this is already in the article as a bare url reference, which does not show how long it is (13 pages), nor where it was published - in a peer-reviewed publication. There are other sources, which are not as long and don't all cover as much information as these two sources, but the nominator appears to be overlooking the point made in WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and the statement in WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Paragraphs are definitely more than trivial mentions, and as well as the sources already included, there are additional paragraphs and informative sentences in 'LE CORBUSIER'S CLIENTS AND THEIR PARISIAN HOUSES OF THE 1920s', Art History (Jun83, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p188-198) [20] and other articles about Le Corbusier and about La Roche's art collection. He may have been written about because he collected art and commissioned Le Corbusier to design a house for him, but he has been written about. AfD is not about the quality of the article - it can easily be improved with more information from these sources, and with more natural English. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously meets notability requirements. See also https://www.metmuseum.org/art/libraries-and-research-centers/leonard-lauder-research-center/research/index-of-cubist-art-collectors/la-roche Shyamal (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample evidence of notability has been provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important source for Le Corbusier works and of course provenance for anything else of note that he collected, including the house "Villa della Rocca" itself. Sources for this are readily available online. Jane (talk) 18:12, 16 May 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bollywood films of 2020[edit]

List of Bollywood films of 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is about a future events which may or may not be accurate. Hagennos^Talk 04:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Similar to 2020 in film. While that article primarily presents the English-language releases, this one lists the films in Hindi language. The sources aren't the best, but most of them are from film journalist Taran Adarsh's verified Twitter account, so they are fine for now. DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of that statement is a logical reason to keep. Trillfendi (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This kind of list passes WP:LISTN. If a film is notable per the guidelines and is scheduled for release (with a source) it could be included on a list. Heck the 2020 in film list suggests that even unnamed films could be included. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Doesn't appear to fail WP:NOTCRYSTAL. If the content is inaccurate it should be addressed by the editor, or discussed in talk.Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Plenty of reliable sources. Besides, the article will have to be recreated if it gets deleted. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:28, 11 May 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. This nomination is clearly going to go nowhere. To save the nom the stress of more pile on, I'm going to close now SpinningSpark 09:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwar (tribe)[edit]

Kanwar (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The content of the article does not justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. This is one of the thousands of tribes in India and does not warrant its own page Hagennos^Talk 04:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this nomination makes no sense to me. Why should an article be deleted just because there are (or could be) lots of similar articles? If the sources are sufficient to establish notability it does not matter how many other articles on related subjects there might be. Mccapra (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I fail to understand the decision made this topic does not warrant an article. Please see WP:DEL-REASON because to my knowledge, this article meets none of the deletion criteria.Grapefruit17 (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the nomination is bizarre, sorry. We have articles on hundreds of Indian tribes and castes. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No rational deletion reason given and the subject is notable. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 15:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Bučič[edit]

Tomáš Bučič (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. AaronWikia (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with OP. Fails WP:GNG on all categories.INeedSupport ^:3 16:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daler Ametist[edit]

Daler Ametist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Little-known Russian rapper. References in the article are doubtful. Does not have awards and charts.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 02:25, 3 May 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 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to be a promotional article for a "Russian rapper, actor, designer, music producer, screenwriter, and film director" with few actual creative credits - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or any other WP:BLP guideline - Epinoia (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, horribly written with a ton of red links, and dubious sourcing. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:23, 10 May 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 Tolmachevy Sisters. Typical for a non-notable album to be redirected to the artist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polovinki[edit]

Polovinki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

• A not-notable album of the russian duo Tolmachevy Sisters.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 02:01, 3 May 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 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tolmachevy Sisters - does not meet WP:NALBUM - no references at all - not notable as a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 21:09, 8 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Masonda Ketada Olivier[edit]

Murder of Masonda Ketada Olivier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. There has been a lack of coverage since 2016. RaviC (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is no expiration date on notability. The article has also been adequately sourced from reliable independent sources. His death also affected India—Africa relations resulting in 42 African countries threatening to boycott the Africa Day celebrations in New Delhi. It also resulted in African diplomats asking their governments to prevent Africans students from visiting India. and a tit-for-tat attack on Indians in Congo.Tamsier (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And all of your links are from May 2016 thus confirming that the event fails WP:LASTING. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article, Pope Sabinian, has not had a citation in about 15 years but is notable. I do not know this man, Olivier, but the rationale of nothing since 2016 is not a valid reason. Newseditingpedian (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant, because "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" (which is the case here) "in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" as per our policy. [21] As per WP:LASTING - which is the guideline you are citing, the policy made it absolutely clear that: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation." [22] As I have demonstrated above, there are 54 recognised states in Africa. If 42 out of the 54 decided to boycott an event in India (a single country), I think that is significant and covers the "precedent or catalyst for something else" part of the guideline. That part of the guideline is also covered when it resulted in African diplomats asking their governments to prevent Africans students from visiting India, as well as the tit-for-tat attacks against Indian immigrants in Congo. Not only do they cover the "catalyst for something else" part of the guideline, but also the "effects on the views and behaviors of society." As evident in the sources cited which I chose not to address in detail, even the African immigrants in India reported that they do not feel safe in India because of racism. Mind you, the revenge attacks of Indians in Congo as per the source is just Congo - a single country in Africa. As there are loads of Indian immigrants in many parts of Africa, if I really wanted to, I am sure I would have no problem finding sources for other African nations where Indians have been targeted or mistreated in revenge for the racist attacks of African immigrants in India. As par your comment and vote below, I think it is you who doesn't like it hence why you are asking for it to be deleted without reading properly the policy that you cite.Tamsier (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment saying that the 42 out 54 African countries decided to boycott India? , did it happen No. it's ammounting to WP:Syn or may be WP:CRYSTALBALL, if the thing did not occur and was thought in the head by some to occur cannot be considered as "Catalyst" to anything , again if you find sources in all African countries and would like to summarize so that you can prove your theory right then it amounts again to WP:Syn sorry to say some how this is not wiki material.Shrikanthv (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again comparing a Byzantine! era pope Pope Sabinian to a commoner from 2016 is not really comparable Shrikanthv (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Every news event is notable for one time but it must meet WP:LASTING for justifying stand alone article. ML ^talk 18:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tamsier, effects seem to be readily apparent and widespread. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those "effects" are apparent since after May 2016. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is apparent is that you do not understand the policy that you cite. I refer you to my reply above.Tamsier (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLUD. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above. Lack of significant coverage since days after the occurrence of the incident. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my reply above.Tamsier (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is well sourced and the murder greatly influenced the Indo-African relations.--Tubslubeamorepersempre (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails lasting coverage. "Keep" votes are not addressing anything except WP:ILIKEIT. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary. Please see my reply above.Tamsier (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Such incidents happen all over the world but only few meets the requirement of lasting coverage. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I hope the closing admin will take into account that arguments based on policy and sources as per policy, are key here, and not just the number of votes either way. Some editors do not want this article to stand but have not debunked any of the points I have raised above.Tamsier (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:LASTING. Orientls (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26: The closure could verify comments by Tamsier which only show ignorance of WP:NTEMP. WP:NTEMP says that "time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested". Nonetheless I have debunked his argument below. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Improper application of WP:LASTING to this AfD. Delete participants should read WP:LASTING before quoting it in their arguments. Keep per "Notability is not temporary", et al. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You missed WP:NOTNEWS. An event that had coverage only for several days is not notable per WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep From my understanding of WP:LASTING, it is being improperly used here. WP:NTEMP Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Every event is notable for sometime but we need to make sure that the event received significant coverage even after weeks or months of the incident. Do you think that we should create article about every single murder that caught media's attention for several days? See WP:NOTNEWS. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article itself lists all the sources[23][24][25] which fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRITERIA which says that "A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." I am now analyzing the sources provided by Tamsier above: