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

The result was delete. Consensus that NORG is not satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ImpactFlow (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)

PROD declined. There are certainly mentions of this crowdsouring platform, but nothing that suggests to me that it meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing anything to suggest that it's anymore notable than the other crowd sourcing platforms out there. Whispering^(t) 23:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG or WP:NORG another crowd sourcing platform not clear how it is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Kryeziu (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 PRODed this article but another editor disagreed as the subject was ‘clearly notable.’ Of the two sources provided one is dead and the other says that the subject is being sent to Belgium, not the UN as described in the article. Apart from this I literally can’t find anything about him, so even if some ambassadors are notable, I don’t think this one is. There are other individuals of the same name who come up in searches. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete diplomats at this level are just plain non-notable, and he has no other claim to notability that the diplomatic functionary postion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I found many sources, although many are in non-English languages, some appear to be about a relative with a similar name who plays soccer, and some are just in passing. I added a couple of what I could find, and tagged it for unreliable sources. If someone could translate this it would be great. Anyway, I'm on the record for trying to save this stub. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Bearian:. There are a lot of people in multiple generations with the same name. For example the google book link you mentioned and asked for a translation of is about a different person who it says was killed by Serb forces in the First World War. I also found sources about other people with the same name, but not this one. If you can share the sources you’ve found I’ll take a look at them. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian I agree that the first source you’ve added is the right person but as it is only the mention of his name in a long list of people, it doesn’t add any weight to arguments for his notability. I’m removing the second ref you added as it seems to be about a different person with the same name. The subject of the article was a diplomat in 1983 and still a diplomat in 2008. The other person is a lawyer who’s been in practice since 1991. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:GNG. Although Bearian did a credible effort, there is just not enough significant sources on this diplomat to warrant inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Alesia Johnson (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)

It is too soon for this young academic. She has some early career awards but few citations. I can't find any other independent coverage. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant citations to academic work on GS. No pass of WP:Prof. No independent sources: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• @Xxanthippe: there are two or three well cited works shown here on GS ? Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is a much better source. But with an h-index of only 13 she is well below the standard expected for this very highly cited field: again WP:Too soon. Maybe in five years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Weak delete. Her citation record looks on-track for a successful academic career, but with the relatively low h-index and only one triple-digit citation count I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:PROF#C1, and the article doesn't suggest any other form of notability e.g. for her advocacy activities. Doing fieldwork and participating in community outreach activities are laudable but not (without coverage in independent reliable sources) notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per David Eppstein. Sadly, in academia women have to publish twice as much, and serve on committees, in order to get tenure, especially in the sciences where field work is necessary. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet and of the conditions for WP:NACADEMIC, Alex-h (talk) 10:14, 17 October 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. bd2412 T 18:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Danburry (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 citations are not from reliable sources, and do not demonstrate notability. The page was mostly created by Drewddanburry so a WP:COI is evident. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep passes WP:GNG per WP:NEXIST Like Herald Extra and Salt Lake City Weekly and Paster Magazine here and reviews of his music like in the Duluth News Tribune. There is a lot more that a WP:BEFORE search should have found. Lightburst (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess that I omitted to do such checks this time, not expecting to find better citations because of the low quality of what the informed editors had provided. – Fayenatic London 20:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - this line, "In 2006, he embarked on a seven-month-long national tour playing pretty much everywhere he could in the United States", is a claim to notability under WP:BAND, criteria 4. If that could be sourced, I'd be for keeping. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 16 October 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Dev (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:NACTOR has not done significant roles . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - almost all of his roles on TV have been single-named characters, evidence that they're run of the mill and insubstantial. The bit about "also associated with the YouTube Channel called ..." is classic WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jelle Martens (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:CREATIVE as far as I can see. No sources to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see some weak blog-like coverage in a search. Nothing that approaches GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough indepdent sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources or any other indication of notability; exhibitions, monographs, collections, etc. Vexations (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject of this article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Cannot find reliable sources online. Netherzone (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just to be sure, I looked online and found insignificant coverage - a handful of news items in Dutch, and one passing mention in a book about collage. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find much about the subject. It also seems that "Jelle Martens" is a fairly common name, making it difficult to distinguish which sources are about this Jelle Martens and which ones are not. Gargleafg (talk) 01:22, 18 October 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 15:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayako Kato (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 reads like a badly written fan page. Subject is not worthy of note. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Article reads like a bad translation (perhaps by Google Translate?) of the Japanese article on the same person. (Which itself looks bad, as do so many articles in ja:WP.) The en:WP article now under discussion was "created" by User:CrisBalboa, whose user page says "I mainly create articles of foreign celebrities". CrisBalboa thereupon provides a list of over 750 of them. The great majority of the titles are Japanese personal names. None is redlinked, and I don't notice any that aren't linked: it seems that en:WP has over 750 of them even now. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. More precisely, here is the article as CrisBalboa first and last edited it (on 14 May 2017); here is what was then the latest version of the ja:WP page about Katō; here is Google's current translation into English word-salad of that version. (Google's algorithms and data may of course have changed over the last couple of years.) Here's a particularly tasty morsel of the Japanese article as it was then: 食物アレルギー（肉アレルギー）を持っているため、かたまりの肉はほとんど食べられないが、スープに出汁となっているものや、細かくなっているものは食べられるものもある。 I suppose that could be englished as something like: As she has a food allergy (a meat allergy), she can hardly eat pieces of meat; but she can both drink meat stock as a soup and eat finely chopped meat. (Two quibbles. First, if she can eat X when finely chopped, then it's clear that she doesn't have a real allergy to X. She merely has what in Japanese is called an arerugī, which encompasses actual allergies and mere dislikes. Secondly, this stuff hardly sounds encyclopedic to me. But let's put these quibbles aside for now.) Here's Google Translate's current englishing of the Japanese: Due to food allergies, you can hardly eat chunks of meat, but there are some that are souped in soup, and some that are fine are eaten. Here's CrisBalboa's version: Because she have a food allergy (meat allergy), she can hardly eat meat of lumps, but something that is souped in soup and something that is fine can be eaten. I sense a certain resemblance to Google output. But that was back then. Let's see how the translation/prose has improved. It's now: Because she have a food allergy (meat allergy), she can hardly eat meat of lumps, but something that is souped in soup and something that is fine can be eaten. Any change has been ... minimal. Perhaps we should learn to appreciate this article of lumps, souped in Google Translate. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the fact that it’s quite obvious that the person who wrote this, probably SPA at that, has absolutely no knowledge of the English language... take all that away and the notability factor is still not shown. Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets GNG due to sources I found [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ミラP 20:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - May be notable, hard to assess though as all of the sources are in Japanese. However, this article is so poorly written and translated that I think WP:TNT is justified. That goes for all of the hundreds(!) of articles that the creator has apparently copied from ja~wp, run through Google Translate, and pasted here without proper attribution. Holy hell, this is bad. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Industries Limited (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 much in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doug Mehus (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Odd. This is a long-established firm selling major consumer brands but it just doesn’t seem to have any secondary coverage at all. Perhaps the focus of public attention is on the brands and products, rather than the parent company. I wasn’t able to search in Urdu as nothing on their site tells me whether they even use an Urdu name. Mccapra (talk) 07:25, 20 October 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. As well as agreement that there are major issues with its content, including OR and a dearth of included referencing, there is also consensus that it's an unneeded content fork, with no distinct content from Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. It's worth noting the US equivalent - it's not impossible for this to be written in such as a way to be distinct and a legitimate article. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mob lynching in India (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)

Newly created WP:POVFORK of Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, 2017 Nowhatta mob lynching and other articles, with lots of WP:OR. Since "mob lynching" is neither a special phenomena and it takes place in every country, I really don't see why we would need a separate article for this topic, which is covered already on many other articles. RaviC (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Badly written, certainly not neutral. Can not be rescued.Orenburg1 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POVFORK per nomination. No encyclopedic value. Bharatiya29 15:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this please. I came here hoping to vote for a keep and salvage it since a general article could reasonably exist on this topic (although it is preferable to have separate articles; mob violence encompasses multiple types of events). Then I read the content of the article and I cannot AGF anymore. It reads like a rant instead of an encyclopaedic article.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that Lynching in the United States and List of lynching victims in the United States exist, although the topic is specifically about violence towards African-Americans. Specific topics are definitely preferable here.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dangerous WP:OR.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete it is an unreferenced opinion essay, not an encyclopaedic article. The referenced part is from other srticles mentioned above. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Snook (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)

Associate professor. Does not meet WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inadequate independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak delete - fails the "Professor test", as a run of the mill associate professor, but might pass WP:CREATIVE due to touring internationally. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 16 October 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. Firm consensus that GNG was not met Nosebagbear (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISLAMIC CITY SCHOOL SUDHER, SWABI (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)

No supporting references, nothing found in my WP:BEFORE to indicate notability. Looks like a good-faith page creation but no chance of passing WP:GNG. At absolute best the page content indicates it might be (by some measures) popular, but this is not the same as being notable. Needs sourcing in reliable, independent sources. As written this is also WP:PROMO material - did consider WP:G11 speedy but thought (as it's an educational institution) might as well give it a chance of surviving if anyone can do better finding references. FOARP (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES no independent sourcing, utterly WP:PROMO, far, far WP:TOOSOON to establish notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Goldsztajn. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and Goldsztajn. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG--Wakowako (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - written as spam, zero sources at all, and badly fails my standards for schools. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems like a promotional article to me. KingofGangsters (talk) 21:14, 16 October 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 Create dab page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Takayuki Inoue (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 notable role is as Tolle in Gundam Seed. No news sources to show notability. Recommend redirect to Tolle. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was one of many I created when I first joined Wikipedia back in 2006 and Gundam was my whole world at that time. I have no issue with it being redirected, but just FYI the character article for Tolle got redirected to the character list a long time ago. You might want to redirect this to that to avoid a double redirect. Shaneymike (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per AngusWOOF. ミラP 03:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters#Tolle Koenig. This is her most notable role, if a future biography is made then it would likely come from information related to the character. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do not redirect to a list of characters. Someone looking for information on Takayuki Inoue is not going to be interested. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Xezbeth: There's also Takayuki Inoue (musician). ミラP 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That complicates things. A dab page might be the best option, but it still has the same problem where a voice actor's career is ignored in favour of a single role that is arbitrarily perceived to be the only thing a potential reader is interested in. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between the character that is the signature role of the voice actor and the band that features the musician. bd2412 T 18:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per BD2412. The DAB page can simply link to the various relevant articles.4meter4 (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apna News Aayega (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 a notable television program. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. KingofGangsters (talk) 17:17, 13 October 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. bd2412 T 04:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Lesole (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. According to the sources listed in the article, the match he played for Botswana was not FIFA-sanctioned and therefore does not satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. International match not official per this. GiantSnowman 09:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ミラP 14:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:FPL says Botswana Premier League is WP:NOTFPL. ミラP 03:35, 21 October 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pro Kenshusei (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)

Discussed on Talk:Hello! Project#Merger proposal: Page is mostly BLP trivia with non-notable current members with little to no sources. Page is centered on trainee members (AKA members who have not officially debuted); debuted/departed members already have their own page. Discography can be merged with Hello! Project. lullabying (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The proposal isn't based on any Wikipedia rules or guidelines. The group is notable per WP:MUSICBIO as it has had a single and an album on Japan's national music chart. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, the Japanese Wikipedia article has 337 references. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the Japanese Wikipedia and almost all of their sources are primary sources. You need reliable secondary sources to maintain notability. The rationale for this article existing is similar to a discussion held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny's Jr. lullabying (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's sad, Johnny's Jr. are certainly notable. I don't think anyone who is into Japanese music would say they are unnotable. They fill big arenas. (You can start by checking the Oricon charts. And some Johnny's Jr. boy bands are notable individually.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ジャニーズJr.の売上ランキング. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 関西ジャニーズJr.の売上ランキング, ふぉ～ゆ～の売上ランキング. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As it currently stands Hello Pro Kenshusei is mostly unsourced, with little to no secondary sources, and is full of BLP trivia. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture/Archive 3#Members sections had discussed that ages and birthdates were inappropriate on group articles. Also, as it stands the article currently does not discuss the history of the trainee group nor their works in detail, hence the lack of notability. lullabying (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus in that discussion. And only K-pop groups were discussed. So please don't start me on this. (I have other things to do now. I've been planning to return to that issue for two years now, but I'm too busy with other stuff.)
    Btw, birthdates are not trivia. And they can be easily sourced from the official profiles.
    In short... I wonder why someone would want to delete this article. There's nothing in it that can't be checked. And the group is notable per WP:MUSICBIO. -Moscow Connection (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also talked to GimmeChoco44 when we worked on Negoto that member birthdates on group articles were not appropriate, so it's not just WikiProject Korea who had this in mind for consensus. I also discussed with Drmies about this as well, and they even also elaborated about it in a similar discussion. The whole page is full of unsourced trivia with no notable activities for the group discussed. lullabying (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      The notable activities discussed are the album and the single the group released.
      P.S. Are you calling the two editors to cast their votes? It may look like canvassing. --Moscow Connection (talk)

      • • They pinged me about birthdates, but I think you know my position on that. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it was about the birthdates situation. You can also see the discussion on Talk:Negoto#Members' birthdates to see how the discussion played out, since I initially did push for it. However, the focus of this is whether the article should exist at the moment. It's a combination of WP:TOOSOON and that there's too much BLP trivia on members with little to no discussion on the actual group. There's too much WP:UNDUE on the members themselves instead of the group. Plus, there's also a lack of secondary sources. lullabying (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Who would ever think that this kind of completely excessive stuff would be suitable for an encyclopedia? God gave us Wikia for this. Delete. It's cruft, it's trivial, it is not properly verified, it stinks of BLP violations. That the group is notable doesn't mean this is notable. I don't care how many sources the Japanese version has--what matters is that our articles have decent secondary sourcing--not K-pop portals, not gossipy magazines, not industry-driven PR sites. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect/Selective Merge to Hello! Project. A brief overview and the recordings that charted are notable enough to mention in the parent article. Other than that, the rest is fancruft.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. I can't read the japanese references, but my impression from reading the article is that this is indeed fancruft. And given that this is a WP:BLP, with many of the subject minors, we need to have much better referencing, including in-line citations. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @RoySmith: How is this a blp? It's about a project/organization that helps develop musical talent, not about the lives of the individuals involved.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe WP:BLP is an odd way to phrase it, but we've got information about living people, most of whom are minors. We need to be very careful to make sure everything we say is WP:V. We state that somebody failed an audition, somebody else had health issues. Virtually nothing in the entire article is referenced. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:MUSICBIO. For the sake of closing this AFD I am changing my vote to keep. Merger may be the best option but that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Additionally, any BLP concerning content can be removed easily. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I'd rather we merge this article to Hello! Project, delete this article, or move it to draft space. This is a trainee group, with members that have not officially debuted/contracted to the company and the Japanese Wikipedia is mostly primary sources. They are not active as a group. Johnny's Jr. is on a similar vein. lullabying (talk) 15:53, 22 October 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. With respect to the sole keep argument, "appears in a number of works of fiction" is not a notability criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Octane (Transformers) (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 fictional character TTN (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep he was notable in the Headmasters series. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Davidgoodheart: Please elaborate? WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotr Konieczny: He made regular appearances in the Headmasters transformers series, and also appeared in the original transformers comics, so I would consider him to be a recognizable character. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:NPRODUCT, and has a good article on Transfomers wikia https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Octane anyway, we are doing a disservice splitting readers attention between two sites.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic Wikipedia shouldn't have any articles about Transformers at all, because it detracts from the attention TFWiki gets. JIP | Talk 12:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whether he is recognizable means nothing if he is not provably notable. I would say merge, but there is nothing here to merge from secondary sources, only cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge (i.e., if not merged somewhere, delete), per the above, and noting that every claim of substance about the character remains unsourced in the article. bd2412 T 04:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop (Transformers) (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 fictional character TTN (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:NPRODUCT, and has a good article on Transfomers wikia https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Scoop anyway, we are doing a disservice splitting readers attention between two sites.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried O. Wolf (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)

Uncertain WP:PROF, but certainly the only editors who have created/edited substantively here are part of a sock-fest focused on apparent promotion of often-marginal academics. Amrita Jash (admins can see it) that was a comparable article by the same socks that was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amrita Jash. No evidence the "think tank" of which he is claimed to be director is "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" (PROF c3, same failure mentioned in that other AfD). DMacks (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I added his Google Scholar profile to the article for everyone's convenience. Citations look a bit light (but I don't know the area well, and he might be notable from his books). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Since no one else has said anything, I'll speak up. Citation counts are low. On 3 of the 4 books listed, he was not an author but rather an editor of an article collection. All books have many co-authors and look to have limited impact. It's true that he's been used as an expert source in some news stories, mostly by regional papers but also by the NYtimes. (forgotten signature added later) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 6:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Duck Song (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)

No indication of notability, only mentioned in the sources but not significantly discussed per WP:WEB. The NPR article describes it as "viral" but not as a "hit". Not everything that has a lot of YouTube views is automatically notable. ... discospinster _talk 13:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Crikey, I remember this. Delete. Largely irrelevant internet thing that doesn't appear to have garnered any coverage which establishes notability. Goddamn catchy, though. got any grapes? -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 17:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A duck walked up to an AFD / And he said to the editor at the AFD / "Hey, got any sources?" / The nom said "No, we've just got passing mentions / But it was on iTunes charts and was once called a meme / Can I get you to keep?" / The duck said, "I'll pass." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Viral-ity is not notability. This was a meme talked about by people who talk about memes, and it was praised or criticized by people who praise or criticize memes. The rest of the world didn't notice, and neither should Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Duck Song" is discussed on page 182 of the following source (1) and it is mentioned in the NPR source already included in the article, but I cannot find any additional sources for this so I agree that delete is the best option here given the lack of coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep two reliable sources and 400 million views over 10 years gets this above WP:GNG requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're not exactly in-depth sources – the NPR source is a one-line passing mention in an article about a completely different subject and only mentions the number of YouTube views, a number which is now obsolete, and the Blick article is also very short and only mentions the year, the artist, and that it was created in Microsoft Paint [12]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not as in-depth as we'd like but they are reliable sources and despite the disdain expressed here for covering viral topics and memes, they are sometimes notable and the popular ones are definitely valuable to readers. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 20 October 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 deleted per A7. (non-admin closure) IntoThinAir (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khang Tofu (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 lacks third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per criterion A7. creffett (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as apart from not passing WP:GNG this is a bio of a private person and a BLP violation, A7 should apply. The youtube videos he uploaded have only been viewed by 45 or so viewers, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Someone who has 28 subscribers is unquestionably non-notable. Kalimi (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted before. User is self-advertising. User has been indeffed. No need for AFK on this clear cut case. Alexf^(talk) 14:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankerpreneur (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 lacks the third party sources Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not passing WP:GNG and is also a bio of a private person and therefore a blp violation. His youtube videos have only about 75 views, A7 should succeed imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 13 October 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Melamed (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 rather promotional bio of an academic that seems to fail WP:NPROF. Low citation count according to GScholar search, awards and honor are stretching it past breaking point, IMHO. No in depth coverage in reliable sources. I don't think he passes WP:NARTIST, neither; no good references for his academic career except the claim from his homepages have been found. Sure, his work was exhibited in some places, but with next to no effect as in not generating coverage outside a few mentions in passing etc. The prior AfD had people effectively AGFing claims from his homepage, even through most couldn't be verified; nothing has changed since. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is both a professor and a designer. It is difficult to show notability for educators since they don't cite each other, just put things into practice or run workshops, or serve as founding chairmen of departments. However since the first AfD he has been elected a fellow of the Industrial Designers Society of America. The election announcement verifies much of what is in the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of 'announcement' is often written by the subject himself; I am not sure if it is reliable for things other than of course him being elected to Industrial Designers Society of America (probably a notable organization, but I am not sure becoming a member to it is enough for being notable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you may be thinking of the use of fellow as member, as people who join the Royal Astronomical Society are called fellows. The American usage is often reserved for that small proportion of a society's membership who are honored by being elected fellows. The IDSA has thousands of members but currently about 180 fellows, and it is listed as one of their awards. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StarryGrandma This is a fair point. Are you saying that because of that fellowship he passes WP:NPROF#3? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, yes. It is hard to find good sources for educators until they get a major award from their professional society which recognizes the impact they have had. Art and design faculty are a particular problem since they make things instead of publishing things.

• Weak Keep If I am understanding this correctly, he passes WP:NACADEMIC Criteria #3. If there is contention about this subject, ping me to take another look. Not watching.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:42, 14 October 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Tour (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)

Currently sourced by only primary sources, or simple mentions. Searches turn up only the type of routine coverage, like announced dates. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Either redirect or keep page ^{as it is}. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 15:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I say we keep per secondary coverage added since nomination. Yes, sourcing is still pretty bad, but this is a concert tour by a notable artist and there are concert reviews to incorporate into the text. Let's work to improve instead of deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, we should keep the page. The artist is already quite notable and her prominence will only increase. ---Immaterialperson _(Talk) 21:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - the available sourcing is not great, but there does appear to be sufficient suitable reviews to show notability. It could probably be summarised and merged with her personal page, but its retention isn't contingent on that Nosebagbear (talk) 16:02, 20 October 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. SK#1: Nom was withdrawn. czar 14:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Muller (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 police detective. Referenced, sort of, no wiki links, I have trouble finding all of those refs but this is "probably" not a hoax, through verifying most of the content is a pain. Still, bottom line is that this bio seems to fail WP:NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject of this article appears to have been the subject of a book, and a number of articles in reliable sources. Having "trouble" finding the references does not mean that these references do not exist. as such this is an easy pass for WP:BASIC. Finally, AFD is not cleanup, so the lack of in-line citations does not mean we should delete. FOARP (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. The article is such a mess that I missed this book, which seems to have a very low visibility online but it does exist and is not SPS ([13]) so I guess it is sufficient to make the subject notable. Through while AfD is not cleanup this mess of an article may warrant WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I guess this is a notable subject, although I am a bit surprised.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kraków gingerbread (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 don't think this cake is notable. The references in the article are pretty bad - blogs, and recipe sites. I couldn't find even as much as a proper definition of this cake in any reliable source. There are a few GBook hits for this term, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage (unfortunately almost all content is snippet view at best; this book seems to mention this term on four pages but I can't make it display a single one). The article in reliable Polish newspaper that purports to talk about this ([14]) is paywalled, but I found a mirror which (of it indeed contains all of the article's content) it has no in-depth coverage and just provides a recipe. This topic doesn't have an article, nor even a single mention on Polish Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus of the commenters is that there are sufficient sources to indicate notability. RL0919 (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poyfai Malaiporn (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:MUSICBIO. While certainly written very badly, that could be fixed. What can't be fixed is the lack of notability. I could find nothing in English on the dude, and the article doesn't make enough claims that make me believe hes notable. The rough machine translation of the Thai articles also does not support notability. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While each Wikipedia language edition has different notability criteria, I am usually a bit hesitant to delete articles that have already been accepted on non-English language editions. Being from a non-English-speaking part of the world, naturally the article subject would not have that much web content in English, or even on the web, but they could in fact be notable in local social media. Oftentimes, these local artists may actually be of genuine notability to people from that country who actually know about the niche. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The first and fourth references currently in the article are in-depth coverage in an established newspaper and a TV talk show. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article already has 4 references. Here is Google News search [15]. Note that only sites recognized as news by Google are included here. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some national awards that he won. His song Mun Tong Thon was one of the most popular songs in Thailand at that time. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the sources assessment by Paul O12 and the fact that he has had hit music releases which is a pass of WP:NMUSIC criteria2, also the article is under active improvement so there is now no valid reason for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:57, 20 October 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Fenwick (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:AUTHOR. Her only notability seems to come from being the scriptwriter for All That Heaven Allows, and I could find scant coverage for that as is. Almost all the sources fail WP:SIGCOV, mentioning her merely in passing. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FWIW, During WWII, she appears to have reviewed a number of scripts for the Office of War Information. Destroyer, War of the Wildcats and Gung Ho!.24.151.50.175 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will gather some books about Douglas Sirk, Jane Wyman, Rock Hudson, and Agnes Moorehead to see how to expand upon Fenwick's writing of All That Heaven Allows. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:CREATIVE #s 3 and 4. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work [...]" "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." All That Heaven Allows, Fenwick's major contribution to the film industry, is certainly that. It is in the US National Film Registry and was the subject of significant criticism when it was released through the present day. Fenwick's contribution of the screenplay is significant. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I agree with DiamondRendley39 about the ongoing significance of All That Heaven Allows, and will also try to track down some books about Sirk's movies to add material to the references. Liamcalling (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One of the sources already in the article, The Melbourne Age article from 28 Oct 1970, refers to her as both Mrs. Saul Padover and Peg Fenwick, and quotes her as saying that she worked in France and wrote the English version of Don Quixote and the original version of Remous. The Wikipedia article, IMDB and a 1937 newspaper article name the writer of Remous as American "Peggy Thompson". (The French Wikipedia says the film was based on the novel A kiss in the dark by Peggy Thompson.) I will follow this up, as I suspect that she may have used this as another pen name. If this is her, then she is definitely notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What a good find, RebeccaGreen! According to the Library of Congress and IMDb, the dates are off... by exactly two years, which would suggest they are the same person (and the IMDb pages should probably be combined). I am interested to learn what you find out. See https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0860587 But we'll hold off on changes for now. I will dig into her later life to see if I can get an obit. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty sure it is the same person. A 1936 profile of Peggy Thompson mentions a brother, Edward McCray Thompson. Margaret McCray had a brother called Edward Hill McCray. Their mother died when Margaret was 6 and Edward 3, and their father died in 1914 when Margaret was 7 and Edward was 4. So far I've found that they were living with their McCray grandmother in 1915, and a Carr uncle was their guardian in 1916. I suspect that they were adopted by a Thompson, but haven't yet found anything between 1916 and about 1934. Will keep looking! RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes! Ellen Dustin Thompson and William S. Thompson adopted Margaret McCray Thompson and Edward Hill McCray Thompson in August 1917. Ellen divorced her husband in 1924, and these details appeared in a newspaper report. There are several long profiles of Peggy Thompson in 1930s newspapers, so there is plenty of material to meet WP:GNG, and evidence of meeting WP:AUTHOR as well. I will work on the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That's great information. I'll take a look at it and suggest edits to IMDb. Why don't we take any further discussion to the article's talk page and focus on any lingering deletion discussion here? I am expecting this to be closed as KEEP. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all for your hard work on finding that out, I had no clue about the nom de plume, which is probably why she didn't seem notable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw The hard work of User:RebeccaGreen and User:DiamondRemley39 have uncovered the much more complicated history of this subject, which I missed when researching because I didn't realize she had a nom de plume/complicated name history. With that in mind, I no longer find the article a candidate for deletion. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per the withdrawal immediately above. I just wanted to add my shout out for the impressive WP:HEY work. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 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. bd2412 T 04:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slipstream (science fiction) (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)

Trying this again. "Slipstream" is not a distinct concept from "Hyperspace", just another word for it. "Slipstream space" is literally "Hyperspace" by another name. This article lacks references and is non-notable, it doesn't need to exist. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Hyperspace, as these two seem to be more or less the same thing. Not a very active user (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The nominator has advanced no new arguments or evidence. He has lazily just renominated and expects others to do all the work. Evidence that sources treat these as two different concepts was presented in both previous AfDs. They may not be the best of sources, but in three AfDs, we have had nothing from the nominator to support their position, and no attempt to pursue any of the non-deletion suggestions made in previous AfDs. Just a new nom in the hope that opposition has now gone away. SpinningSpark 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your so-called evidence was entirely Reddit users. I still don't see any actual evidence they are different from a non-in-universe context. Of course it would be different when used within a certain fictional universe, but that's semantics only._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't tell outright lies. The reliable sources I presented were, in the first AFD, the book Death, Resurrection, and Transporter Beams, and in the second, an article in The Escapist magazine ("5 Faster-Than-Light Travel Methods and Their Plausibility"). It's true I also listed some forum posts, but only to show that SF fans were drawing a distinction, not as reliable sources for the article. "None of that is usable RS in article of course..." is what I said when I posted it. And only two out of five were taken from Reddit. SpinningSpark 15:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I did check the book you mentioned, but that seems to have absoutely nothing to do with the concept described in this article, which is a method of interstellar transport. In the book, it describes slipstream as a metaphysical concept in which the soul survives after death. I have no idea whether that would be notable enough for an article, but this article is still not a separate concept._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a common and notable aspect of various science fiction. I added in two reference to the article, [16] and [17]. Slipstream and Hyperspace are certainly different concepts, hyperspace being something that exist everywhere as regular space, and slipstream being not everywhere but only various paths. The same editor nominating this for deletion a third time because he didn't previously get the results he wanted, does seem like gaming the system. Dream Focus 21:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The ad hominem attack was uncalled for here. As for those links, I don't think they really prove anything about how slipstream is separate from hyperspace. In fact the first one says "there is no widely-agreed upon definition of what slipstream is or how it works beyond it being a means of FTL". However what is generally agreed on is that it involves using another dimension to travel faster than light - hyperspace._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You have now repeatedly argued with the source over two AFDs, presenting your own OR rather than any counter source, saying the source does not prove anything. On Wikipedia sources are the proof, and that source clearly separates hyperspace, listing it as method no. 1, and slipstream at method no. 4. The second source is only discussing the Star Trek universe, but evidently to them, "warp drive" and "quantum slipstream drive" are two different things. SpinningSpark 11:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the sources separate the two concepts. But a read through of the actual definition shows that they use the exact same principles, just in a slightly different way. Hyperspace is interdimensional travel, slipstream is "guided" interdimensional travel. I'm not arguing that slipstream should not be mentioned in the hyperspace page, just that it doesn't merit an entirely separate article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT The term is common in science fiction and is distinctly different than hyperspace. The nominator seems to use a rationale WP:IDONTLIKEIT Lightburst (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - It seems to be a minor derivative topic, and one of the added sources literally says there's no set definition. This seems like it will never be more than a collection of minutia on how the term functions in each individual fictional universe, so it should realistically be a couple sentences or a paragraph on the hyperspace page (or another more suitable article if there's a "List of FTL Travel" or something). TTN (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Hyperspace. There is no indication that this has been discussed of universe outside of primary sources and some mentions in passing. As one argument for keep here cited [18], let's quote from this: "The concept of slipstream can be found in such works as Star Trek, Doctor Who, and the Halo video game franchise, but there is no widely-agreed upon definition of what slipstream is or how it works beyond it being a means of FTL." So it is just a science fiction synonym for hyperdrive (already merged there following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperdrive) or hyperspace. This is alljust a POV fork of FTL in fiction anyway and I think we should merge any relevant articlss there (the ones that have never been discussed in real science/etc., warp drive for example is fine as stand alone because not only there is some decent non-primary discussion of it in real world books but also Warp_drive#Real-world_theories_and_science is relevant - but there is a big difference between that concept and the fancruft undefinable word that is slipstream. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hyperspace then Rename Hyperspace to Slipstream (science fiction) Keep on the basis that sources do exist which establish this fictional topic's notability, even they may be somewhat less reliable and that for such fictional topics, we need to apply be more liberal in what constitutes WP:RS. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dmehus:How is "slipstream" more commonly used than "hyperspace"? As far as I know, hyperspace has been around for a while, and "slipstream" has only been used in a select few TV series and books, sometimes not even under the same name. (In Halo, it's "slipspace")._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm, Well, then I guess my vote would to keep them separate. It sounds more separate than the same thing as hyperspace, no?Doug Mehus (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus:I don't think it does. I agree with the argument of Piotrus above that there is no indication that slipstream is not just a fancy synonym for hyperspace. It describes a slightly different type of hyperspace travel, but not one that is distinct enough to merit an entire article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm, Yeah, it seems to be different enough than Hyperspace, but on what basis not to mention its own article? There's lots of potential sources here (thinking Memory Alpha, Star Trek official website, and Battlestar Galactica fan sites).Doug Mehus (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: Citing from other Wikis or fansites is not a reliable source. The basis is that it lacks exploration in reliable sources, see WP:RS. If there were a number of books exploring the idea of slipstream as distinct from hyperspace, I'd say something different. However, the sources that have been brought forth so far in these AfDs are very lackluster. Just because a fictional universe says it's different does not mean that it is a unique thing in terms of overall sci-fi. There has to be a separation of WP:INUNIVERSE content with the out-of-universe tropes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm Well, ordinarily, I'd agree with that when it comes to people, organizations, and companies, but in terms of fictional topics, especially niche sci-fi areas where mainstream press coverage on such nuanced topics is non-existent, I think we need to take a more liberal approach to WP:RS, so I'll stand by my position.Doug Mehus (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm For what it's worth, I suspect this will close as no consensus we have three merges, one of which (mine) has a conditional clause; two redirects; one delete or merge (nom); and four speedy, regular, or weak keeps (one of which is mine if my conditional clause on the merge is not honoured).Doug Mehus (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, the strength of arguments is what matters rather than the number of editors giving their opinion. There have been some persuasive arguments why slipstream is not its own concept. There is a possibility, but I disagree that it is guaranteed to end as no consensus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm I know it's not a vote, but I also disagree, somewhat strongly, that we need to strictly apply WP:RS to fictional, niche topics. It's a solid argument, and thus, my vote is as valid. At the same time, despite it not notionally be a vote, admins do tend to look at the voting patterns, as much as you and I may disagree with that. You've also convinced me that merge is the wrong approach; there's enough difference here between Hyperspace and Slipstream (science fiction). Thus, I've modified my vote to Keep, and clarified my argument above. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my vote at the first AfD. These are distinct enough terms to have separate articles, especially since there is still no plan for how a proposed Faster than light travel in science fiction page would work. At the very least, deletion isn't the answer. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:17, 20 October 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 as a navigational index of articles about specific models. RL0919 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sony α cameras (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)

is just a sparsely-referenced catalog of a certain set of Sony products. I don't think the list meets WP:LISTN. Maybe one or two of the flagship products should be merged into some Sony cameras article, if they're not already there, but the list itself feels like it's a problem for WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:RAWDATA. The main reference of the article is an archived forum post, which is self-published.

I'm nominating these articles together because they transclude eachother to build the full list:

List of Sony A-mount cameras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Sony E-mount cameras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LISTPURP as index of articles. Most of the entries are bluelinks. postdlf (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If the cameras were not blue links it would definitely violate WP:NOTCATALOGUE, but it makes sense as a grouping of similar, notable articles. However, I do not oppose a possible redirect of the other 2 sub-articles due to being unnecessary duplicates._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

306 Records (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)

Sources consist of:

• deadlinks to the company's website
• deadlinks to press releases by the company or by related companies
• deadlinks to articles about affiliated artists or companies, that sometimes mention 306 Records in passing but are not specifically about 306 Records

Now, yes, deadlinks are not a reason for deletion in themselves ^{(I'm normally the first to praise the Wayback Machine)}, but in this case it sort of indicates that even the people the company has to pay to talk about related acts and companies don't care enough to keep the pages up.

In other words, fails WP:GNG. Also, this make me think that nominating the article for deletion would be a fun idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, yes, this exists. That's a source. Needs to be at least two more like that (i.e. reliable, independent, but specifically about the company) to demonstrate notability. This, for example, only mentions 306 in passing. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. fails GNG. who says that editing wikipedia isn't amusing? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably whoever made this edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What a mess. The current version of the article says that it was founded by Jared Land and is based in Saskatoon. The version preferred by 142.165.170.92, who claims to be Jared Land, says that it was founded by Jared Land and is based in Prince Albert. Thinking that 142 may have a reasonable point here, I tried to check with a Google search – and found this Facebook page, which claims it was founded by Louis O'Reilly. Maproom (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The label has had a few releases but they're mostly independent obscure country music acts. Most of the acts, and the label itself, seem to have had their pages created by Eric444 (talk · contribs), a now-retired editor who used to deal in Canadian country music. As these acts have fallen into obscurity, their albums went without being reviewed and their singles only barely charted. Therefore, the label is probably not notable, and the artists only marginally so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I started marking the dead links, and then realizing most of them were dead or archived, started to look for some coverage outside of the article. I found this: [[19]] and [[20]]. Not enough. So without reliable coverage, fails WP:GNGTimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't look like it passes WP:N to me. No significant awards or coverage. I wouldn't block the page from being recreated though. It could theoretically pass notability in future. Jwslubbock (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jwslubbock: It's had its chances already. Several of the artists who've recorded for the label are unquestionably notable, but almost none of the albums seem to have gotten any semblance of attention. Artists and albums can still be notable if the label isn't. Most of the artists in this case seem to pass WP:NMUSIC but that does not transfer notability to the label. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

League of Islamic Universities (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)

An Arab organisation. Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not clear if ‘an Arab organisation’ (which anyway it isn’t) is meant to be a deletion rationale. Sources at 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mccapra (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable. I note that nominator removed several citations. Any reason for that? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the dead links only. Kutyava (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlinks should be left. See WP:KDL. They should be restored. Among various other purposes, they indicate the range of sources that have discussed the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Its got respectable independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no valid reason cited to delete. My !vote is not an endorsement of the organization's mission, but only that it appears to pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks notable enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Uloom Ahmadiyya Salafia (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. Kutyava (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cant find anything to support notability. I searched in Arabic and Urdu too. Mccapra (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's kind of surprising that an institution claiming to be established in 1918 has no sources.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment yes given its age I assumed it would have but I didn’t find anything. Admittedly google searches in Arabic script may not be as reliable as in English. Mccapra (talk) 17:31, 13 October 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. czar 14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Constitution and Parliament Association (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)

NGO. There are some mentions in passing, but they all don't amount ot much - created in 1958 by Philip Isley, promotes idea of World Government, proposed a world constitution. If WP:PRIMARY sources were to be removed, it would be a WP:PERENNIAL WP:SUBSTUB; in either case it fails WP:NORG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I found a podcast episode with the organization's senior executive leader and a couple of passing mentions, in a book or on a website, but the rest were just directory listings. Not enough sources to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. -DM

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. czar 14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon DeVaan (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 led the development however he was not solely responsible for it, non-notable outside of the company. Wikipedia is not a linkedin of the company executives. Lacks significant WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable, but not insignificant either. Sourcing is difficult. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This article does not meet the verifiability requirements expected of BLP articles. While I don't call it "fake" outright, things written in it are very questionable. For example: "DeVaan led COSD to create Windows Vista SP1 and Windows 7 and in 2009 became the leader of the development team delivering Windows 8 and 8.1." Really? Verification failed. Also, the person matching these descriptions is Steven Sinofsky. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:11, 20 October 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. czar 14:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Draft (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 outside of his company, most of the awards won are minor and there is not significant outside of his company. Meeanaya (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The lead is misleading, or at best poorly written - as is the rest of the stub. He's not the CEO of the company that owns Kraft; he's the adman at an agency that markets their foods. Unless a marketer wins a major award they're not notable. There's a lot of salesmen out there. I looked and found one possibly good source. Please convince me, pardon the pun, to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 17 October 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. czar 14:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Drumm (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 outside of his company, lacks significant news coverage, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 13 October 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. czar 14:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Crippen (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)

Bio of a photographer of doubtful notability. The books are self-published. The article has seen a sustained effort by one editor to cram in external links, suggesting that the purpose of the page may have been promotional. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - photographer who got one photo of the day on the National Geographic website. How is that notable? External links are so generic that they mostly don't even link to his work - they're allegations of connections. It's just a wall of citations. We are not a resume service nor a nor a free web host. This is barely more than spam. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dune Bene Gesserit#Anirul. WP:ATD-M czar 14:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anirul (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)

Well referenced, but to primary sources. 100% limited to fictional character biography, not an ounce of suggestion that the subject has received any attention from scholars, news, no indication of real world relevance, significance, reception, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge to List of Dune Bene Gesserit#Anirul.— TAnthony^Talk 16:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - Non notable topic. TTN (talk) 13:33, 20 October 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. czar 14:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Cormier (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)

Biography created by single purpose account in 2009 and tagged for notability ever since. Many ref links are now dead and I have not found others that support notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not sure I have ever seen an article with less sourcing in the case of a businessman. When your only listed reference is Linkedin, you know you have a problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:WALL, WP:SPAM, and WP:TNT. No experienced editor would accept this as an encyclopedia article. It seems to be part of several business person's articles, and that's all. Even if this person was notable, this resume would have to be re-written entirely. For what it's worth, not a a single source is reliable - there's LinkedIn as a reference (really?!), and external links of press releases, AOL (seriously!?), his company's website, and industry gossip. The awards listed are not significant. We are a charity, not a web host. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC) P.S. I would seriously consider also deleting Jackmartinb's user page, which is part of the walled garden. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 17 October 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 moved to draft. Per Scott Burley's last comment, we can not have this discussion continue in perpetuity while editors try to figure out whether claimed sources that are not readily available contain content supporting inclusion. The solution is to move the article to draft space until sufficient sources are confirmed to exist. The article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion as is. bd2412 T 23:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sufism Reoriented (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)

Whatever the heck this is currently, (school/religious order/sanctuary/nothing), nothing except some routine news-coverage and a piece over here. Current sourcing is mostly to the Meher-baba-universe (i.e. websites of his trustees, publications by in-house presses of his follower associations, biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest cult-associates et al).

Not enough to surpass GNG. ∯WBG^converse 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I'm seeing only passing mentions, and no substantive coverage. But the real results are being swamped by Baba-related publications so it's hard to be sure. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I disagree with deletion of this article, and suggest that it be merged with the Meher Baba entry. If the Meher Baba page meets the standards for notability, then Sufism Reoriented is also notable. Though the Sufism Reoriented article arguably violates NPOV in places, this can be remedied. --Thashley (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)— Thashley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. FWIW, I have no qualms with a redirect though we can't merge random content to a (still) GA. ∯WBG^converse 07:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Fix WBG's WP:NOTINHERITED argument is well-taken. However, there are at least two independent sources discussing the topic. The first is the article from The Fader to which WBG alluded above. This source is non-affiliated, and acknowledges criticisms of Sufism Reoriented both from within the Meher Baba movement and in the California neighborhood in which SR's sanctuary was built. The second independent source is Andrew Rawlinson, who discusses Sufism Reoriented in his book, Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions, and also in an article entitled "A History of Western Sufism," available at: http://www.surrenderworks.com/library/imports/a_history_of_western_sufism.pdf. Please note that Rawlinson's book discusses historical opposition to Sufism Reoriented from within the Meher Baba movement. (I don't have an exact citation at the moment, but I can get it.) As there are two or more independent sources discussing Sufism Reoriented in more than just a passing way, the article can be improved to satisfy WP's notability requirement. (Albeit, by a narrrow margin).Thashley (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC) — Thashley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Let me get hold of the book through an ILL .... ∯WBG^converse 09:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I will be having the book in a fortnight and am asking for a cite (page number(s), please).

• I will provide the requested citations. Please give me 1-2 days to run this down. Thashley (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — Thashley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Relevant content can be found in Rawlinson's book on pages 247-251, 419-424, 436-438, and 543-553.^[1] Thashley (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]