< 31 August	2 September >

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 Draftify. Consensus favors moving this page into draft space. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interhemispheric Resource Center[edit]

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

Was prodded, then deprodded with the addition of a single reference, which shows the place existed at one time. Then it was moved into draftspace to encourage development, but was shortly moved back into the mainspace without improvement. But searches show very little coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was subject of AfD before. Clearly notable enough, and even the one reference alone is useful. Very strange how some people want to get this deleted, and by any dishonest means. How on earth would moving to Draft "encourage development"? Quite the contrary, without even a redirect the article would not be found in mainspace, and from Draft it could then be deleted without AfD. Policy clearly says moving to Draft "is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion," but evidently this was what was intended here, as proven by this AfD started right after I moved it back from Draft. Mewulwe (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article at doi:10.1163/156916307X188979, which needs access through an academic library or by payment, has a fair amount of coverage of this organisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until sourcing is improved. I moved the article to draft space because it was both promotional (the bulk of the article is 2 quotes from the organization's mission statement) and inadequately sourced, in line with prior advice. This was not meant as a "backdoor route to deletion", since draft space provides an area for editors to improve an article when it doesn't yet meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. The AfD nominator (Onel5969) is a different editor, and we did not "conspire" to delete this article.
The previous AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Relations Center, concluded that the "subject is found to lack notability", and the article was redirected to Interhemispheric Resource Center. I note that draftification was also suggested in that discussion.
The article cites a library catalog listing in SNAC that does not show significant coverage of the IRC. Phil Bridger's source from Critical Sociology is good, and I've added it to the article, but it's only one source, and we need multiple qualifying sources to establish notability. I wasn't able to find additional sources that would allow the IRC to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:ORG (particularly with respect to WP:ORGDEPTH) or WP:NGO. Since there is a chance that these sources may be available (due to the Library of Congress designation), draftification gives editors more time to find sources and serves as an alternative to deletion. — Newslinger talk 17:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. The SNAC source is basically a directory listing, and appears to be single-sourced to some IRC documents, so not really independent either. I'm fine with draftifying this as a WP:ATD. That's not a backdoor to deletion. It's a way to get it out of mainspace (where it certainly qualifies for the front door to deletion in its current state) and allow time for somebody to research better sourcing. As a procedural note, moving a page while a discussion is running is not a good idea; see the last bullet point of WP:AFDEQ. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I moved the article to draft before it was nominated for deletion. Doing so during the discussion would definitely be ill-advised. — Newslinger talk 13:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. August 31 did indeed happen before September 1st. Note to self: improve calendar reading skills. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Undoubtedly this body appears to have had some importance but, equally clearly, the sources are not yet in the article to meet WP:GNG. Draftifying to enable the article to be worked on looks a pragmatic way forward. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Newslinger. I would also support a weak delete, but I feel moving this to draft is appropriate. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 16:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Dorian[edit]

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

Although Ms. Dorian appears to be a talented actress with an interesting career, her work does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Here's the only profile I found: [1]. Snippet view of a 1977 review: [2] gnu 57 21:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to stop Wikipedia being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A very quick, very dirty, search of google pops up that she sued IMDB over publishing her actual birthdate, but it didn't look like a reliable source. Maybe it would be worth someone's time to look further into that (since it is the sort of thing that news organizations tend to grab and run with). Rockphed (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockphed: I believe you may be incorrect: someone with the username "Joanne Dorian" (presumably this person) commented on a news story about Junie Hoang, the actress who sued IMDB.[3] Hoang and Dorian are different people, and Dorian's internet comments don't make her notable. Cheers, gnu 57 19:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Her bio is at http://www.articulatetheatre.com/come-page---dorian_joanne.html but the leads there aren't proving useful. She does not appear at iobdb.com, and her appearances at ibdb.com don't meet the bar. Her film roles appear to all be side characters. I can't see that she meets NCREATIVE/GNG, but there's a possibility of better critical coverage offline given her long career. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A more focused search turns up 0 results at TVguide. Looking through the productions listed in her self-published bio on the internet, her "starring" role in One Life to Live yields a single Florida newspaper that doesn't look like it talks about her very much[4], and a new york times review[5] of a horror film she supposedly co-starred in where the reviewer only noted her name in listing the named characters (she apparently didn't think her a major character). I think even if we had enough material to write about why she left One Life to Live, it would be more appropriate to put that material in that article since it is her only major role. Rockphed (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just started looking for sources. Her profile, which Hydronium Hydroxide linked to above, certainly suggests that she has had significant roles in multiple notable productions. I will !vote when I've found more sources that help determine what her roles were, and if the productions were notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pająk pół kilo[edit]

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

The topic of the article is allegedly a Polish beast, but its name doesn't sound very Polish. In Polish language, numbers virtually never come after the noun they describe, so that any native speaker would rather say "Półkilogramowy pająk". All the legend sounds hopelessly impossible, improbable to originate either in old or in modern times. Two of three sources seem to be author-related (Alex Pietrow edits AtlasObscura and wrote the code of D&D adventure mentioned in the article). I found no mention about the spider in Polish sources about Skrzyńsko. Resumming, I strongly suspect hoax. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a story that exists in the Skrzyńsko area amongst the older population and like many myths and stories it is not documented very well, apart from the one book that I was pointed to. I realize that the story sounds fantastical and fairytale like, but like many other mythical creatures, that is often the point. As far as I know it is a cautionary tale told by the older generation to scare children into obedience, like so many other creatures. Yes, it is a local myth, but that does not make it 'untrue' to the extent of it being Polish folklore. (Many of the other creatures are local also.) Other then that I will not deny having a special interest in the myth. As I have roots in the region of its origin, and am one of the children that were brought up with it. (Willing to give proof of some sort if you want?) The name is how I heard it, I will agree with you that your version makes more sense, but that's not how they call it. Maybe it was purposefully changed to be more understandable for kids? Other then that you'll see in my profile that most of my additions to Wikipedia are on niche subjects, focussed on local history/legends. It does not always stick, but I mean well and try always adhere to Wikipedia rules. I'm open to editing the article into a form that agrees better with your opinion or make it part of some larger page, but I would request for it to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synethos (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC) P.S. Should I add this to the other 2 shares of this request?[reply]

Delete I would love to keep this article, but, by Synethos's own admission the article is mostly original research and a single source. Maybe it could be moved to something like List of legendary creatures by type. If a second source is found it could be moved to its own article. For the record, I don't think either atlas obscura or DM's guild are reliable sources. Rockphed (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is also the book, that is a second source right? Plus I would argue that Atlas Obscura is well sourced and free of fake things at least, as their editors vet what gets published and not. DMsguild was a popular culture reference, so I would not count that as a source no. The list could work as an in between solution I guess. Synethos (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:RS.--Darwinek (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one source, Wielka Księga Demonów Polskich - the Atlas Obscura article cites no sources and is likely based on Wielka Księga Demonów Polskich - a minor and non-notable story - and fairly recent as the "Central Measures of Poland" website says the metric system was adopted in Poland in 1919, after WWI - the Atlas Obscura article says the body of the spider was lost during WWI, so it must have been renamed with kilo - the whole thing is rather sketchy - Epinoia (talk) 17:37, 8 September 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) 17:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rubano[edit]

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

Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet the standards for biographies of living people. Specifically, the two sources provided are not verifiable, as they are the subject's website, and a podcast about the subject being kicked out of a band. In addition to these two grievances, nothing else can be verified. Utopes (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Utopes.Rockphed (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giyani Community Radio[edit]

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

This article has been speedily deleted three times. Time to bring it to a discussion and gain consensus. Local organization and radio station which does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Second source (Limpopo Mirror) is reliable and there are other sources such as Letaba Herald which cover the subject in depth. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This is borderline. There is a single source in the article that might be independent and significant, and I see a couple more trivial mentions online, but almost all of what I see is self promotion. Rockphed (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week~~ Keep. WP:BCAST argues for stations being notable for, being the originator of some programming which this station seems to be. The Limpopo Mirror and Letaba Herald references, while largely quotes from the station representative, seems like solid sources. Most of the other sources are crap (facebook, their own website, etc), but I'm willing to give this a grudging week keep. Much of the article itself is trivia and statistics, which need to be cut out, possibly to the point of WP:TNT. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found some more reasonable looking sources:

This seems like more than enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep per RoySmith above. The topic additionally may by notable per BCAST as it covers a wide geographic area, the Mopani district has more than a million people in it. There appears to be few stations serving these language groups, and therefore it is likely to significantly impact culture. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weakly sourced:
1-Facebook, not a WP:RS
2-Limpopo Mirror, although somewhat reliable, it is a minor and local media company
3-minor site which covers dozens of small radio stations, no indication of notability here
4-primary source
5-considering I wasn't allowed to access the site because it wasn't secure, I don't think it is a WP:RS. If it is please do say as this is presumptuous from me
6-I don't really know? A website trying to sell me a magazine by the looks of it.

To address the sources (provided by RoySmith) above, they don't mention the radio station as anything special only speaking of community radio as a whole with mentions of the radio station. The third source mentioned above is a bit more promising, but I feel it is the same to my argument at number 2. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 17:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saran (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability for an actor. This actor has no significant sources about him. His roles are small (younger version of main character) and uncredited (Singam 3). He hasn't won any awards either. This article should only be created when this actor becomes famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragoMynaa (talk • contribs) 22:49, August 9, 2019 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:Nactor. -- DragoMynaa Talk 2:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. @DragoMynaa: For future nominations, please take care to fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 15:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree that the WP:NACTOR criteria has not been met here. He has only done supporting roles and none of which seem notable. He is the lead actor of film Sagaa which does not seem to be notable as well, even though its article exists. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - second nomination - the first ended with "no consensus" after a muddy discussion of what "significant" meant - he has had only minor supporting roles - his biggest role was in an ensemble cast of only six characters in a minor film - all his roles, except for possibly the one ensemble, have been minor supporting roles in minor films - does not meet WP:NACTOR - has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films" - Epinoia (talk) 21:37, 8 September 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. There is consensus that Dev meets point #1 of WP:ENT/WP:NACTOR ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions") with his three film credits. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 08:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dev (Tamil actor)[edit]

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

Fails notability for an actor. This actor has no significant source about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragoMynaa (talk • contribs) 02:33, August 8, 2019 (UTC)‎

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Keep - Actor is noted for his performance in several critically acclaimed films.^[1]^[2] Anu Krithiga S (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete - Fails notability for an actor. At this point in time, he hasn't acted in many movies and does not have any significant fan base. -- DragoMynaa (Talk) 2:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep - As per WP:ENT , he qualifies for point 1 and 3.

1 - Credited roles in multiple films - Yes, 3 credits in a supporting/lead character in 3 acclaimed movies qualifies him as a noted actor.

2 - Fan base - Not sure, neither yes nor no.

3 - Unique Contribution - He has produced and co-directed south india's first web series. Yes Manikandan Munuswamy (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets NACTOR #1 (and possibly #3). –Davey2010^Talk 16:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets basic criteria for notability(people):

Subject, under earlier stage name Abhinav, has been covered by Indian national daily India Times. ^[1]

Subject has acting reviews and interviews with notable South Indian tabloid news websites Galatta ^[2] and BehindWoods. ^[3] -Kamsotz^Talk 18:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. @DragoMynaa: For future nominations, please take care to fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 15:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although article notability does not depend on content, any article that indulges in highly promotional language, such as "critically acclaimed" and "highly positive reviews from critiques and audiences alike" is suspect - very thin sources - blogs and interviews are not reliable sources - at this point I don't think he meets WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" or WP:BASIC: "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" - Epinoia (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Close[edit]

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

No indication of notability; subject has had only minor roles. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Lacks significant roles. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor roles in indy anime films. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ahmed[edit]

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

A self-published author who is applying for asylum. This article was written by a WP:SPA and is likely to be an autobiography. WP:BEFORE finds others with the same name but no obvious sources to substantiate notability in this case. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-published writers need far better sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hey, there is an exception to Wikipedia's requirements for notability of topics which means this article can be Kept, although in modified format as a short list of persons sharing this name. It is the argument/fact that any verifiable set of same-named things can be covered in a set index article, for which standards of notability do not apply. Here, by quick searching (e.g. here is a list of top 10 LinkedIn profiles for persons named "Adam Ahmed") it is easily established that there are multiple persons of this name. So, what needs to be done here is to revise this article into a table of 2 or 3 persons, with the block of information about the current person being the entirety of the current article, and just any random facts about the other persons in their blocks. This article should probably be renamed to "List of persons named Adam Ahmed" or similar, and Category:Set indices should be attached, to clarify to all that the set index exception clearly applies.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes named McArthur (still ongoing, but honestly it seems very likely the decision will be to "Keep" or not delete the article, thereby endorsing the strategy), it is being clarified that this maneuver is okay. This is great. By its reasoning, this article can be saved! --Doncram (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The listed sources don't support notability (and at least 1 represents original research). As for turning this into a set index article, I think that only works if the members of the set are already notable. Rockphed (talk) 19:21, 4 September 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. Haukur (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AWI Film, o.s.[edit]

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

Non-notable company, entirely self-sourced. Noble, but not WP:GNG/WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 15:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass any of our notability criteria.--Darwinek (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dimmen[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Played 118 AHL games and at least 200 is needed to pass #2. NAHL First All-Star team is not enough to pass #3 (or in the very least it isn't listed along with the USHL) and All-Academic honours are not enough to pass #4. Tay87 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:27, 5 September 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 by Athaenara as per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) CptViraj (📧) 13:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besan mehndi[edit]

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

I can't find a single source to corroborate this tradition being a real thing. Details like 'once every 734.5 days' further make me suspect this is a hoax article. Sam Walton (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete ((db-hoax)). Tagging as such. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- More interestingly, @Samwalton9: see besan and mehndi. Clearly the author put a lot of thought into this article. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is surprising how much apparently bizarre stuff turns out to be a real tradition, belief, or practice with a little research. This is not the case here. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This lasted 12 years, 6 months, and 6 days (Created 22:08, 23 February 2007), which would make this the longest-lasting article to be G3'd. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krista Ayne[edit]

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

Notability has been questioned since 2011. The available sources do not support inclusion under WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect or Delete Lack of references certainly does not meet WP:GNG should be redirected to Pet of the Month or simply deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spy-cicle (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Alexis[edit]

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

Sources are inadequate to support notability under WP:BIO Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep About notability of the subject one point is very wonderful for me; the article was published on around 20 other languages on Wikipedia! also there are couple of reliable sources about subject.Ms.bletvok (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a couple of reliable secondary sources with non-trivial coverage, please identify them. Interviews are not considered independent reliable sources. The award citations are trivial coverage. The porn trade articles appear to be republished press releases. Reliable references not present in the article and my own searches did not find anything significant. Presence in other language Wikis is a circular argument. The other language entries appear to be poorly sourced placeholders or direct translations of the en.Wikipedia article using the same poor-quality references. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the independent reliable source coverage needed to pass WP:BASIC. Lacks evidence supporting WP:ENT notability. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Tucci[edit]

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

I don't believe the sources are adequate to support notability under WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources via google news, books, or general search and not seeing much rs in the article. The awards are all minor awards so if the Pornbio SNG was still operating that would not be passed either, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer who lacks the significant coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'd argue that 24 industry award nominations and 4 wins is possibly enough for notability alone, the fact that she's also one of the few industry performers to have done mainstream (if related) work, on a national-televised reality TV series would put her just over the top. 148.4.201.116 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the WP:PORNBIO guideline was superseded by WP:ENT, porn award nominations and scene-related award wins were removed as notability criteria. Porn award ceremonies tend to nominate almost everybody for something. The AVN Award is notorious for this. In the end, a new consensus formed: porn awards do not establish notability by themselves. Without acknowledgement from reliable independent references, mainstream work does establish notability either. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC. Lacks independent references that support notability per WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 7 September 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 Mid Valley Megamall. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Valley Southkey[edit]

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

Non notable shopping mall. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Mid Valley Megamall. The information present in the article can be used to expand the official Mid Valley page. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mid Valley Megamall. I agree with AmericanAir88. In the article, it reads: "The mall was build as the improved version of the existing mall in Midvalley Megamall which located in Kuala Lumpur in 23th April 2019." Lefcentreright (talk) 12:42, 1 September 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. Haukur (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Joshi[edit]

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

No indication of notability: worked for one of India's tabloids as editor. Held an advisory position to the government. Author of two books. The listed references only attest to his existence but none to his encyclopaedic notability. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is not always easy to get secondary sources that verify notability of scholars, especially in policy sphere. But Manoj Joshi is a Senior Fellow in India's top think tank. He is regularly featured in newspaper and television debates as an expert on policy matters. His book on Kashmir insurgency has 73 citations on Google Scholar. Its reviews included (quoting from the book cover of another book^[1]):
- "... a compelling and breathtaking account of the immediate origins of the insurgency" (Sumit Ganguly)
- "In its sheer wealth of detail it far surpasses anything that has been written so far [about the Kashmir conflict]" (Prem Shankar Jha).

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Joshi, Manoj (2008), Kashmir, 1947-1965: A Story Retold, India Research Press, ISBN 978-81-87943-52-5

But what about the actual person's notability? Having authored two academic books, even if one was quoted 73 times (see WP:GOOGLEHITS), falls rather short of WP:NACADEMIC. Also, I am not sure Wikipedia should contain entries on all Senior Fellows. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. His Bio from India Today Conclave^[1] shows that he is indeed a notable journalist, senior editor and cited author.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "India Today Conclave, Speakers, Session Chairpersons". conclave.intoday.in.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lescon[edit]

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

No source cited, no coverage found, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tacoma[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any book reviews, so WP:AUTHOR isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG either. Overall few sources, none of which are independent sigcov. Gilded Snail (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one newspaper level article on an author is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, alarm bells ring when library holdings are low (at the most 22 and less), publisher is tiny/little known see here, add to this no reliably sourced book reviews found or anything on the author, and things dont look good. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene S. Kraay[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable pilot, soccer player or author. Fails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doing lots of things does not make one notable, you actually have to get coverage to show notability as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geno Martini[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, with just local coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No wide coverage, thus fails WP:GNG. Notability has not been met. Also fails WP:POLITICIAN. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this moment Fails WP:NPOL and the sourcing does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Subject was the mayor of Sparks, Nevada, population 90,000 in 2010. While I think there might be sufficient material about the subject to pass GNG - so it is more than "he exists" - I don't think the sourcing is there yet. --Enos733 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not merely the size of a city that governs if the mayor is notable. A city like Sparks which is a secondary city within a metro area is much likely to propel the mayor to notability than an equally sized city that is the main city in its region or area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, the entire article boils down to "he exists and he has Parkinson's disease", which is not how you make a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article — you make a mayor notable by adding and sourcing substance about his political career, not his health status. Sparks is large enough that he could be accepted as notable if the article actually contained meaningful content, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write an article with more real content and less fluff, but it's not large enough to make him "inherently" notable for the purposes of making it necessary to keep this. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that he does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL due to no wide and significant coverage. Taewangkorea (talk) 03:11, 5 September 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. The editors calling for speedy keep are correct. The relevant WP:DEL-REASON is "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and the nominator has not provided any evidence of such a thorough search per WP:BEFORE, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. ... The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous closing[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The deletion nomination provides no reason for deletion. This should be closed immediately. --Doncram (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basic policy: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.Rathfelder (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Wiki-notability is about whether sources exist, not whether they happen to be incorporated in the article at the present time. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Keisha Omilana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Princess Keisha Omilana

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

Fails WP:GNG The are only a few reputable sources referenced on this article and even those don't provide any significant or reliable coverage. It doesn’t seem that notability is verifiable considering the basis is simply that the subject married a prince of a certain town. And the wiki for the town linked by the article conflicts with that and at best only proves that the man she married may be related to someone who was the king of that town roughly half a millennia ago. MVaughnn (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Nutty Irishman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Venue is not the subject of any third-party independent sources that indicate notability. Appears to be an old attempt at advertising. Hiàn (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a brief article that does not specify why this bar is more notable than other bars. It comes across as too much like an advertisement to have a place in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about it. WP:NOTPROMOTION Wm335td (talk) 19:31, 4 September 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.