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. bibliomaniac15 03:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasra Zahedi (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)

Written in best MySpace autobiography style - okay, that might be remedied (by complete rewriting); but it also manages to provide not a single bit of independent, in-depth sourcing, as far as I can see, while re-using the same, obviously self-authored promo blurb no less than seven times. Demonstrated notability highly doubtful. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete page is a minefield of unreliable sources that do nothing to establish notability. As nom said, even if this person was somehow able to meet a notability guideline, the entire article would have to be ripped from the studs. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : as per nom, All of Persian sources that the article is based on fail to meet WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is articles like this that lead to the largest birth year category being 1989, and lead to us having 950,000 articles on living people. The later might actually be justified, but many of the people we currently have articles on are not notable. This article has existed for 8 years, which is not even close to a record for a sub-standard sourced article. Earlier this year I nominated an article, on Barahir, which had existed I believe it was 16 years, unless it was 17 years. That article never had any sourced at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, actually it was just moved out of userspace 4 days ago, otherwise I wouldn't have seen it in the NPP queue. So not such a shocking tenure :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Antila333 (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not really any reliable sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per above, article lacks RS. Alex-h (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and lacks coverage in reliable sources.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:12, 11 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 03:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Morris (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)

As with Jason Hazeley, I'm not finding sufficient independent notability to have a separate article on the subject; and his works (books and programmes) do not appear to have brought demonstrable attention to him. Should be redirected to Ben & Jason, where both members receive appropriate short coverage. See also Bollocks to Alton Towers, a book co-authored by Morris and Hazeley, also up for AfD. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The books are more well known than the writers, but coverage exists (e.g. https://inews.co.uk/culture/meet-men-invented-ladybird-books-grown-ups-not-millionaires-thousandaires-515348), seems to be notable. Peter James (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Number of sources to show notability have doubled this week and now demonstrates the subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Page requires a clean up not deletion. Hildreth Gazzard (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with Bollocks to Alton Towers, but leaning to keep based on the sources added by Hidreth gazzard and a few I'm adding here shortly. To whit, here does seem to be a growing amount of press about this topic, but it's merged with two others fairly equally: the book Bollocks to Alton Towers and writing partner Jason Hazeley, also up for deletion. 172.119.187.94 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - sufficient reviews found. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks to Alton Towers (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 can't find any non-crowd-sourced reviews of this book (although there is a single one for the sequel [1]), and none of the other WP:NBOOK criteria seem applicable. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Appears to be a non-notable book. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non-notable. -CoronaEditor (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Times has a review(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bollocks-to-alton-towers-glxcxcwff63), it's likely that others exist. It's possible that because of the title, coverage is not as easy to find - https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/7864752.funny-how-time-drips-away/ is not much of a review, but is an example of how the title may be written. Peter James (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Good job there. I think these two would actually suffice already. That cutesy "B*llocks" spelling clearly didn't helped in searching... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found another couple shorty reviews - Telegraph,Independent.@Lugnuts and CoronaEditor: what do you think? What with the Times and Press reviews (the latter a little lightweight, but whatevs) - I think that might cover the minimum requirements. Minded to withdraw if you guys agree. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for the ping. Yes, they look fine to me, esp. the review in The Times. Have struck-out my delete vote. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right ho. Withdrawing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:41, 9 April 2020 (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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. bibliomaniac15 03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Gemologist of uncertain notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Peder Søndberg (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)

Survived PROD in 2006 because the subject might be notable. I can’t find anything to support WP:ARTIST. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing even approaching GNG. Surviving prod delete is not at all a sign of anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article on a subject who was then a recent graduate with a first solo show at a gallery which no longer appears to be operating. There is a more complete CV for the subject here but neither there nor elsewhere am I finding the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not finding anything at all on this artist, other than social media and one photo credit. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST Netherzone (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, No sign of passing WP:GNG, looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a single solo exhibit in a out-of-the-way place? Very run of the mill. Badly fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

this appears to be a run of the mill dental manufacturing company with no coverage in newspapers (even in archives), books or the like. Most of the hits for "air techniques" are not about the company but an actual technique unrelated to this manufacturer. Praxidicae (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Other equally prominent dental maufacturers such as KaVo Kerr, Dentsply Sirona, and Ivoclar Vivadent have Wikipedia articles that I find informative. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be a universally sought-out dental products marketing platform, inasmuch as other big dental companies like Hu-Friedy, Belmont, and GC-America don't even have articles here; it's not like this is obviously an attempt to sell dental products on Wikipedia. I also notice that this article has recently been edited, cutting out information that I know from personal experience was true and not utterly useless. Personally, I like the fact that I can find info on companies here on Wikipedia. If I need to learn a bit about FRAM, or OtterBox, or Fujitsu, I don't mind that they have ad-free articles here that anyone can edit. Nothing personal, but I would prefer it if the editor who cut this article down and nominated it for deletion had found better references and improved the article instead. Cellodont (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide sources to substantiate your keep vote? The fact that other stuff exists is irrelevant. I did a thorough WP:BEFORE including searching books and newspaper archives and there were 0 in depth sources about this company. Also, wikipedia is not a directory. Praxidicae (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good point. My inclination is for the article to stay, but your point is correct. Please, for the sake of consistency, look at the other articles I mentioned. Their references are chiefly internal company documents. Cellodont (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not. If you think they are not sufficient, you should nominate them for deletion. Other articles existing have no impact on a deletion discussion, please revise your vote as per consensus and policy and find sources to support the inclusion of this article. Praxidicae (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them for you. The what about-ism to justify a keep vote was extremely weak. While I doubt it will change now that those articles also have AfD's, at least it will hopefully lead to getting rid of a few more articles about none notable companies. As there are way to many of them and way to many excuses are made to justify their existence. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article has one source, and it's a dead link to a blog. The archive has been preserved though, as https://web.archive.org/web/20080405233826/http://thedigitaldentist.blogspot.com/2006/07/air-techniques-expands.html and it's pretty clear to me that its a press release. Unless we throw out all policies on verifiability and notability, there's no way this single deleted blog post/press release can sustain an article. Vexations (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations for the sake of transparency and fairness, I did remove a lot of sources and content prior to nominating it (see here.) However, those sources are insufficient, they're the companies website, a bloomberg business listing and another press release. Praxidicae (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, these are all the sources ever used in the article:

http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20100927005988/en/Air-Techniques/Polaris/Intraoral-Camera

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4303628

http://thedigitaldentist.blogspot.com/2006/07/air-techniques-expands.html

http://www.airtechniques.com/Dental/merchandise.cfm

http://www.dentaladvisor.com/clinical-evaluations/evaluations/spectra-caries-detection-aid.shtml

http://www.dentistryiq.com/index/display/article-display/6079442838/articles/dentisryiq/industry/2011/09/air-techniques_announces.html

http://www.newsday.com/business/inside-long-island-business-1.811933/dental-supplier-upgrades-website-1.2623374

https://www.airtechniques.com/our-history/ None of those are usable. Vexations (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly intended as a promotional article; original author was blocked; multiple updates by IP addresses associated with the company. Seems to be a real conflict of interest going on. Aside from that, notability has never been established and should have been deleted a long time ago. I find nothing except a few press releases and passing mentions in trade publications. Doesn't meet basic standard requiring in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Glendoremus (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not notable and created just to promote the company. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Searches show the company included in industry-wide surveys but I am not seeing the coverage required for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I was also unable to find good sources that would pass GNG much less WP:CORPDEPTH. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Honey Boo Boo. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lamb Thompson (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)

Doesn't seem notable enough for separate article - info could be placed in existing article about the show or family. ... discospinster _talk 14:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable reality television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she's the antagonist of the very popular reality show, which is available on Spectrum TV and many other cable/satellite providers. The sourcing is all trash papers, but it is what it is. She's a guilty pleasure to watch for many people. This is not a vote in favor or against the person or the character she portrays. Bearian (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete whilst she is part of the Honey Boo Boo phenomenon (I say this through gritted teeth) she is not notable for her own article. If not deleted, redirect to Honey Boo Boo. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nelsa Cardoso (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 evidence of meeting WP:GNG or a specific notability criterion such as WP:NACADEMIC. Written like a resume with little content from third-party reliable sources. PROD contested by article creator. Kinu ^t/_c 19:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, basically per nom. Citability is very low (h-index of about 3), and nothing else in the record indicates passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Taxonomy is typically a low-citation subject but that does not mean we should relax our standards and accept articles on all taxonomists purely because they're taxonomists. No notability evident either in the article or on searching. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF Freeranging intellect (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON - lots of recent publications means her citations are low. Perhaps userfy? Bearian (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2020 (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. My reasoning to nominate this page for deletion was a little shortsighted and now seeing as how it can be expanded, I am withdrawing my nomination. (non-admin closure) KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This disambiguation page should be deleted as it has only two wikilinks and there is already a hatnote in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The English Football League and Greek Football League are the only sports leagues in the world specifically referred to as the "Football League". All of the other football leagues with "Football League" in their names use an adjective, description, or abbreviation and are not referred to simply as "Football League". KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - and expand, plenty of 'football leagues' that people might be search for (not just association football eg National Football League). GiantSnowman 14:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep clearly an ambiguous term, useful and dabs are cheap. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 03:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth McDaniel (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:NGRIDIRON, having only played for minor league NFL Europe in 1997. The only coverage I can find is from The Virginian-Pilot and passing mentions or transactions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was drafted by an NFL team and the WLAF is techincally considered a pro league. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @KingSkyLord: The WLAF is the former name for NFL Europe, which was a minor league. WP:NGRIDIRON specifically states that minor league players are not presumed notable unless they meet another criterion. Being an NFL draft pick is not a criteria for notability inclusion anywhere. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on what I can find, he fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Still a delete after reviewing the coverage below. SportingFlyer T·C 03:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No coverage found. twerk000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being a draft pick and playing in a minor league are not signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Eagles 24/7, particularly his second comment. PK650 (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing anything that shows he meets any criteria of WP:NGRIDIRON and I don't believe the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG per [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Was drafted and played professionally. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• These are all passing mentions, he did not play professionally outside of a minor league stint, and being drafted does not equate to automatic notability. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't understand and probably somebody can explain it to me, in Wikipedia there are HUNDREDS of articles that have less merit than this one to exist and are never nominated for deletion. This player, actually was part of 2 NFL practice squads and played professional football (even if you mention that it is in a minor league). So please explain why keep instead articles in Wikipedia like these ones: Jake Dombrowski, Justin Roland, Ryan Anderson (punter), Brian Stahovich, Kip Smith, etc. The Kip Smith article has even been nominated for deletion twice and it hasn't gone through, even though his record is in high school which is a playing level inferior to a "minor professional league" ? Makers267 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Makers267: We have a policy called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which means each article must be assessed on its own merits for deletion. It may be those other players are also not notable but have not been assessed yet. I also find the inclusion of the Kip Smith article particularly egregious, as he only received coverage from papers from the two colleges where he punted, but the fact we've kept that article has absolutely no bearing on whether or not McDaniel is notable. Hope that helps. SportingFlyer T·C 08:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've nominated the others, besides Kip Smith (who seems to be considered notable), for deletion. However, as SportingFlyer notes, other articles' worthiness for Wikipedia do not have any effect on whether the Kenneth McDaniel article should be kept or not. Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19: Can you clarify if you engaged in WP:BEFORE before nominating these other articles? Cbl62 (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did try to do some research on them. I was unsure about Ryan Anderson, but nominated him for deletion for a more thorough discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I looked at the Anderson article first and thought this might be "Pick on Punters Day". Cbl62 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Houston (actor) (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 non notable actor with no reliable sources and no evidence of notability Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Roles in more than a dozen notable films, as well as lead roles in multiple Royal Shakespeare Company productions, certainly constitutes "evidence of notability, and a great deal more. A small truckload of reviews of his stage work alone. There's not a whit of sense behind this effortless nomination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google search found numerous reliable sources. User:Cardiffbear88, I suggest that you do not contribute to Articles for deletion any more, until you become more familiar with research. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Film Company (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)

Taking to AfD because I see there was a contested PROD in the past. It's WP:A7 material - almost no content and the only "source" is the company website, no claim to notability, fails GNG/NCORP. My BEFORE search didn't turn up any reliable coverage, just their social media accounts and company-submitted profiles at places like crunchbase. creffett (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since it does not meet WP:NCORP. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Current article is for a company in Dubai, a previous state of the article was for a slightly more important-looking company in Seattle. Might be worth looking to see if the Seattle one is something that should be reverted to. Hog Farm (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this article has gone through a few different companies (originally the Seattle/NY one, last seen here, then looks like it was hijacked into a Dubai company by Blessin93, then Naveennath6966 tried to change it to one based in India, I nominated for deletion after reverting their edits and seeing that there was nothing here to start with). There also might be some name changes in there, since it's gone between "The Film Company" and "The Company Films" at least once. I did a second BEFORE check, and neither name turned up anything noteworthy, though I'll concede that "The Film Company" is a very hard name to do a BEFORE search on. creffett (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My searches didn't bring up anything establishing notability that I could trace back directly to this company. Very difficult to refine searches on this one. Hog Farm (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass WP:NCORP in my view and given the hijackings and dodgy editing perhaps the title should be salted, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2020 (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) Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Keeling (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Per WP:NCOLLATH, notability is not established just as a player on a notable team. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable college player who was named to the First Team All-Big South and was a part-time starter at UNC. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] demonstrate he meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think he meets GNG with some of the sources above (some aren’t independent in my opinion) as well as being the subject of articles like this. Rikster2 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Editorofthewiki and Rikster2. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 United States Air Force E-11A crash (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 notable military related aviation accident. Nobody notable on board and WP:NOTNEWS applies ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Military aircraft accidents are common and nothing distinguishes this from the myriad of other ones that we have no articles about: no wiki-notable people involved, no lasting effects, no airworthiness directives or changes to maintenance proceedures, no changes to regulations, no changes to ATC procedures. Not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Don't think this is run of the mill as even though the plane was a US Military plane, it's actually a modified civilian aircraft that was shot down with a hull loss/casualties, and I expect there will be more that comes out of this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not enough notability to have a stand alone article. Military to boot. - Samf4u (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ahunt reasoning.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is not a run of the mill accident. Yes, it's a military accident, but one that occurred on an active operation. Additionally, there were ground casualties not connected with the operation of the aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per SportingFlyer and Mjroots. --The Huhsz (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List_of_aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan#2020 where there is already an entry. This is a war-zone and so the information is best consolidated with other reports of such casualties. Policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not enough notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as per above reasons (either option is good with me). But don't delete it outright. --Woko Sapien (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This Article is very important. Do not delete it. Every fatal plane crash is important. This article describes the plane crash in detail, --Stunts1990 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I would let this article stand, especially because there is the possibility of terrorist involvement. As an aside, I don't think it matters, for the purposes of notability, that no well-known people were on board. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Military aircraft crash regularly or get shot down in war zones, I don't see anything here that meets WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Max Scratchmann (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)

Some, mainly local, coverage. Doesn’t meet notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even remotely close to meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can just about see how a case for notability could be put together but it’s not very convincing. Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - he's gotten some press, but almost entirely about his book that "outraged" the Orkney Islanders. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Reichel (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)

Doesn’t meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing here clearly demonstrates notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article about a doubtfully-notable poet has been attracting BLP violations and vandalism since at least 2018. There are only two possible RS in the article. The first, the Daily Beast article, simply aggregates and repeats a bunch of online accusations of illegal behavior that have never been tested in any legal forum and also is very dubious in its identification of the article subject. Its use without qualification certainly violates WP:BLPCRIME and even with attribution shouldn't be used to support the assertions being made. The second, the Brooklyn Rail article, is an interview about his poetry. The book of poetry he authored was printed by a very small publisher and even granting the Brooklyn Rail interview and the non-RS reviews, attracted almost no attention. According to WorldCat, it is available in all of 10 libraries and from its Amazon listing appears to be out of print already so its impact on the reading public is also doubtful. TL;DR: This is a vandal-bait article about a subject that does not pass WP:GNG and whose notability under any applicable SNG is slim to none. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are two separate issues in this nomination. The matter of the page's repeated vandalism, and the identification of the individual who's been accused of criminal behaviour, is not something that can be dealt with by an AfD discussion. I share the nominator's alarm, and if the outcome of this debate is to !keep, then the page needs to be protected from ongoing vandalism - and several edits in its history need to be redacted. As to the separate issue of whether the subject meets GNG, I agree that the page should be deleted as it clearly falls short of WP:NCREATIVE. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Gant (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:NGRIDIRON. Former Division III college football player who did not play in a professional football game. Only coverage found from when he signed with two NFL teams in the offseason. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even remotely close to being a notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete DIII with only local coverage, NFL practice teamer, fails WP:GRIDIRON, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Nothing here that establishes notability. His D-3 career isn't notable, either. Hog Farm (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (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) buidhe 21:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Hyatt (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 evidence this fictional character passes GNG/NFICITON. It's pure WP:PLOT. Last AfD ended due to multiple WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sorry, I am not seeing anything in my BEFORE besides one sentence analysis like in [16]. Last AfD's best source was [17] but that doesn't seem to go much beyond PLOT either. Can SOFTDELETE by redirecting to her movie. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PLOT. --BonkHindrance (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and create a new redirect - Article fails WP:GNG. The film should easily be capable of talking about all topics related to the character regardless. TTN (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. "Alice Hyatt" is the protagonist of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, a seminal Martin Scorsese film with major award recognition, as well as a long-running TV series. Ellen Burstyn won BAFTA and Academy Awards for her portrayal of the character; Linda Lavin was nominated for or won Emmy and Golden Globe awards for playing the TV version. To say that critical commentary on the character could not be found defies even the slightest credibility -- especially since cursory GBooks and GScholar searches turn up substantive commentary on the very first pages of results. This deletion serves no purpose except to embarrass Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, props to you for requesting a relist. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NEXIST: There are four books already listed on the article as references, and two of them have extensive coverage.
  • Ellen Burstyn's Lessons in Becoming Myself has three pages (pg 288-290) specifically about the character of Alice Hyatt — how she was scripted, Burstyn's input in the characterization, and changes that they made to the character and the script.
  • Martin Scorsese's America discusses Alice on at least seven pages, analyzing her characterization in the context of Scorsese's other films.
  • I can't get immediate access to the other Scorsese book, The Passion of Martin Scorsese: A Critical Study of the Films, but given the coverage in the book listed above, I surmise that there's similar analysis here.

I think that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I guess it isn't doing any damage, and the book coverage mentioned in the votes above seems to hold up. The most irritating aspect is the lack of inline sourcing. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Toughpigs's outline. Furthermore, a very quick look in Google Books led me to The Scorsese Psyche on Screen: Roots of Themes and Characters in the Films, in which this character is covered in detail. This is actually a really good book to help establish notability for standalone articles of fictional characters in Scorsese's films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources identified by Toughpigs and Erik. — Hunter Kahn 12:54, 14 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Addison King Air 350 crash (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)

General Aviation crash without anyone notable on board are rarely notable and WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to have involved a Wikinotable person. Mjroots (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The no one famous was on board so it's not notable is weird suggestion, but okay. Received WP:SIGCOV from national outlets such as CNN and NYT to fully pass WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS standard doesn't apply here for a myriad of reasons including: 1) Crashes with 10+ fatalities are exceedingly rare in the US (accidents happening that cause damage to an airport, even more so) meaning this isn't just a non-notable or WP:ROUTINE news story. 2) Coverage on the subject has been going on for nearly a year now, showing enduring notability and interest beyond the short term news cycle. WP:PERSISTENCE Sulfurboy (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Every year there are thousands of light aircraft accidents like this one. Nothing distinguishes this from the myriad of other ones that we have no articles about: no wiki-notable people involved, no lasting effects, no airworthiness directives, no changes to regulations, no changes to ATC procedures, just sweep up the wreckage and move on. This accident is not any more notable than any boat, bus or car crash with deaths. Please do not mistake the news media's breathless coverage of every last aircraft crash, while ignoring all other transportation accidents, as making this notable. That is why we specify Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree that there are thousands of light aircraft accidents each year, but disagree with the "like this one" notion. Crashes with this many deaths are exceedingly rare since most accidents happen with single or duel occupant planes. There can't be more than maybe a dozen accidents with this many fatalities in the US in the past few years. Agree also to no changes in regulations or procedures, but this may be due to the investigation being ongoing. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is another general aviation accident[18] that killed over a dozen that was deleted at AFD[19] A high death toll doesn't make something automatically notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This incident does not comply with WP:AIRCRASH. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dodger67, Per that essay you linked: "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." This is both AfD and a stand-alone accident article. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, can you clarify what it doesn't comply with in that policy? From what I see all that essay is about is when to include an accident on an airline/airport/aircraft page and this actually passes two of the three prongs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sulfurboy (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Piont taken, struck that part of my post Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Regarding the previous comments: if some aspect of the crash spawns an AD or a regulatory or policy change, then the article can be recreated at that time. Concerning WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, the only news story from the past 6 months about the accident concerns a lawsuit filed by the survivor's families, which falls under WP:NOTNEWS; wrongful-death lawsuits are (sadly) routine after multiple-fatality GA air crashes where a (presumably insured) third-party operator is involved. Nothing indicates that the lawsuit is any different than myriad others. Carguychris (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From comments at the Wikiproject for Aviation discussion about this, it's even admitted to that in the past articles such as this are typically kept in AfD. Yet, here comes a flood of delete votes all from users associated with this specific project all chirping the same thing. Just because it was a newsworthy event does not mean it falls under WP:NOTNEWS, that's not what that policy is for. And all these delete votes seem a bit gatekeepy and in the face of known previous precedent and consensus. Seems like you all need to work together to try to get consensus on a notability policy surrounding accidents instead of incorrectly using your own essays like above (and as seen in other AfDs). Might save some time in the future so you all don't have to keep ballot stuffing individual AfDs? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Sulfurboy (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have a longstanding consensus on accidents like this, which is what you are seeing expressed here and which is in line with Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOTNEWS. My comment here was an expression of frustration that whenever non-notable aircraft crashes are brought to AfD they are inevitably opposed by editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and also unfamiliar with aircraft accidents and the lack of enduring changes as a result of most light aircraft and military aircraft accidents. Instead what we see is that consensus and policy gets drowned out by "gosh an airplane crashed, we must have an article in that!" I never hear that about car accidents, truck or bus accidents, motorcycle accidents or even bicycle or boating accidents. This is solely because editors rely on coverage in the general, non-aviation media, which, as I noted, breathlessly reports on aircraft accidents in a way that they do not report on other transportation accidents. This is just due to media sensationalism and nothing else. We are an encyclopedia, we don't need to let non-specialized media reports decide our notably for us and in fact we have a policy on that: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which explains: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I'm quite certain if a motorcycle or bicycle accident had 10 fatalities it would receive significant press coverage if for no other reason than the crazy circumstances in which that could happen. Further, bus or boat accidents with that many fatalities would almost certainly be reported on, not sure what notion or evidence you have to back your suggestion. These are all complete non-sequiturs anyways. All the declines rely on this idea that this is just routine or happens all of the time (including one crazy suggestion that thousands of accidents like this happen each year) when you all, considering your involvment with the project, should know that accidents with this many deaths is exceedingly rare on US soil.

    Also, quite bold to suggest most people coming into these AfDs are "editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies". Sulfurboy (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not enough notability to have a stand alone article. - Samf4u (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. See Bus plunge. While not in the same category, see also this recent NOTNEWS-Afd involving 10 deaths. Note: I am revising my vote to Redirect to Addison Airport#Accidents and incidents, where the incident is already covered, to WP:PRESERVE it as a reference for future investigations regarding the specific aircraft type, which was involved in other crashes. StonyBrook (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur with the redirect suggestion. I plan to add more content to the accident entry in the ADS article when more documented facts emerge. Carguychris (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – yes, the death count is considerable but not unusual for the type, and none of the victims is notable. There have been numerous King Air crashes over the years; we only covered a handful of them: the unusual ones and the ones with notable victims (and a couple of other King Air articles should probably be AfD-ed too). --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Draftify: I would suggest "Keeping" the article until the report is released; that will give us a better indication of the noteworthiness of the accident. In lieu of that, I would suggesting "Draftifying" it. I also echo Sulfurboy's thoughts. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep [Nomination withdrawn] (non-admin closure) Flori4nKT A L K 21:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lilaste Station (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)

nn per NBUILD / GNG Flori4nKT A L K 10:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Flori4nKT A L K 10:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Flori4nKT A L K 10:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We generally keep all railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as User:Necrothesp - railway stations are normally kept. Ingratis (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added a little more content and another source to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2020 (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. I will add a cleanup tag to the article to reflect the need to comb through the refs more thoroughly. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Christian (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 author of self published books with no major reviews and largely sourced to blogs, unreliable (fake news SEO sites, pay for publishing etc...) sources and nothing better in my WP:BEFORE. Praxidicae (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable source reviews that would add up to showing she is a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: More than adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on which sources? Praxidicae (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but trim. (Here from a request on WT:WIR) My analysis of whether book reviews in this version pass RS (based on whether they appear to have editorial control over reviews by separate reviewers and editors rather than being a one-person blog):
  • References 3, 6, 13 (Slug Mag): reliable
  • Reference 21, 24 (This is Horror): reliable
  • References 33, 35 (The Big Smoke): reliable
  • Reference 34 (Cultured Vultures): reliable
  • References 1-2, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 20, 23, 25-32, 36: not reviews
  • References 4-5, 7-8, 10, 15, 19, 22: self-published reviews, not reliable
  • Reference 18 (Horror Palace): not reliable (pay-for-play)

Overall I count eight small-press reviews that I think are reliable, of multiple books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. But they were difficult to find among all the junk references, which should be trimmed back to only reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein. Thank you for the analysis, and I agree the stragglers should be trimmed. Her book, Girl Like a Bomb, seems to have a lot of reviews, and adding the fact that she has reliable reviews for other works, she seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dark Continents is one of those independent publishers that print a lot of rising SF writers. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Barber (actor) (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 non notable actor with only minor roles. Only sourced through IMDB. No evidence of substantial sources that would improve the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Searched, got nothing! twerk000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror. Considering we probably have 15 or more articles just right now up for nomination which are only sourced to IMDb, it is functioning as an IMDb mirror, but that is not how things ought to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A search turned up zero third-party reliable sources. And no substantial coverage could be found. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Nom and AuthorAuthor. It is amazing a BLP article can be created, most likely by copying a filmography section from an unreliable source evidenced by consensus at WP:USERG and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb, and remain for years (created June 8, 2006) as unsourced. At a point, providing an "External link" as a source was somewhat allowed, but as the reputation of Wikipedia has strengthen this has become less an "allowable criteria", not to mention sometimes things just "fly under the radar" a long time. This is an good example of a pseudo biography. A "full and balanced biography" would include a lot more than a dictionary entry and an embedded filmography list. Otr500 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's early growth is full of creation of articles on things and people who are not even close to notable. J. R. R. Tolkien's work produced some of the longest lasting examples, since much of that had articles created on it in 2004 just after The Return of the King was released, and we did not see significant paring down of articles on totally non-notable characters, some mentioned in 1 very passing sentence in his work, until the last six months.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Apart from his recurring role as "Fat Bloke" in two Harry Enfield programs, there don't seem to be any other noteworthy roles. And I too have struggled to find sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 03:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Anthony Matthews (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 "musician" with 0 reliable sources - both a before and the existing sources are nothing more than glorified blogs and blackhat SEO sites masquerading as news outlets. Praxidicae (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no RS to be found. He needs to drop back into school... ;) Caro7200 (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG twerk —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable per nom. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: if deleted, please delete the redirect at Jacob Anthony

• Delete does not meet inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Caro7200, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:MILL. No evidence of making it as a musician. Rappers are supposed to collaborate with DJs, etc. He seems very run of the mill. He should have gone to college like Christopher Reid. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Perkins (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 non notable BLP. I have tried looking everywhere to find a source that would link Lucy Perkins with Cannes Film Festival (as the article claims) but cannot find anything. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Literally a single film credit to her name, with a dubious claim about it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Abishe (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Found Nothing! WP:GNG Fail. twerk —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is an outrage that articles with no reliable sourcing on a living person have existed for over 12 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing Found about the Subject. twerk000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find anything either. The notability standards are not met. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. I want to address specifically that getting a film into the Cannes Film Festival's Court Metrage (short film corner) is no big deal. My partner produced a short film for that part of the famous film festival in 2010, and would not say that makes him notable. The film itself, or even the director, might be notable, but notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Russell (producer) (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 subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. I suggest we merge it with the band's article as there's no coverage on him to guarantee a standalone article. All the refs in the article at the moment have nothing to do with the subject, two of them are dictionary definitions of words, one says nothing about the subject. Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The subject fails to establish WP:GNG and seems to have been written as WP:PROMO. The article cites primary sources which are unreliable and need reliable sources. Abishe (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not enough RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG twerk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then Redirect to Cheat Codes (DJs). Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and has not received reliable in-depth coverage.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. It has been clear consensus for several years now that producers are run of the mill, and thus not automatically notable, absent independent and significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2020 (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. For many reasons, including: borderline WP:CSD#A7 after some of the sillier claims are removed; borderline WP:CSD#G11; likely WP:CSD#G5 (assuming this isn't the paid editor's first rodeo); WP:SNOW; and what I find to be a credible claim of harm to the article subject. AFD is not for shaming wrongdoers, especially those who may or may not have been hoodwinked by unscrupulous UPE's. It's for removing inappropriate articles, and it is crystal clear this article won't be determined to be appropriate in 6 more days of discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 · Stats)

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

non notable "economist" - sourced exclusively to embellished press releases, fake news sites (like California Herald) and press releases. A search reveals nothing in the way of independent or even truthful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. I find no coverage that is reliable or isn't churnalism. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I just noticed that the article admits the subject is "pursuing post-graduate doctoral study," hence the likelihood of meeting WP:NPROF is slim to none, and the vague claim of being "a department member" at LSE adds nothing to establish notability; to wit, I'm a doctoral student and I teach courses, therefore I am a department member at my institution also, but certainly that gives nothing toward passing WP:GNG.

  Also, I note that many of the IPs currently editing this article are from the same UK ISP and range (83.216.*.*). It could mean nothing, but it could suggest some autobiographical or other issues.

  Finally, looking at the contributions of the author User:Rubelantri, a lot of the articles they've created or edited have been worked on in alphabetical order. Maybe it's nothing, but it suggests that there might be some undisclosed paid editing, i.e., going down a client list alphabetically? I don't mean to cast aspersions, but that did jump out as slightly odd. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I see no signs of WP:NPROF here. The best case for GNG is via two profiles: [20] in The Statesman (India) and [21] in Manchester Evening News. The first profile raises a number of red flags for me, and I doubt its independence. I'm not sure on the 2nd. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that these sources are questionable. The byline on the Statesman piece is the Statesman News Service (SNS) Web Desk, suggesting it may be aggregated, possibly from a press release, rather than written in house (to wit, it seems highly doubtful that an Indian newspaper interviewed her). As for the the Manchester Evening News piece, if one clicks the name of the author, it notes that it is an advertorial, suggesting it might be paid coverage. A search on that author's name also indicates that she is an "advertiser" and "creative copyrighter," indicating that it is likely not an actual news piece. Most of the given sources seem to fall into one or both of these categories. It's also quite telling that these two sources and several others were published either in January, right before this article was created, or on April 3, right before it ended up here. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's certainly no WP:NPROF, and Kinu has given solid form to my doubts about possible GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ridiculous over-the-top promotional silliness, fairly obviously created by a paid editor. No evidence of wiki-notability. --JBL (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above, by WP:GNG. SemiHypercube 15:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero GNG and a strong UPE/PROM case; strange technique used in the creation of this article which seemed to by-pass the new page curation tool? Pinging MER-C and NinjaRobotPirate who might want to look into the authorship history of this blatnant spam piece. Britishfinance (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like everyone in the article history has already been blocked. If there's more to do, feel free to let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that - I am guessing that it is worth watchlisting the various PROMO articles this group has created, as they will return to move them from Draft? Britishfinance (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: promotional resume-like article; the subject cannot meet WP:NPROF having only ever written two papers (unless those two are ridiculously groundbreaking) and falls short of WP:GNG. As mentioned by Kinu, the Manchester Evening News article is labeled "advertorial" here, while the Statesman article is from the "SNS Web Desk" and the International Business Times article is from the "IBT News Desk". — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the subject of page being harassed in real life due to talk page speedy deletion required/ please delete page immediately if the article is up for deletion as the subject is now being harassed in real life. speedy deletion required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandacar2020 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC) — Amandacar2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• We're in no position to prove what you're saying is true; the proper venue for that sort of thing is having her contact WP:OTRS via email. We're especially unlikely to heed a single-purpose account on an article which has a history of mercenaries editing it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentSure, she'll send an email with her ID..
• Comment. You mean your client is embarrased that her BLP has been shown to be a paid for promotional piece? Britishfinance (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentPerson is not my 'client' happy to prove so subject has been caught between various arguments back and forths between various admins/editors/pages which are of no relationce to her as such she is being harassed in real life by various contributors for arguments and issues which have no relation to her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandacar2020 (talk • contribs)

Amandacar2020 Then how do you know she's being harassed in real life? Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, if that is the case, then she needs to email our volunteer responce team as opposed to having someone who, for all we know, is on her payroll given that she's evidently paid for an article, try and get the page deleted in an effort to save face. We are in absolutely no position to judge whether or not the claims of her being harassed are true, but I can imagine that if she is being harassed, it's the editors she's hired doing the harassing. Buying Wikipedia articles is often a protection racket style of extortion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 18:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Having googled the BLP subject, it is clear that her main area of distinction is in self-promotion (this is particularly funny Portia Antonia Alexis, and complete with standard professional image). Your client has got spooked that when examined, her BLP was a clear fail, and now wants you to clean it up. Who says being a UPE is all fun. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't always fault subjects for the shitty hack job black hat SEO farms do - they can be convincing but it's on people for not doing their research before they pay some shitty firm to spam google and Wikipedia with fake articles about them. Praxidicae (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Especially as it's been a while since one hit the news. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spam, cruft, and then more spam. Fails WP:ANYBIO. ——SN54129 19:23, 8 April 2020 (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. WP:G5 as a creation of Wesleyner7. Cabayi (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drip Creationz (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 brand sourced to press releases and fake sources masquerading as legitimate news outlets. Praxidicae (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The company "Drip Creationz" has been significantly covered in reliable source. It easily passes WP:COMPANY and GNG. All references are from reliable sources and publishers such as International Business Times, The Statesman (Newspaper with 180,000 daily circulation), Deccan Chronicle (Newspaper with 1,333,668 daily circulation)

1. First reference is from International Business Times
2. Second reference is from Yahoo! Finance
3. Third reference is from The Statesman
4. Fourth reference is from Deccan Chronicle
5. Fifth reference is from Mid Day

As the user who has nominated the articles for deletion and said that the reference are press release is false, the company is featured in-depth by reliable publishers. Also the nominator's claim that "fake sources masquerading as legitimate news outlets" is not true. All source are genuine and reputed news outlet. As per Wikipedia criteria of notability for company, The company has Significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Meme Lord 519 - (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statesmen is not a reliable source in the slightest, IBTimes publishes press releases and paid articles (as is the case for this source) without identifying it, yahoo is a press reelase, deccanchronicle is not reliable and also a paid for press release and same for Mid-day. This is the typical type of churnalism we see from many of these outlets, and it's fairly obvious these are paid for pieces. Perhaps you could also explain why a business that as far as I can tell only operates in the US is only being covered by Indian media outlets that are well known for their problem with pay-for-publication/churnalism? Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement is 145 year old news organization which is pretty reliable with a daily circulation of 180,000. Deccan chronicle too is well trusted with over 1.3 million circulation. Mid-day is reliable too. Technically speaking. Now coming to "paid article", theoretically speaking anyone can pay to journalist of NYtimes, BBC too, which are considered as a epitome of reliable source. The source are pretty reliable and not blacklisted on Wikipedia. There is no genuine proof or community census on Wikipedia that these websites are known for "pay-for-publication" or churnalishm. Also, there is no rule that the reliable source must be from the similar country of the topic.

As the Nomniator has said "it's fairly obvious these", I've just read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it's not obvious, as a nominator could you please elaborate? Also it's pretty racist to say that top Indian news website are not reliable and anyone could buy article in these site. Theoretically speaking anyone can pay to any publishers for coverage. Meme Lord 519 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you're also not new here but you should check out the difference between Statesmen's web edition and printed edition. One of these things is not like the other. But feel free to answer my other questions. The pieces you cited are all paid press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every publication has difference in their printed and web edition, Can you please explain how other sources are press release again? Meme Lord 519 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:RS and get back to me. Even if you weren't wrong about these being reliable, they're still press releases and at least 3 are clearly identified as such. Praxidicae (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I concur with Praxidicae's assessment of the sources. Why would a company that has no presence in a country be featured in their media? It makes zero sense, unless you factor in paid "journalism".

My assessment of the sources, for posterity:

The link for the IB Times source isn't functional, but searching on their website reveals this "article" that is almost (if not entirely) identical to several other of the sources.

The Yahoo source is *clearly* a press release published by "Accesswire" - From Google search result listing: "Our newswire features a comprehensive, flat-fee Press Release service. Generate quality engagement with real-time analytics to improve visibility and expand..."

The Statesman source has no by-line, is highly promotional with lots of marketing buzzwords and namedrops, and doesn't have any apparent tie-ins to any other content on the site, and strangely considers the founders to be all male. "The men behind this multi-million-dollar company..." when at least two of the three are clearly not. As such, it's a piss-poor marketing attempt by an outside agency, it seems.

The Deccan Chronicle source does not identify an author in the byline, which is not a good sign. In fact, there is an explicit disclaimer at the bottom, which states: "Disclaimer: This is featured content. No Deccan Chronicle Group journalist is involved in creating this content. The Group also takes no responsibility for this content." I'll give them credit for at least having some sort of transparency, which is more than I can say for The Statesman source.

For the Mid-Day source: Firstly, any article title that uses "ummatched popularity" is immediately suspect to me. Then the byline has "Partnered Content" in it (which is a code word for press release).

As noted above, several of these sources are nearly or entirely identical in their contents, which is another clue that we're looking at press releases, instead of legitimate news articles. Also, like the Deccan Chronicle, Mid-Day adds a disclaimer: "The article has been sourced from third-party source and Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. All information provided on this article is for informational purposes only." Anyway, the article itself has already been deleted G5, so this should probably be closed as delete in any case. Waggie (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Cabayi as the admin who deleted the article G5, perhaps they wish to close this. Waggie (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2020 (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. ~65kb of text between two participants can obscure what is a fairly clear consensus that McHugh lacks notability. With-in that there is lots of discussion about whether NPOL is an alternative to or shortcut of GNG (my take is that NPOL pretty explicitly says it serves as a shortcut to GNG unlike some SNGs where are actually alternatives) and discussion about the Irish media landscape. Ultimately despite the detail of the case put forward to suggest notability there is not consensus among participating editors that the sources and interpretations offered to suggest notability do so - indeed multiple participants who suggest deletion explicitly reject both NPOL and GNG. While there were minimal !votes after the case for keep was presented there was ample discussion over a enough time (more than 3 days) and so there was a chance for previous !voters to switch their positions or for more new participants to validate it. And while sometimes a well-written keep after several deletes can be a reason for a relist, there was ample discussion by multiple editors of that case which would, on its, own lead to no consensus. However, those were not the only participants and the participation of the other 9 editors (including 1 editor favoring keep) from before that keep case was presented (plus the nominator) also deserves weight which is how I find that there is a clear delete consensus here. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saoirse McHugh (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)

WP:NPOL. An unsuccessful candidate at 3 elections in 2019–20. She did say one thing in the 2020 Irish general election which got a modicum of coverage for being off-message. jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Satisfies GNG regardless of her lack of success at the ballot box. She is a controversial figure and this has generated significant, sustained covered in national newspapers. A simple WP:BEFORE Google News search would have indicated as much. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NOTNEWS, routine coverage of election campaigns is not noteworthy. Google News matches are "Greens are running Saoirse McHugh"; "in the debate Saoirse McHugh said"; "Saoirse McHugh might win"; "Saoirse McHugh narrowly lost". jnestorius^(talk) 12:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN, not convinced meets WP:GNG. Single event person, nothing else of notability in their life or career that is being indicated. Canterbury Tail talk 13:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @CAPTAIN RAJU: This is demonstrably not a single event.
    As even the nominator noted, she has been a candidate at three elections (2019 European Parliament, 2020 Dáil Éireann, 2020 Seanad Éireann), which is three events. McHugh has been highly prominent in all three (see e.g. civerage of her Seanad campaign) ... and she is now a quotable notable even outside election periods. (see e.g. [22]). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as has never held national/similar office. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG as effectively all news coverage relates to various efforts as a candidate. And the only stand-out coverage (afforded to the subject which is different/more than that afforded to other candidates) is that of the clash with another specific/named candidate. Which is in the BLP1E realm. Not seeing any reason that this subject/candidate is any more notable than any other unsuccessful candidate for office... Guliolopez (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, regardless of her lack of success at 3 elections in 2019–20. --SalmanZ (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article cannot be notable according to WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Abishe (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The current prevalence of constant and instant news media can elevate the prominence of someone in search results, but ultimately, unless someone has a greater role in public life than three-time candidate, they aren't notable according to Wikipedia criteria. Niall Ó Tuathail, for example, also ran in three elections (two general and Seanad), and is important within the Social Democrats, but similarly isn't notable according to our criteria. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every candidate will get some news coverage. Unelected candidates need something exceptional for us to justify the article. This has not always been our view and I have a suspecion that we have several old articles on unelected candidates that need to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as she is an unelected candidate. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this doesn't even attempt to claim that she had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her an article independently of the candidacy. And just because she got a brief blip of WP:BLP1E coverage for scoring a rhetorical punch in a debate, against another candidate who also lost, is not in and of itself evidence that her candidacy passes the ten year test as a reason why people would still be looking for information about her in 2030. Obviously, no prejudice against recreation in the future if she accomplishes something more notable, like actually winning a future election. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Highly-notable politician, who is a household name in Ireland and easily meets WP:GNG.

The nomination is based on the nominator's misreading of WP:NPOL. All it does is to set a threshold by which politicians may be presumed notable without requiring specific evidence of that they meet GNG. It does NOT set a test which must be met to establish notability, which is how the nominator seems to be interpreting it ... and it is sad to see several editors !voting based on that false assumption.

@Bearcat goes even further, setting a test that she accomplishes something more notable, which is no part of policy: WP:Notabilty is not about accomplishment. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of policy, because plenty of people who accomplished highly significant things do not meet WP:N simply because they have not been written about in enough reliable secondary sources ... and plenty of people achieve notability without accomplishment. Policy is very clear about this: the lead of WP:N says:

Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below

Bearcat should apply policy, instead of imposing their own value judgement. But if you want to make value judgments on achievement, McHugh's success was to make the Green Party a significant contender outside the Dublin area. A lot of the West was deeply hostile to the Greens, but McHugh took her party from no-hoper to serious contender under Ireland's Single Transferable Vote system:

• Increased the Green tally of first preference votes in the Midlands–North-West European constituency by 434% (9,520 to 51,019)
• Increased the Green tally of first preference votes in the Mayo Dáil constituency by 564% (629 to 4,177)
• Is reported in national media as her party's "star" or "rising star" (see e.g. [23], [24])

The comment by User:Jnestorius that routine coverage of election campaigns is not noteworthy is a misrepresentation of the facts. The coverage of McHugh is far from routine; overwhelming majority of unsuccessful Irish general election candidates get few or no mentions in the national media. McHugh was the Green candidate in the 2020 Irish general election in the Mayo constituency, so compare her with a) Tate Donnelly, the 2020 Green candidate in Cavan–Monaghan, b) T.P. O'Reilly, an unsuccessful Fine Gael candidate in Cavan–Monaghan who got roughly the same number of votes as McHugh:

• Tate Donnelly gets 28 hits on Google News
• T.P. O'Reilly gets 47 hits on Google News
• Saoirse McHugh gets 234 hits on Google News

That is a whole order of magnitude more coverage. McHugh is vastly more notable than many candidates who did win a seat in the 2020 election, e.g.:

• Pauline Tully, who gets 87 hits on Google News
• Marc Ó Cathasaigh, who gets 48 hits on Google News

Now look at some of the specific examples of coverage. Please note that this is an incomplete listing from only the first 5 pages (100 hits) of the 234 hits on Google News:

• Articles where McHugh is the prime focus of a substantive article in national media:
  1. Saoirse McHugh selling her Green vision to rural Ireland, Irish Times, 6 Feb 2020.
     Note that the Irish Times is Ireland's newspaper of record. it has a similar status in Ireland to e.g. that of the New York Times in the United States, or The Times in England. Note also that the political Correspondent of the Irish Times accompanied her on a canvass. That is NOT routine.
  2. Saoirse McHugh: 'There’s a seat in Mayo for something new', Irish Times, 3 Feb 2020. Video related to the above.
  3. Green Party leader plays down candidate Saoirse McHugh's solo run on carbon tax, Irish Independent, 29 January 2020.
     The Irish Independent is the highest-circulation national newspaper in Ireland, and it too is a quality paper, not a red-top.
  4. Fionnán Sheahan: 'Saoirse McHugh must be a nutter', Irish Independent, 30 January 2020.
  5. Rider on the Storm: Interview with Saoirse McHugh, Hot Press, 5 Feb 2020.
     Note that Hot Press is Ireland's leading music mag; they don't routinely interview politicians.
  6. Green Party's Saoirse McHugh warns against going into coalition, Irish Examiner 15 July 2019.
     Another national broadshseet paper, and article not published during an election campaign: this was two months after the Z2019 European Parliament election, by which time most failed candidates are forgotten.
  7. Green Party’s Saoirse McHugh versus Fine Gael’s Michael Ring on Mayo’s controversial new €241m road, the Irish Sun, 19 Jan 2020. A tabloid, but a national paper.
  8. Green Party’s Saoirse McHugh unexpected ‘star’ of European election debates, Irish Times, 22 May 2019
  9. Green Party's rising star Saoirse McHugh knocked out of race for Europe, Irish Independent, 29 May 2019
  10. Saoirse McHugh: I would resign from Greens if they enter FG or FF coalition, Newstalk, 26 May 2019
  11. Alien territory for a candidate who says what she thinks, Irish Independent, 2 Feb 2020
  12. Green Party candidate Saoirse McHugh may contest Seanad seat, Irish Examiner. 6 June 2019
  13. #Elections2019: Saoirse McHugh is a 'phenomenal person' says election rival Walsh, Irish Examiner, 26 May 2019
  14. General Election 2020: Green Party's Saoirse McHugh favours Sinn Fein coalition ahead of Fianna Fail or Fine Gael, Irish Mirror, 4 Feb 2020.
      A tabloid, but not the Murdoch press.
  15. Ryan defends Green Dáil hopeful who opposes the carbon tax, Farming Independent, 31 Jan 2020
  16. Election 2020: Green Party on the rise in rural areas, The Times (Irish edition), 31 January 2020
• Articles where McHugh is the prime focus of a substantive article in regional or local media. Again, please note that this is an incomplete listing from only the first 5 pages (100 hits) of the 234 hits on Google News:
  1. McHugh to run for Dáil in Mayo, Mayo News, 22 Oct 2019
  2. McHugh optimistic about the future of Mayo, Mayo Advertiser, 17 January 2020
  3. Saoirse McHugh to speak at United Against Racism launch night, Mayo Advertiser, 8 November 2019
  4. Mayo Green Party candidate singled out as 'election dark horse', Connaught Telegraph, 15th January, 2020
• Articles in national media by McHugh. The articles by her are mot evidence of notability, but they are evidence that she is not a run-of-the-mill failed candidate. Its not "routine" for Irish general election candidates to get to write their own articles in national newspapers
  1. Saoirse McHugh: Planting trees is one area where we can't wait for the government to come around, TheJournal.ie, Dec 2019
  2. Saoirse McHugh: Achill has shown me the link between climate action and rural regeneration, TheJournal.ie, Sept 2019
  3. Saoirse McHugh: Climate denial is dangerous at this stage, and the media has a case to answer, TheJournal.ie, Jan 2020

So I agree with User:AugusteBlanqui that the nominator did not do a thorough WP:BEFORE. I hope that User:Jnestorius will withdraw this nomination ... and if not, I hope that the closer will remember that WP:NOTVOTE. Facts and policy count for more than the pile-on of unevidenced and apparently un-researched assertions which is sadly evident above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I do not apply "value judgements", and this is not the first time you have accused me of acting in bad faith for simply disagreeing with me on a matter of policy — in fact, I have already had to warn you in the past that I was prepared to report you to WP:ANI if you did not stop attacking me.

Now, to be clear: a lot of Wikipedia policies can be interpreted in a lot of different ways, and can be easily twisted out of shape to support things they were not intended to support. So it's not enough to just say that since a person meets the technical letter of one policy, she's exempted from having to meet other policies and standards. Specifically, because every single candiate in every single election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, but we have an established consensus that every single candidate in every single election everywhere is not always notable enough for permanent coverage in Wikipedia, it is not enough to say "campaign coverage exists, ergo GNG met and she doesn't have to meet NPOL anymore" — if it were, then every candidate could always say that and NPOL would never actually apply to anybody anymore.

So the notability test for an unsuccessful candidate is not simply "some evidence of campaign coverage exists" — it is that the campaign coverage demonstrates a reason why even if she died tomorrow and never accomplished another thing as long as she lived, the candidacy itself was already so uniquely more special and more notable than everybody else's candidacies that she would already pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But that is not demonstrated by helping to increase her party's overall vote total from a losing percentage to a higher but still losing percentage; it is not demonstrated by being the bylined author of op-eds about other subjects; it is not demonstrated by giving Q&A interviews in the first person; and it is not demonstrated by giving soundbite to the media about her opinions on political issues within the context of the election campaign, just the same as every other candidate also did.

Even The New York Times, incidentally, is not an automatic notability-clincher for every single person who gets their name into that paper at all. It still covers purely local people of local interest who have achieved nothing encyclopedic; town councillors in Hempstead, for example, are not automatically more special than town councillors in Podunk, Arizona just because their routine local coverage happens to be in The New York Times instead of the Podunk Post; nor are unsuccessful candidates in New York City elections deemed more special than unsuccessful candidates elsewhere just because the routine local coverage of their losing campaign happens to appear in The New York Times instead of the Littleville Advertiser. Even New Yorkers still have to clear our notability standards exactly the same way as anybody else — namely, by accomplishing something that passes the subject-specific notability guideline for their occupation — and are not automatically more special than everybody else just because they live in or near New York City. So saying that an Irish paper is the Irish equivalent of The New York Times isn't a mic drop, because even The New York Times itself isn't always a mic drop.

But most importantly, the idea that the existence of campaign coverage is not automatically enough to hand an unelected candidate a GNG-based exemption from actually having to pass NPOL is not "my personal interpretation" of our inclusion rules for politicians: it's a long-established consensus that was established and upheld by a lot of Wikipedia discussions on a lot of unelected candidates. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anything that passes an arbitrary number" — it also takes into account the context of what the coverage was given for, and deprecates some contexts as not notability-clinching coverage in and of itself. Bands and musicians, for instance, are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they can show some local coverage in their local media. Writers are not exempted from having to pass WP:NAUTHOR just because they can show some coverage in their local media. School board trustees and municipal or county councillors are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because they can show some coverage in their local media. High school athletes are not exempted from having to pass WP:ATHLETE just because they can show some human interest coverage in their local media about their efforts to get back onto the team after losing their big toe in a lawn mower accident. And unelected candidates for political office are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because they can show the same campaign coverage that every unelected candidate can always show: either their campaign coverage demonstrates a reason why their candidacy would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, or they're out. Not because I said that, but because established consensus says that.

And all of that is precisely why you are not entitled to accuse me of being a bad actor just because my understanding of policy is different from your understanding of policy. Wikipedia policies are never just about the letter of what the policy says: we also have a lot of established consensus around how the policies are interpreted in cases of differing opinion, and the established consensus around candidates is what I said it was: the existence of campaign coverage is not automatically enough to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate can always show the existence of campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. @Bearcat is reading way too much into this, finding stuff that isn't there and ignoring what is there.

I did not accuse [Bearcat] of being a bad actor or of acting in bad faith. I accused Bearcat of getting one part of policy wrong, and I did not question Bearcat good faith in that error. However, Bearcat's long ranting and rambling reply makes it very hard for me sustain that assumption of good faith.

Now to the substance. In the midst of that vast screed of unevidenced assertion of generalities, Bearcat has chosen to entirely ignore the actual evidence which I presented, and instead has chosen in repeatedly invent one straw man after another:

1. Bearcat fundamentally misunderstands WP:NPOL. NPOL is not a requirement; it is an alternative path to notability for notability, and there is no policy basis for Bearcat's claim that unelected candidates for political office are not exempted from having to pass NPOL. I assert this without equivocation, because the notably guideline is absolutely explicit about this, at WP:N#Additional_criteria:

   A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

2. Bearcat wrote: Even The New York Times, incidentally, is not an automatic notability-clincher for every single person who gets their name into that paper at all.
   Complete straw man, as is Bearcat's hyperbolic attempt to misrepresent me as having claimed that it was a mic drop. I never claimed that any one mention in any one paper was a clincher, nor did I claim anything remotely resembling that.
   The reality is that I posted a list of 16 articles in the mainstream national media, all of which primarily about McHugh, and noted the significance of each paper. Bearcat's comparison of that to every single person who gets their name into that paper at all is an extreme case of misrepresentation through hyperbole.
3. Bearcat writes: Even The New York Times, incidentally, is not an automatic notability-clincher for every single person who gets their name into that paper at all.
   There is a second complete straw man in the same comment: I explicitly selected only those articles which were substantively about McHugh. I did not include anything which is a mere namecheck, or even in which she is secondary-but-still-significant topic. Bearcat's comment is again calculated to misrepresent the evidence posted.
4. Bearcat asserts that is not demonstrated by helping to increase her party's overall vote total from a losing percentage to a higher but still losing percentage; it is not demonstrated by being the bylined author of op-eds about other subjects; it is not demonstrated by giving Q&A interviews in the first person; and it is not demonstrated by giving soundbite to the media about her opinions on political issues within the context of the election campaign, just the same as every other candidate also did.
   Again, those are more Beracat inventions of arbitrary tests for which Bearcat might make an interesting case ... but which are no part of the guideline. Bearcat should please learn to distinguish between actual policy/guideline, and their their own highly creative interpretations of policy/guideline.
5. Bearcat makes repeated references to campaign coverage. But if Bearcat had actually bothered to read what I wrote and to check the links I posted, they would see a) some of articles are from outside of election campaign periods (e.g. [25], [26]), and b) I explicitly note that the set I posted was a subset of the 100 hits I scanned, out of a total of 234: I didn't even get to look at the headlines of the next 134; c) that there is clear not evidence that Bearcat's claim that this is just the same as every other candidate also did is simply false. Most worryingly, Bearcat would have known it to be false if they had studied the evidence before replying.
6. Bearcat wrote: Bands and musicians, for instance, are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they can show some local coverage in their local media. Writers are not exempted from having to pass WP:NAUTHOR just because they can show some coverage in their local media. School board trustees and municipal or county councillors are not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because they can show some coverage in their local media..
   This is yet more hyperbolic straw men. Again, I repeat that I posted evidence of 16 pieces of substantial coverage per WP:GNG in the mainstream national media. The effect of this ramble about musicians and writers is to convey the wholly false impression that the case for notability rests on local media.. All this verbiage about local media is a complete red herring, which has nothing to do with the actual evidence.
   I cannot know whether this verbose irrelevancy has been constricted by Bearcat as a deliberate obfuscation, or whether they are simply unable to comprehend that it is not relevant to a case case where there is clear evidence of huge slew of national media coverage. But either way, it is disruptive nonsense.
7. Bearcat wrote: it is not enough to say 'campaign coverage exists, ergo GNG met and she doesn't have to meet NPOL anymore'. Again, I said no such thing: this is yet another straw man invented by Bearcat's fertile imagination, as Bearcat repeatedly misrepresents what I did actually post.
   I posted evidence that she has received massive coverage in national media. I posted links to sixteen piece of substantive coverage in the national media, and only 4 in local media. It's not just campaign coverage, and that which is campaign coverage is demonstrably exceptional. Bearcat's summary of the evidence as campaign coverage exists is yet another rhetorical flourish which uses massively deceptive misrepresentations to completely distort the nature of the evidence presented.
8. Bearcat asserts: So the notability test for an unsuccessful candidate is not simply "some evidence of campaign coverage exists" — it is that the campaign coverage demonstrates a reason why even if she died tomorrow and never accomplished another thing as long as she lived, the candidacy itself was already so uniquely more special and more notable than everybody else's candidacies that she would already pass the ten year test for enduring significance.
   Again, lots of verbiage which ignores the quantitative and qualitative I posted evidence that McHugh's campaign is special because it received an order of magnitude more coverage than other unsuccessful candidates, and vastly more than some successful candidates.

Per WP:Consensus#Through_discussion Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion. Sadly, Bearcat has chosen here to create multiple straw men, to wholly ignore the actual evidence, and serially misrepresent both policy and what I wrote.

If Bearcat wants to go to WP:ANI, then go ahead ... but beware the WP:BOOMERANG when more eyes are brought to bear on the pile of hyperbole, straw men, red herrings, denials of evidence, and fabrications of policy with which Bearcat is trying to sway this discussion. But if you don't go to ANI, then please just stop disrupting the consensus-forming discussion with these hyperbolic distraction techniques. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you most certainly did accuse me of misrepresenting policy, unless you somehow consider the words "setting a test which is no part of policy" and "fundamental misunderstanding of policy" and "should apply policy instead of their own value judgement" to be substantively different from "misrepresenting policy". Just because I summarized your words instead of quoting them literally verbatim doesn't mean I was wrong about what you said.

You did very explicitly call attention to one paper's status as Ireland's equivalent to The New York Times, for example — so if you weren't intending to imply that "New York Times = automatic booyah because it's the New York Times", then what else was even the point of the comparison at all, given that without that implication the metaphor literally serves no discernible purpose at all? As well, you claim that she has coverage outside of election-related contexts — but I'd kindly invite you to review which sources actually exist outside of election campaigns, because the only one you've explicitly identified as such is still covering her in the context of expressing a personal opinion about the upcoming election campaign, and thus is still campaign-related. It doesn't automatically count as "coverage independent of election" just because it's dated outside of an active election campaign period, if the substance of what the article is about is still election-related. And even in terms of the volume of media hits, a person who runs as a candidate in two elections would be merely expected to be able to show about twice as much campaign coverage as somebody who only ran once, so she isn't automatically more special than other candidates on that basis either.

Ireland is also a country which does not even have the kind of meaningful distinction between "local" and "national" media that exists in, say, North America. According to our article about Media in the Republic of Ireland, there's no such thing as a non-national daily in Ireland at all — all the daily papers are automatically national, and the regional or local papers are exclusively weekly. And similarly, virtually all television service in Ireland is national, with no evidence of regional or local stations independently producing separate regional or local newscasts — even the "regional" news show on RTÉ One, according to its article, is still a single nationally broadcast show which covers human interest and cultural stories — so all election coverage on all Irish television networks is also inherently national, simply because there are no non-national television news operations to produce any. So election candidates, especially in European Parliament elections where there are only three nationwide seats, would still simply be expected to automatically have "national" coverage, simply because that's where the political coverage of national elections happens in the first place.

So the national coverage fails to distinguish her as more special than other candidates, because every candidate in a national election in Ireland always has "national" coverage by virtue of the way Irish media works on an almost entirely national scale — and the volume of coverage fails to single her out as markedly more special than other candidates, simply because she ran and lost in two national elections rather than just one, and thus would simply be expected to have roughly double the volume of campaign coverage compared to somebody who only ran once. And you still have yet to demonstrate your assertion that she has additional coverage outside of the context of election campaigns, because the only hit you've specifically labelled as such is still campaign-related.

And as for how hyperbolic and strawmanny and redherringy and distracty and denialy I am, I can assure you that I've got a well-established and well-earned and well-deserved and quite accurate reputation around here for being exactly none of those things whatsoever. Again, just because I summarized your words instead of repeating your exact words verbatim doesn't make me wrong about what you said. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: please stop playing these games. This FUD is timewasting and disruptive.

1. You write: just because I summarized your words instead of repeating your exact words verbatim doesn't make me wrong about what you said.
   The problem is not one of summary. The problem is that you repeatedly chose to either grossly misrepresent what I had clearly written, lading it with your own false assumptions; and that you systematically ignore whole bundles of evidence which don't suit your pre-deterined, policy-denying outcome.
2. Stop moving the goalposts.
   In your post 12.41, you claimed that I accused [you] of acting in bad faith and that accuse me of being a bad actor. The reality is that in my post of 19:50, I accused you of setting a test that she accomplishes something more notable, which is no part of policy and imposing their own value judgement. I did not suggest bad faith; you chose to read that into my words, just as you also choose to read into my words many other things which are not there. As I explicitly stated in my second reply, it was only after your reply to my first post that I began to abandon the AGF, because the evidence of bad faith was getting too strong to ignore. And you continue to offer yet more evidence of your bad faith.
3. You write You did very explicitly call attention to one paper's status as Ireland's equivalent to The New York Times, for example — so if you weren't intending to imply that "New York Times = automatic booyah because it's the New York Times", then what else was even the point of the comparison at all, given that without that implication the metaphor literally serves no discernible purpose at all?.
   Sigh. Please do at least try to read before replying. I noted that to assert the the Irish Times is a significant reliable source, as required by WP:GNG. I also made similar comments on the first mention of the other national media sources which I cited.
   It appears that you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between:
   a) multiple observation of the significance per policy of the source of each publisher of a piece of substantive coverage;
   b) some childish booyah comment about a lone link of your own imagination.
   This goes to the core of GNG, and if after all your time on WP you cannot or will not make that distinction, then please desist from participating in such discussions. Or are you simply trying by sheer volume of posting to erect a smokescreen around the fact that there are at least 16 items of intellectually-independent substantial coverage in reliable sources?
4. You wrote Ireland is also a country which does not even have the kind of meaningful distinction between "local" and "national" media that exists in, say, North America.
   This is utter fantasy. The Mayo Advertiser and The Connaught Telegraph are local; they do not have national reach. The fact that they they publish weekly rather than daily does not alter the fact that they are local. (Frequency ≠ Geography. They are separate concepts).
5. You wrote: all election coverage on all Irish television networks is also inherently national, simply because there are no non-national television news operations.
   Surprisingly for Bearcat's comments at this XFD, that is entirely true. Ireland has only national TV stations.
   Unsurprisingly, it is yet another addition to Bearcat's large pile of red herrings, because:
   a) even if there is no local TV, national TV is still national TV;
   b) No TV coverage has been cited by me or anyone else as evidence of McHugh's notability, so it is all utterly irrelevant. Yet more pointless verbiage and FUD.
6. You wrote: especially in European Parliament elections where there are only three nationwide seats.
   Yet more fanatasy. The reality that is that there are actually 13 seats, none of them nationwide. There are currently three constituencies, each of which has multiple seats: Midlands–North-West (4 seats), South (5 seats), and Dublin (4 seats).
   You would have known that if you had followed the link I posted before to Midlands–North-West, but again you choose to ignore evidence and assert a falsehood. Your repeated assertions as fact of these blatant falsehoods about Ireland are disruptive. Please stop, and stick to some topic which you either know something about already, or are willing to actually learn about rather than asserting demonstrable falsehoods.
7. the national coverage fails to distinguish her as more special than other candidates, because every candidate in a national election in Ireland always has "national" coverage by virtue of the way Irish media works on an almost entirely national scale.
   Absolutely not true:
   a) Local newspapers and local radio are significant players, and local radio produces its own content;
   Most candidates get little or no national coverage in the course of a campaign, as demonstrated by the links above.
8. You write: the volume of coverage fails to single her out as markedly more special than other candidates, simply because she ran and lost in two national elections rather than just one, and thus would simply be expected to have roughly double the volume of campaign coverage compared to somebody who only ran once.
   Again, demonstrably false:
   a) McHugh ran in 3 elections, not two. (That tally of 3 is mentioned even in the brief nomination statement. Looks like Bearcat didn't read that either.)
   McHugh's coverage is not proportional to the number of elections. She got more than 8 times as much coverage as her party colleague Tate Donnelly. When compared with successful party colleague Marc Ó Cathasaigh, she has got 4.9 times as much coverage; when compared with ualine Tully (from another party), she got 2.7 times as much coverage.
   All that evidence is already on this page, set out clearly in bullet points, yet you persist in posting as if that evidence did not exist. Why? What's going on here? Are you unable to read it? Unwilling to read it? Unable to comprehend it? Or just ignoring it for some reason? Whatever the cause, your repeated denial of the evidence is highly disruptive — and if you believe your claim to have a good reputation, it should be highly embarrassing to you.
   There is no basis in policy for your claim that being highly prominent in multiple elections doesn't help establish notability; it's just another principle you made up to suit your purpose, and which you assert as if it was policy rather than your own personal notion. It's self-evidently nonsense, because if we applied that principle to a hypothetical person who stood as a candidate if every Dáil and European election throughout her life (say about 30 elections) your logic would still claim that she was non-notable even though she had orders of magnitude more coverage than most people who had won a seat.
9. You write: And you still have yet to demonstrate your assertion that she has additional coverage outside of the context of election campaigns, because the only hit you've specifically labelled as such is still campaign-related.
   Again, Bearcat makes an assertion which is simply false as a a point of fact: see [27], which was 6 months before the general election date was announced. See also [28], post-election.
   It is possible that you assumed out of unfamiliarity with the topic that Ireland is like the USA, where an election campaign lasts for a whole year; but that is not the case in Ireland, where elections are conducted over a period of weeks. And if that was not your assumption, then your rejection of those links is just yet more counter-factual nonsense.

The fact remains that the evidence shows that McHugh was one of the most prominent candidates in both the 2019 Euro election and the 2020 Mayo Dáil election ... yet here we have an editor with very little knowledge of Ireland who is engaging in a sustained campaign of fabricating policy tests, spouting hyperbole, repeatedly misrepresenting another editor, denying evidence and spouting streams of very basic falsehoods about Irish politics and media, all with the aim of ensuring that Wikipedia deletes its already poor coverage of someone who is already way more notable than many serving legislators in Ireland. What on earth is going on here?

Your claim about your reputation is interesting, but does not reflect what I have see from your history, and from your bizarrely fact-averse and policy-inventing conduct on this page. You are welcome to put it to the test at ANI, but please stop disrupting this XFD with this nonsnese. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. The problem is not one of summary. The problem is that you repeatedly chose to either grossly misrepresent what I had clearly written, lading it with your own false assumptions; and that you systematically ignore whole bundles of evidence which don't suit your pre-deterined, policy-denying outcome. Er, yeah, no. I didn't misrepresent anything, or lay in any false assumptions, and I don't systematically ignore whole bundles of anything.
2. Bearcat fundamentally misunderstands WP:NPOL. NPOL is not a requirement; it is an alternative path to notability for notability, and there is no policy basis for Bearcat's claim that unelected candidates for political office are not exempted from having to pass NPOL. I do not fundamentally misunderstand NPOL at all. As I already said above: every candidate in every election everywhere can always show enough campaign-based coverage to at least attempt a claim that they pass WP:GNG. So if that were how political notability worked, then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL at all, and NPOL itself would never actually apply to anybody at all anymore. However, we have an established consensus that every candidate everywhere is not automatically notable enough for an article, but rather the key to making a candidate notable enough for an article is to establish that their candidacy somehow passes the ten-year test for enduring significance — and we have an established consensus that GNG is not just a question of counting a person's sources for their number, but also of testing for the context of what they're covering the person for, and deprecating some sources as not GNG-supporting if they exist in non-notable contexts.
   Which is why the examples of musicians and writers and high school athletes that I raised above were not a "distraction" — they are pertinent examples of the kind of people who can, and routinely do, try to claim that the existence of some coverage in non-notable contexts, like playing their first-ever show at their hometown pub or winning a local poetry contest or getting human interest coverage about their recovery from having a toe amputated, is enough to exempt them from actually having to pass the defined notability standards for their occupation just because "media coverage exists and therefore they pass GNG". We see that kind of thing all the time at AFD, but we have an established consensus that GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number", but still requires the context of what the person is getting covered for to at least have some relationship to our subject-specific inclusion criteria for their occupation. This is not some personal standard I'm making up outside of policy, either: it is an established consensus for how notability actually works when it's questioned at AFD.
   And incidentally, even officeholders who do pass NPOL are not actually exempted from having to pass GNG either: they do pass GNG, and we're just not always on the ball about writing and sourcing good articles that accurately reflect their passage of GNG. There is not a single NPOL-holding officeholder on earth who actually can't show GNG-passing sources: the fact that they can show GNG-passing sources, in fact, is precisely the reason why we deem them "inherently" notable at all. NPOL isn't a question of exempting politicians from passing GNG: it exists to try to stop editors from wasting AFD's time on articles that may look bad in their current state, but are repairable because better sources are already known to exist.
3. I did not suggest bad faith; you chose to read that into my words, just as you also choose to read into my words many other things which are not there. This is another example of what I'm talking about when I say I'm not misrepresenting your words: just because you didn't use the words "bad faith" does not mean you did not accuse me of bad faith — because the substance of what you accused me of doing is bad faith actions. An accusation of misrepresenting policy is, by definition, an accusation of bad faith. An accusation of making up my own alternative inclusion standards outside of policy is, by definition, an accusation of bad faith. An accusation of imposing my own value judgements in defiance of policy is, by definition, an accusation of bad faith. Whether you used the words "bad faith" or not, you are inherently accusing me of doing things that are, by definition, bad faith things to do, and just because you didn't use those exact words doesn't mean you didn't do the thing those words mean.
4. Again, Bearcat makes an assertion which is simply false as a a point of fact: see [29], which was 6 months before the general election date was announced. See also [30], post-election. I already addressed the first of those two hits; the fact that it is dated outside of an election campaign does not make it not campaign-related coverage, because the substance of what it is about is her personal opinions on the outcome of the upcoming election. Again, it comes down to the context of what she's getting covered for — and if it's still an election-related context, then it doesn't escape being campaign-related coverage just because the date on it happens to fall outside of the official election period. And as for that second source, it isn't about her at all — she is not its subject, but merely a provider of a 45-word soundbite within an article about the pandemic. A person's notability is not supported by sources in which they merely provide a short quote, but are not in any non-trivial way a central subject of the source. Again, that's not a personal standard that I made up myself — it's part of AFD's established consensus that sources in which the person is merely a giver of soundbite in an article about something other than themselves, but not substantively a subject of the source, do not help to get the person over GNG.
5. This is utter fantasy. The Mayo Advertiser and The Connaught Telegraph are local; they do not have national reach. The fact that they they publish weekly rather than daily does not alter the fact that they are local. (Frequency ≠ Geography. They are separate concepts). You are neither telling me anything I didn't already know, nor contradicting anything I actually said — you are, in fact, doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing: arguing with a strawman in your head instead of with what I actually said. I didn't say Ireland doesn't have local newspapers: I said that the distinction between what gets covered at the local level and what gets covered at the national level doesn't cut in the same place as it does in North America or even the UK — in Ireland, the national elections get covered much more extensively in the national media, so that every candidate in the entire country can virtually always show more evidence of "nationalized" coverage than a similar candidate in Canada or the United States or England might have, simply because the national media is where a much bigger chunk of the election coverage is. That is not the same thing as failing to understand that local and national don't mean the same thing, or that geography and frequency mean different things either.
6. Yet more fanatasy. The reality that is that there are actually 13 seats, none of them nationwide. There are currently three constituencies, each of which has multiple seats: Midlands–North-West (4 seats), South (5 seats), and Dublin (4 seats). You would have known that if you had followed the link I posted before to Midlands–North-West, but again you choose to ignore evidence and assert a falsehood. No, you are going to chalk this up to a dialect difference rather than an error on my part. In my dialect of English, the constituencies are the seats — in my dialect of English, three constituencies electing 13 representatives in a multi-member proportional system is three seats, not thirteen seats, because "seats" is the constituencies rather than the people per se. But regardless of whether we call them "seats" or "constituencies", the substance of my point doesn't actually change: with just three electoral divisions encompassing the entire country, the coverage of a European Parliament election is going to be even more highly nationalized than the coverage of a Dáil Éireann election. I wasn't wrong, we merely speak two slightly different dialects of English that use words in slightly different ways sometimes — and I'd recommend you keep that in mind in the future, because this is not actually the first time you've tried to hang me on an "error" that was entirely explainable as a mere difference of dialect.
7. I'm not going to keep engaging you on the matter of my reputation, except to say that I know perfectly well that I'm not deluded about it. I am not known around here for having a problematic edit history, or for being "bizarrely fact-averse" or "policy-inventing", and the idea that I am is funny at best and teetering on the edge of an outright WP:NPA violation. But that's the last I'm going to say about that, and I'm not engaging on that any further. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC) ::::::So the FUD barage continues [reply]

1. I didn't misrepresent anything, or lay in any false assumptions, and I don't systematically ignore whole bundles of anything.
   Yes, you did, and you still do.
   a) you misrepresented one item from a list of 16 as an attempt to claim that I was making a claim of notability on the basis of one article. A Bearcat fabrication.
   b) You ignored the evidence that she has vastly more coverage that an other candidates, successful or not.
   It's all there above, and if you want to go to ANI, your systematic misrepresentations will be clearly evident.
2. I do not fundamentally misunderstand NPOL at all.
   This would be hilarious if the denialism wasn't so verbosely disruptive. WP:NPOL says explicitly:
   

   Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

   .
   So your repeated references to NPOL are a red herring, and all your verbiage about it is simply your own impressively-creative imaginings.
   the examples of musicians and writers and high school athletes that I raised above were not a "distraction".
   Yes they were, because they were all explicitly bout local coverage, whereas I had presented evidence of McHugh getting exceptional national coverage. Try reading what you actually wrote.
3. An accusation of misrepresenting policy is, by definition, an accusation of bad faith.
   Don't be silly. Misinterpretation can be done in error or bad faith.
4. I already addressed the first of those two hits; the fact that it is dated outside of an election campaign does not make it not campaign-related coverage, because the substance of what it is about is her personal opinions on the outcome of the upcoming election. Again, it comes down to the context of what she's getting covered for — and if it's still an election-related context, then it doesn't escape being campaign-related coverage just because the date on it happens to fall outside of the official election period..
   Another a Bearcat reading comprehension failure. Looks at the two links I posted: [31] and [32]. They are both about formation of a coalition government, rather than about an election campaign. Since Bearcat doesn't seem to understand the difference, let me spell it out: government formation is a process which can happen only after election results are known. It therefore cannot be part of an election campaign.
5. I didn't say Ireland doesn't have local newspapers: I said that the distinction between what gets covered at the local level and what gets covered at the national level doesn't cut in the same place as it does in North America or even the UK — in Ireland, the national elections get covered much more extensively in the national media, so that every candidate in the entire country can virtually always show more evidence of "nationalized" coverage than a similar candidate in Canada or the United States or England might have, simply because the national media is where a much bigger chunk of the election coverage is. That is not the same thing as failing to understand that local and national don't mean the same thing, or that geography and frequency mean different things either..
   The fact that Ireland is not North America is irrelevant, because the guideline makes no reference to North America. Bearcat appears to be assuming that North America sets some sort of baseline against which everything else must be measured, which is a thoroughly POV stance with no foundation in policy or guideline.
   The rest of this is just more of Bearcat's FUD smokescreen to distract from the evidence I posted that McHugh got massively more coverage than candidates who were actually elected.
   This diversion would serve a purpose if it was some sort of game to fill the page with verbose irrelevancies, and hope that the closer gives up in despair. If not, it's a sad illustration of a thoroughly POV attempt to filter the rest of the world through a North American lens.
6. In my dialect of English, the constituencies are the seats.
   Not true. This is not a mater of dialect; it is a matter of different electoral systems. In your county, each constituency has one seat ... whereas in Ireland, each constituency has multiple seats.
   And you failed to distinguish between the electoral system of your own country and that of the country which you have chosen to discuss, thereby stating something which was untrue.
   Note that yet again, you express no regret at all about about your decision to make a false statement ... and instead try to blame me for the fact you wrote something false. Not good conduct.
   the substance of my point doesn't actually change: with just three electoral divisions encompassing the entire country, the coverage of a European Parliament election is going to be even more highly nationalized than the coverage of a Dáil Éireann election.
   This "substance" is another red herring based on a false assumption. The false assumption is your wholly unevidenced trans-Atlantic assertion that there is a difference in the balance of coverage; the reality is that there is is huge local coverage of the Euro elections, and i see no evidence of a centralisation effect. The red herring is that centralisation of coverage is irrelevant, because McHugh got an exceptional amount of coverage.

I'm not going to keep engaging you on the matter of my reputation.
Your conduct here speaks for itself.

I hope that will be an end to this nonsense. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I agree with User:AugusteBlanqui that the nominator did not do a thorough WP:BEFORE. I hope that User:Jnestorius will withdraw this nomination — I had in fact scanned through articles like those BrownHairedGirl has listed; I was unimpressed and won't withdraw the nomination. McHugh is very far from being a household name in Ireland. I agree that she got a notch more election coverage than other candidates with a similar level of votes; she is media-savvy and has a column in thejournal.ie. Per WP:SYN, one article titled "Why is everyone talking about Saoirse McHugh" would be more convincing than 20 talking about Saoirse McHugh. Or maybe doi:10.1080/07907184.2019.1652165 has something substantial. jnestorius^(talk) 01:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@jnestorius I have found precisely nothing in policy which either:

1. allows this dismissal of evidence of sustained significant coverage to be discounted because of a Wikipedia editor's personal observation that a person is media-savvy
2. Requires the existence of article asking Why is everyone talking about her.

Please can you quote the relevant full paragraphs of the policy or guideline which require or suggest this. And no, nme-checking WP:SYN is not valid; SYN is about a wholly different issue, and the relevant policy here is WP:GNG which explicitly requires weighing multiple sources.

And no, she did not a notch more election coverage than other candidates with a similar level of votes; that's a cleverly jesuitical use of words to misrepresent the facts. The evidence which I posted above shows very clearly that shew got many whole-digit multiples more coverage than candidates who got more votes and won a seat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we all agree that WP:GNG is the starting point. WP:GNG says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. That is vague, and the two extreme examples given at WP:GNG don't help much. I When the general guideline is vague, it is legitimate to have recourse to more specific guidelines, like WP:NPOL, that interpret the vague terms for a given context. Sticking to GNG, it seems to refer to quality rather than number. Of all the articles you have listed, there are only two I can see that "address the topic directly" ("Saoirse McHugh selling her Green vision to rural Ireland" and "Rider on the Storm"). Are they "in detail"? I would have though they were both too short for that, but maybe there is precedent you can point to. GNG also says "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. The point about being media-savvy is to explain why she got more of the routine election coverage. If one candidate gets 5 articles and another gets 50 articles that doesn't mean 5 are routine and the other 45 are not. They may all be routine. jnestorius^(talk) 03:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@jnestorius: WP:NPOL does not interpret the vague terms for a given context. It provides an alternative path to notability, but offers no interpretive guidance on GNG. And WP:NPOL explicitly says:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

So just leave NPOL out of it. It does not apply, and refers us back to GNG.

As to the notion of all that substantial coverage about her in serious national newspapers not being "in detail", what do you want? Multi-volume biographies? If GNG required some such of high threshold, it would say so.

And as to this whole "media-savvy" thing, it's a pure invention of yours for which you cite no sources. You are attempting to impose your own hostile value judgement on her media coverage without any evidence. Describing her as "media-savvy" is a polite way of saying "successful attention-seeker", which gives zero credit to the editorial processes of broadsheet journalists and editors whose justification is presumably not just clickbait, but that she has something significant to say. This isn't even WP:OR by you: it is simply prejudicial speculation.

If, as you claim one candidate gets 5 articles and another gets 50 articles that doesn't mean that 5 are routine and the other 45 are not. They may all be routine, esp when most candidates get 5 articles ... then the word "routine" loses all meaning.

Sorry, Jnestorius, but this is sophistry. And its all being done to ensure that an exceptionally high-profile political newcomer is denied an article, by using the most extreme application I have seen of GNG ... while tens of thousands of permastub articles are created on people who entirely bypass any scrutiny because they once played for a few minutes in a single professional ballgame. The evidence is unambiguous that McHugh gets far more coverage in reliable sources (and vastly more "significant coverage") than many of the people for whom NPOL is a bypass to GNG scrutiny.

So what on earth is going on here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Saoirse McHugh is discussed in a recent academic analysis, both in the context of the RTE debate and the inadequacies of public opinion polling:^[1] "In contrast, the big winners were the Green Party, which topped the poll in Dublin, and seemed likely to get all three candidates elected, with McHugh getting 12% of first preferences in MNW and Grace O'Sullivan getting the same in Ireland South. Sinn Féin seemed likely to keep two of its seats, but Lynn Boylan seemed to be in a precarious position in Dublin. This poll, however, did prove to be controversial, especially once results came out, as it underestimated Fianna Fáil and overestimated Green (especially Saoirse McHugh) support." And: "These debates failed to have much of an impact on public engagement with the elections, aside from the performance of the Green Party's Saoirse McHugh in RTÉ's MNW debate on 21 May, in which she challenged Peter Casey's views on immigration. This exchange led to McHugh trending on Twitter and being labelled the ‘unexpected star’ of the debates, with the odds of her winning a seat falling as a result" The lead of the article was written during the European election, after the RTE debate. It should be rewritten now to reflect McHugh's profile as a politician/activist. Which one of the three elections that McHugh contested would the delete votes like to pick for their WP:1E? I also agree with User:BrownHairedGirl that there is substantial coverage of McHugh in national media beyond the converage of her candidicies. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:Politician. Spleodrach (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spleodrach, yes she fails NPOL. But WP:NPOL explicitly says:

  Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

  And per my evidence above, McHugh does meet the GNG, in spades. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She fails GNG as well, she's a serial election loser, that's all. No need to reply further, as I won't read it, like I did not read the huge swathes of text above, because life's too short! Spleodrach (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spleodrach, per NPOL, being a a serial election loser is no bar to passing GNG.

And "fails GNG 'cos I couldn't be bothered to even look at the mountain of evidence" (I paraphrase) is a v poor argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read the excellent arguments put forward by Bearcat, and find myself in total agreement with them. Still a delete !vote from me. Spleodrach (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In between Bearcat's forest of hyperbole and tangents and misrepresentations, their main arguments are:

a) that WP:NPOL applies. That is absurd: it is explicitly refuted in NPOL:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

b) if she accomplishes something more notable ... which is a clear rejection of the WP:GNG, which says

Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity

Yes, the guideline continues:

although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below

Not that wording "may enhance". It does not make such factors a barrier to a topic which has received huge amounts of substantial coverage.

b) that posting 16 instances of articles in reliable sources substantively about McHugh should be dismissed and derided as an attempt to claim that one lone mention in one of those sources is enough. Absurd: no such claim was made or implied.

c) that sustained coverage over the course of three elections and the periods inbetween and after them is WP:BLP1E coverage.

d) coverage outside of an election campaign period is "campaign coverage" even though it is explicitly not about the campaign or the election. Bizarre.

e) that Ireland has no local television., Which is true, but utterly irrelevant.

f) that in European Parliament elections where there are only three nationwide seats. Utter nonsense: there are 13 seats, and none is nationwide.

g) that all candidates get coverage during elections, so it should be discounted. This ignores the evidence that she got way more overage than other candidates, including some who were successful.

Strange that anyone would endorse all that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still refusing to respect my !vote, trying to browbeat me into changing it, and an inability to respect other peoples different positions. Seems you have learnt nothing from your recent desysoping. Sad! Spleodrach (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly made up your mind, so my post was intend to help the closer evaluate your !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange use of the word 'respect'. Konli17 (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - excellent and thorough arguments from BrownHairedGirl, thank you. Konli17 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]