< 10 January	12 January >

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 Bomb the Bass. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Simenon[edit]

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

not seeing how this deserves a separate article from Bomb the Bass Laun chba ller 23:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC),[reply]

Redirect to Bomb the Bass, as they are one and the same, and it is policy to have the article be named what the subject is best known as. (In this case, Bomb the Bass). Puddleglum ^2.0 00:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bomb the Bass, as nothing needs to be said in a separate article since almost all of his history is under the band name. There is no problem with mentioning his occasional outside productions over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, per WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 14 January 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. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goth Lashkari[edit]

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

This article was created in 2014, edited 4 times in the same year and not edited since. The place the article discusses (in a single line on the article) is a small property development in Karachi, Pakistan (according to google) it is not notable and seemingly nothing has ever happened in relation to this place that would make it notable. Theprussian (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 12 January 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 Noldor#Second and Third Ages. Or elsewhere as subsequent discussion may determine. Sandstein 07:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gil-galad[edit]

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

In universe Gil-galad is of course very impoortant, the last High King of the Elves and the leader of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men. The problem is that Tolkien did not write books about that Last Allicance, but about events 3000 years later. The article comes close to quoting all the LotR texts that mention Gil-galad. This is not enough to show notability, and the extensive third party sources are not there. The upcomming LotR TV show may come to show Gil-galad enough to make him notable, but until that day he is not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elrond. The article is sourced to primary sources and an 'essay' that contains nothing but in-universe information and a brief section on how Christopher Tolkien was in a rush when compiling the Silmarillion. Consequently, it fails WP:GNG Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:4C0E:C3EB:4371:B0AF (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noldor#Second and Third Ages. I can find some Google scholar hits for Gil-galad, but nothing substantial enough to build an article out of. Noldor#Second and Third Ages describes the basics about Gil-galad: High King of the Elves, who died fighting Sauron at the end of the Second Age. Hog Farm (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noldor#Second and Third Ages per Hog Farm. Goustien (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noldor#Second and Third Ages I cannot find anything other than a handful of plot summaries. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Per above , redirect to Noldor#Second and Third Ages. Alex-h (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Well I guess you guys are right about the redirect, at least given the current state of the article (though that is not the measure of notability) and Noldor is a fair target. Tom Shippey does in fact devote several pages (pp. 101-106) of The Road to Middle-Earth to the question of why Tolkien should have bothered to create Gil-Galad, answering that he lends depth, hints at elvish language, and creates a pleasurable effect through sound that Tolkien had a lot of theory about (like the sound of "cellar door" (p. 104), if you've seen the Tolkien biopic). In short, Gil-Galad is not unimportant as a key to Tolkien's thought. The article would have been better if something of this had been discussed and reliably cited. I am not sure that Noldor is a good place for that discussion, which might belong in J. R. R. Tolkien's influences, if a man's personal pleasures can be so called. I also suspect that better scholars than me would readily find other reliable sources on Gil-Galad (after all, nobody else noticed Shippey...) I think we are deleting in great haste, and that we may well have cause to repent of much of it in due time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Great haste my left eye. Many of these articles have been tagged as being too in universe for 9 years or more. Wikipedia is being weiged down and made less by its excessive Tolkiencruft. By creating a seperate article each time we find a reference in a reliable source, we end up with a huge number of articles with very few reliable sources and nothing that is well sourced. Some have pointed out that even the article on Gondor lacks much in the way of reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By haste I mean the rate at which articles (and redirects) are being submitted, a point that Carcharoth has made in the Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) discussion. On the sourcing, I completely agree that the way these articles have been written is completely topsy-turvy - it's all in-universe, all plot, all sourced to JRRT, with nary a thought to what would make the articles notable, which is their subjects' often substantial coverage by critics. On emotive phrases like "weighed down" and "Tolkiencruft", I would urge politeness, caution, and restraint. Wikipedia has nearly six million articles, only a very small percentage (much less than 0.05%, I suspect) of them about JRRT's output: the corpse is not weighted down particularly heavily. Tolkien himself loved genealogy, linguistics and constructed languages, maps, mythology and other "fan-crufty" pleasures, and it would be a brave editor indeed who'd suggest any of these were not now major subjects for research and encyclopedic coverage. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

600 Tolkien articles (which would be too many) is 0.01%. I would estimate something more like 200 articles is a more reasonable figure. It all depends on the sourcing of the content and how it is arranged by topics. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the actual direction of these discussions show that I am right, and most people see that we need far fewer articles on Tolkien. One editor complaining about "speed" does not mean we have too much speed. These topics have been given a lot of thought and consideration. For several months. The speed at which these articles were created is the problem, not the speed with which they are being removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not suppose anything we might say would convince you, but it's two editors actually. On being "right", I have several times agreed that we need far fewer articles, and I've indicated with concrete examples here and elsewhere what those better articles would be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, am I correct in assuming that this page is being nominated for deletion because it doesn't met the notability guidelines? Is this the only reason? ARoyalPrincess (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)ARoyalPrincess[reply]

Comment. I'm having some trouble seeing how the above discussion between Chiswick Chap, Johnpacklambert, and Carcharoth relates to this particular deletion. Their debate seems too meta for this venue. I know there is a lot of disagreement over Tolkien content more generally, but I don't see how these points are actionable in this AfD. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:46, 18 January 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. I'm tempted to relist, but that's been done too many times. Essentially, there is a split opinion on whether the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Tolleson[edit]

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

I'm submitting on behalf of an OTRS request, several years after mooted on the Talk Page. It's primarily based on WP:BIODELETE, based on either then or now relatively unknown. They also think they aren't generally notable.

I'm not placing a personal viewpoint, though the above should be counted as a participation, I believe. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @FourViolas, Worm That Turned, and Nyttend: as those who originally participated. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject is notable per WP:NFOOTBALL because he made 30+ professional appearances in the USL First Division with Carolina RailHawks, confirmed by this. Giant Snowman 12:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional career meets SNG and with thirty matches there must be enough coverage out there for the GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep - ~~Comprehensive failure of WP:GNG~~ - Raleigh News & Observer has articles online dating back to 2009, but a search for Jeremy Tolleson produces zero hits. The Cary News doesn't have articles that old online, but Google searches bring up only routine coverage (plus a random blogpost I added to the article and a retirement announcement - which is quite routine in its own right). There is long-standing consensus that narrowly passing (one season is more than what we typically consider, but it's at a very low level of professionalism - arguably not a fully-pro league) the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL shouldn't hold when the article cannot satisfy the GNG. However, as noted below, there are 2 Indy Week articles that have enough coverage between them that I think we can conclude the GNG could be met. Jogurney (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefails GNG. If he passes the football notability that is clearly failed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not really seeing support for GNG, in fact efforts by delete voters seem to indicate sources aren't present. Relisting for now but will delete if no sources satisfying GNG are presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just by a quick Google, I found several sources including [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. There are probably others in print sources if someone wants to look. Any of those would be enough to pass GNG, and there are eight, plus probably more I didn't find. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize Indy Week was a reliable source, but it is. While none of the articles linked above constitute significant coverage in reliable sources (and some are not from RS), I think #1 and #8 together can get us across the GNG line. I'll revise my !vote accordingly. Jogurney (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't think the source GS posted [9] is an RS; no evidence of any editorial oversight, and it looks very blog-ish to me. Of the 8 sources Smartyllama posted, six are from Indy Week (which covers the local Raleigh, North Carolina market). The other two [10] [11] are game reports that have one mention of the player each, so definitely not GNG. Of the six Indy Week sources, I agree with Jogurney that the first and the eighth are the two best (the others are brief mentions). However, they're both written by the same author and published by the same publisher–I don't believe they satisfy the "multiple sources" criteria–this is one source writing about the player twice. And, the eighth source is derivative of a team announcement and quotes the announcement verbatim–almost all of the content about the player comes from the announcement. This is not independent per WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:BASIC; it's derivative of the team announcement, and so the eighth source doesn't satisfy GNG. What's left is the first IndyWeek source, which is basically one author writing one piece for a local weekly online magazine about a player's retirement, and even then, it's not very in-depth. I'm not finding anything searching online, either. I don't see a GNG pass here, or other evidence of notability. – Levivich 04:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Started looking online, and found some older articles referencing him playing in college, and even in high school as well. It's a pretty Wikilawyered argument the net sum of all these sources doesn't meet GNG, despite NFOOTBALL being met. Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Nfitz: claims to have found older articles about the subject's HS and college career, so one more week is needed to assess them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 22:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on sources found and linked by above commenters, this appears to pass WP:GNG, and with it, WP:NFOOTBALL. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Glad for the relist. Concerning the "net sum" of sources, six Indy Week sources, along with 3 on the article, count as one towards notability as do the two by the same editor, so the statement "...there are 2 Indy Week articles that have enough coverage between them that I think we can conclude the GNG could be met" does not take this into account. I am having some possible browser issues as I couldn't get the cciw.org source to load and the sportsengine.com source came back with "Error: Page Not Found". The three Indy Week loaded fine but the triangledowntowner.com returned "That page seems to be missing or the link was mistyped. Please try again.", and I don't think anyone else mentioned having these issues. Of the eight sources provided above (aside from the 6 Indy Week), wralsportsfan.com has two passing mentions, "...because the backline of Jeremy Tolleson, Devon McKenney, Brad Rusin and John Gilkerson hadn’t played together yet this season.", and the subjects name mentioned under "LINEUPS" and "CAUTIONS". The spokesman.com source simply states "Rigby opened the scoring in the 29th minute on a pass from Jeremy Tolleson.", which may be great for content but "WP:Grasping at straws" to advance notability. I need to check to make sure I am not having site loading issues but also to see where these "other sources" are because a presumption of notability must still be supported by sources. "30+ professional appearances" does not advance notability automatically or inherently but I do think there should be sources out there. As a BLP the sourcing is supposedly held to a higher standard and that is currently severely lacking. Otr500 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon Project[edit]

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

Non notable musical band that have not been discussed with in-depth in significant coverage in reliable sources. Each member of the band falls short of WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Needleman (photographer)[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer who fails WP:CREATIVE. Most of the citations don't even contain passing mentions of Needleman—just his name in a photo credit. The best sources are this, which consists entirely of an interview with no original reporting, and this, a profile from a small show he exhibited at. The only other decent source I could find through Google was this—not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have enough here to show that he passes WP:CREATIVE. His work has been featured in major media. He would appear important enough as a photographer that he gets the call to photograph major stars. We have enough here for WP:BARE Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I'm not convinced by this rationale. While being published in major media might indicate a pass of WP:CREATIVE criterion 3, we also need to take into account the second part of the criterion: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Given the lack of independent reviews of Needleman's work and lack of representation in major exhibitions and museums, I don't think WP:CREATIVE is met in this case. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That a commercial photographer's work has been published isn't sufficient to establish notability. If we were to accept that reasoning, then all published journalists, writers, photographers and illustrators would be notable. We need to see evidence that work about David Needleman has been published, not simply work by David Needleman. Pburka (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CREATIVE is a guideline. I think some other editors will be along soon to render an opinion. Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search found no significant coverage of the subject. 14 of the 16 article sources are there largely to confirm that he has done one photo job or another (photographed for X, photographed for Y). This is threfore a fail of all our notability guidelines, as in-depth coverage does not exist in multiple reliable sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is clearly a prominent and successful photographer, but he is not notable by the Wikipedia definition in WP:GNG. The fact that he photographs high profile figures/events does not make him notable (notability is not inheritable). We have plenty of sources that were created by him (photo credits on his work) but essentially no sources about him -- the kind of material that we would need in order to write a high quality biography with verifiable details. Michepman (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails each of the four criteria of WP:CREATIVE; fails WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Heavily refbombed article that was created by an editor who repeatedly dodged requests to disclose COI/UPE due to promotional editing concerns. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I really would love to keep this, but the sources I see are photographs by him, and don't even discuss him. FWIW, we're three or four degrees of separation via his husband, Evan, and his friend Todd. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 14 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Tijerina Jr.[edit]

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

Aside from the fact that this article is terribly written, Tijerina and the crime have received little to no meaningful coverage and there is only some minor fanfare now due to a Netflix documentary being released. This fails WP:NCRIME and I'd guess NMURDERER if that were a real thing. Praxidicae (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the "horribly written" paragraphs. Ehh, I admit, It is really shitty. But I did my research the best I can. And by that, I mean I just remembered some things from the documentary and looked up some news articles about him. At least there is some reliable sources, not shit from random websites.

User:Junkrak January 11, 2020 21:36pm (UTC)

I beg to differ re:"the fix" but that's another matter. A local crime (or criminal) that has received virtually no meaningful outside coverage isn't notable. Praxidicae (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Praxidicae; the article is still a mess from a writing standpoint. The very first sentence contains a typo: Benny Tijerina Jr. is the murder. The topic is clearly unnotable per WP:NOTNEWS. Michepman (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Parts of the case could possibly be saved and then merged with Henry Lee Lucas#Discredited as an example. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Terrible, but this is not what we're about. No ongoing coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For now. Re-create if more information and coverage becomes available. But for now it does not cover WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1EVENT. The way the article is written is felonious on its own accord ("perroll," anyone?) sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 09:02, 18 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slugterra slugs[edit]

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

Trivial topic to start with, then zero sourcing. TV FANCRUFT, might be on a cartoon Wikia at best. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially one of the non-notable "List of races in show X" that get deleted regularly. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list doesn't act as a necessary split or establish its own notability. TTN (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All fancruft and original research. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:46, 13 January 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. Sandstein 07:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Young-chul (lawyer)[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer. Some minor coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abishe (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Korean article contains many more sources and a spread of focus much broader than the Samsung slush fund case. I'm on the fence about whether any establish his independent notability, as they still focus primarily on legal difficulties and short career announcements (that arguably would not be noticed if not for his tenure at Samsung during the era leading up to restructuring), but I wanted to point others to them for review. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritwik Mallik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable writer. no coverage to be found. Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am Unsure about notability of this young author. There are claims that this person wrote two best sellers - but I cannot find evidence of that. Also, if his books are Amazon Best Sellers, they will not automatically pass WP:NBOOK. I also have not found any in depth RS of this person. I think he fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. It seems like WP:PROMO. Lightburst (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The subject was not notable 10 years ago, and still isnt. Subject fails general notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage of them. Also, the subject fails notability guidelines for authors. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last AfD, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:MILL. I note that there's zero reviews in newspapers available. Lots of people write books; most are not notable. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 14 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BrandLaureate Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable business award from a non-notable organization. The page, heavily edited by single-purpose accounts, is nothing more than native advertising. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified, as interested parties, the top contributors by various measures (other than those already notified or indef blocked), namely: Aeacus10, Biwom, Derek R Bullamore, Dl2000, GrahamHardy, Lopifalko, Prisencolin, SoWhy, and Tbl2018. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians, I have single handedly wrote this because I've been studying about this organization and understanding them for some time now. If you google "The BrandLaureate" you are surely able to find many other supporting media, websites, etc that cover and speak about The BrandLaureate. In my proposed Wiki entry for The BrandLaureate, I've careful written the article in such that portrays what The BrandLaureate is about, what are they doing, what have they done, who have they dealt with and what is in the current pipeline of their notable works in the near future. This company not only recognizes souls that contribute to the world by awarding them, they do so much for CSR and Charity all in all and has a heavy weight title as an organization in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, South Korea, Australia, China, Thailand etc. I am trying to garner legit support from people who think that this should remain on Wikipedia and have its own space here. Do give me some time and I will update this section with more concrete citation/references regarding The BrandLaureate.Aeacus10 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aeacus10, "garner legit support from people who think that this should remain on Wikipedia". I caution you: please do not ask people to come and join this discussion solely to vote "keep". That will be seen as Meatpuppetry and is strongly looked down on. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional junk that fails ...well I'm not sure there's a specific guideline here but it certainly fails WP:GNG. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally as the Author, I've studied this organization(for almost 2 years) and realize that they deserve a wiki space here. With their awards, contributions and social works to society around the world, they're notable and relevant to be on Wikipedia. I have further furnished below with more relevant links for notability/references from reliable 3rd party media sources.Aeacus10 (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BrandLaureate that carries out the mission and vision of The World Brands Foundation should have a wikipedia page because over the past 15 years, the brandlaureate awards sole mission is to inspire individuals from all walks of life, the brandlaureate doesn't just give out awards to inspire the awardees but also gives hope and inspiration to everyone that has a dream to succeed in their field of expertise, helping entrepreneurs to step up in becoming who they are meant to be, the brandlaureate awards is like a movement and a testament to individuals to be a better version of themselves. As for the recipients of The BrandLaureate Awards themselves, the award is a testament to their brand and motivates them to uphold their brand story, https://www.olympicchannel.com/en/stories/news/detail/lee-chong-wei-mentorship-role-offer-lim-king/ thus The BrandLaureate needs to be on wikipedia to continue shining light on every individuals.Thebrandlaureatewiki (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC) :— User:Thebrandlaureatewiki has made no other edits outside this topic. --[reply]

Keep Where The BrandLaureate is concerned, we have to take into consideration that they are the only brands and branding foundation and they are a catalyst in their field. Besides championing the Awards and branding, The BrandLaureate is also giving back to the community with their active CSR programs. One of many notable programme can be dated back to November 2018 when they co-hosted the biggest charity run in Malaysia with the Onn Jaafar Institute. The run recorded a new record high of 40,000 participants, the highest in the country https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2017/11/304679/running-name-charity-and-unity-mur-2017 Tbl2018 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC) — User:Tbl2018 has made no other edits outside this topic. --[reply]
Keep We should have the Brand Laureate Awards Wikipedia page because the organization has been instrumental in advancing branding, not just in Malaysia but in Asia and beyond. The awards not only pays homage to successful brands in the region but also provides a platform for industry professionals to take their personal and company branding to greater heights. And as a Malaysian, I am proud of the achievement and stellarcast that our country has produced and awarded rightfully for their record. https://says.com/my/news/malaysians-who-won-awards-and-achievements-that-made-us-proud-in-2019 Abrightstar (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC) — User:Abrightstar has made no other edits outside this topic. --[reply]

Hi Captain Eek, could you kindly point out which part seems to be violating the notability guide lines. I am attending to get more references and citations regarding this organization. The edit at first may look very "gloaty" but in truth this is what this organization is about. Hope to receive constructive criticisms to try and make this organization WikiApproved! :) Thank you.

The notability guidelines require significant coverage of the subject by multiple reliable and independent sources. Such sources do not seem to exist for this subject, which is why it is not notable. Wikipedia does not write about everything. Notability is our way of creating a standard for what we should cover. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Eek Hi these are some additional reference/notability links that we have:- https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/teh-hong-piow-lim-kok-wing-bag-brandlaureate-lifetime-achievement-awards https://chinapress.com.my/?p=1750488 https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/bernama-wins-two-world-brands-foundation-awards http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news/145364/award-for-sabah-s-fish-king-/ | https://www.theborneopost.com/2019/12/21/sabah-fish-king-receives-worlds-most-prestigious-award/ https://www.theborneopost.com/2019/12/19/naim-wins-brandlaureate-iconic-brand-of-the-decade/ https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2019/11/01/leong-hup-international-wins-two-awards-at-brandlaureate-best-brands-awards https://www.sinchew.com.my/content/2019-04/01/content_2031508.html https://www.bishijie.com/kuaixun/465550.html https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/SOHSosa53TUHY80enc3brQ

I can't seem to re-edit anything after I have submitted for the final draft which has now lead to this deletion page. There is also a downfall that this organization has gone through and I would like to include that in the article as well. How can I do this? Shall I wait for it to be all deleted and then re-write and re-submit again?Aeacus10 (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Struck blocked socks. Worldbruce (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment In an effort to avoid deletion, the sockpuppets have renamed the article from "The BrandLaureate Awards" to "The BrandLaureate". They copied and pasted the content of Draft:The BrandLaureate, rejected last week at Articles for Creation, thereby changing the focus of the page from the awards to the organization that gives them. It fails WP:NCORP. Churnalism is not the foundation for an encyclopedia article.

Given their past persistence in trying to raise the profile of the organization and its awards, and the likelihood that undeclared paid editors will continue to do so, I recommend salting the topics after deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though this is an interesting case, I am voting delete. While there are a ton of sources that mention the awards (normally along the lines of "X wins/awarded BrandLaureate for Y), there is an exceeding lack of substantive, in-depth coverage about the awards themselves. The awards (and the organization that awards them) should not inherit undue notability from people/companies it has granted an award to. Combine this with the promotional intent of the article (WP:NOTADVOCACY), and I do not see the topic as suitable for Wikipedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 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 List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Tone 21:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grimlock (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to establish notability. Seems to be some OR or just an unrelated item under the first header for some reason. TTN (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More DnD fancruft that fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per User:Lightburst. JIP | Talk 10:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few non-primary sources being used here are either not even referring to the D&D creatures, or are discussing them in-universe only. There is nothing indicating that this would pass the WP:GNG. I'm not convinced how useful as a redirect this would be either, and typing in the entire string would be a fairly unlikely search term, and people just searching for "Grimlock" would likely be looking for information on the considerably more notable Transformers character. Rorshacma (talk) 23:34, 12 January 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo the Mechanical Bastard[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extreme comic cruft that fails GNG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, this is one of the worst examples of fancruft that I have ever seen. Gonzo is a non-notable comic book character who is barely notable from an in-universe perspective. I assume that this article has only survived because of its subject's obscurity. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced only to comic books, and my attempts to find mentions in reliable sources led to finding absolutely nothing to support having an article on this. Agree with User:Susmuffin, this article is possibly the worst fancruft article I've seen. Hog Farm (talk) 21:43, 17 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jing Cao[edit]

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

Non-notable associate professor. scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 12:16, 14 January 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. Tone 21:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pitar Ason[edit]

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

Failed WP:NFP, WP:NFSOURCES Bbemoni (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are added. The film is the first released film of Nipun Akter. The film is also selected for preservation in Bangladesh Film Archive. It passes WP:NFILM.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:18, 14 January 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. Tone 21:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute of Legal Studies[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It does, indeed, exist, but I cannot find any reliable secondary sources in English. If there are some in Arabic, the I'd reconsider. Missvain (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject fails notability criteria for organisations, as well as general notability criteria. It is just another college that exists. @Sarah Pakistan mostly uses Urdu, and Punjabi language —usernamekiran(talk) 06:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAH. Thank you for correcting me and reminding me of my need to brush up on my linguistics. Thank you and my apologies if I offended any Pakistani Wikipedians. Missvain (talk) 06:36, 18 January 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 Bengal cat. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal Cat[edit]

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

These are two unrelated topics: a Leopard cat is a wild animal and a Bengal cat is a domestic cat. In addition per WP:D this disambiguation page is not needed and actually causes more confusion for the reader. Lightburst (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The Leopard cat article does not belong at this disambig page - there is only one mention of the phrase 'Bengal cat' in that article, and both our assertion and the source supporting it make it clear that the Bengal cat and the Leopard cat are different things. Absent the Leopard cat article, there would only be one article on the disambig page - so, no need for it to exist. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the Redirect below - it is of course a plausible capitalisation. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bengal cat in case a user thinks the name is a proper noun and capitalizes cat too? Hog Farm (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bengal cat per Hog Farm. While I wouldn't advocate the creation of this redirect, since the page is already here I'd just redirect and tag with ((R from miscapitalisation)). – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I notice that Leopard Cat already exists as the result of a page move. There appears to be some variance on whether "cat" is capitalized—compare [12][13][14][15]—so there's a good case for redirecting this page as well. Perhaps ((R from other capitalisation)) would be more appropriate? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Perhaps these could have been redirected without the need for AfD. Lightburst (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bengal cat. Despite an early proposal to use Felis bengalensis, the leopard cat is not known as a "Bengal Cat". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:24, 15 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Story of a Woman[edit]

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

Does not follow WP:NFILM as far as I can tell - no awards, only one substantial review in the LA times, a google search reveals only similarly named films. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC) I would argue it is still a feature from a major Hollywood studio with stars that was theatrically released. Dutchy85 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ exercising WP:AGF the article has numerous offline reliable sources references and if there is a substantial review in the LA Times there should be more reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing a number of hits on Newspapers.com and adequate sources in the article now. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: There are film reviews quoted in the references by The Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, the Times Herald werldwayd (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found not only a review but other coverage in Variety. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to full Keep in view of the extra reviews such as Variety that has been added to the article, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 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. Tone 21:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fa11out[edit]

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

GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep article because they have some press coverage. There might be some major edits for sure. Obviously they exist and they are active in many thing mentioned in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.234.110 (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of the sources provided are independent, reliable and provide significant coverage. Therefore it's a likely music notability and general notability failure. SITH (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With multiple reliable secondary sources passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient reliable sources appear to exist to warrant an article per WP:NMUSIC. ——SN 54129 18:39, 15 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Al-Ammari[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm.Anbans 585 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:40, 12 January 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. Tone 21:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Figueroa García[edit]

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

This appears to be a long term PR piece/possible autobio with a lot of unsupported claims. Further, a search doesn't reveal much (anything) in the way of actual coverage Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does indeed read more like a PR piece than anything else, and the sourcing is thin.TH1980 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 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 merge to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Sandstein 07:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Black Police[edit]

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

The Hong Kong police have become either heros or hate figures depending on your political viewpoint. It is an unescapable fact that this article an attempt at concretising the vilification of the police for their overzealous actions and corrupt practices during the 2019 Hong Kong protests. There is nothing inherently special about the term "black cop", which is a common expression in the western world, and is widely used to criticise overzealous police officers, the existence of this article, particularly in the context of the HK protests undoubtedly violates WP:NPOV; it is an attack page just like the ones for Rupert Dover and Lau Chak-kei‎ which were both deleted as just that. In addition, I fail to see how the first AfD debate closed as "no consensus", but anyway sufficient time has now passed to re-evaluate the situation. As WP is not a soapbox, I nominate this article for deletion. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 15:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is entirely an issue of neutrality. Just because an epithet is used to express a single political viewpoint doesn't mean we cannot cover it neutrally. However, there is still a notability issue. As explored in the last debate, though this term is used in Chinese-language media, sources lack in-depth coverage of the term itself. I think per WP:RNEUTRAL, a redirect to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests would be appropriate. Perhaps even a merge would be appropriate, to a new section Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Terminology and epithets. Does either alternative to deletion sound workable? BenKuykendall (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This term is widely used in Hong Kong and actually originated long before the 2019 protests. There's plenty of media coverage of this term and incidents related to this term. While the term itself is not neutral, we can definitely cover it in a neutral manner; to refuse to cover a notable non-neutral topic is to practice censorship. Same article has been nominated for deletion and merger (to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Terminology and epithets) on Chinese Wikipedia, but was eventually kept as is. -- 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐲 𝐌𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐚 （Talk） 05:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has only increased since the last AfD discussion where I argued for "keep". Sources published since that AfD cover the origin of the term (e.g. SCMP) and the usage of the term (e.g. Ming Pao). This is in compliance with WP:NEO: cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. feminist (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the SCMP article is an opinion piece and so shouldn't really count towards WP:GNG by WP:RSEDITORIAL. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSEDITORIAL also states that The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Per SCMP's description, Lisa Lim was formerly Associate Professor and Head of the School of English at the University of Hong Kong. As an article written by a subject-matter expert, the SCMP article is reliable. feminist (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Terminology and epithets or something similar: Looking at the sources in the article and doing a WP:BEFORE search in both English and Chinese, I don't actually see significant coverage by reliable sources for WP:GNG (although I found this article from what looks like a Master's degree course/magazine?). I see several passing mentions from reliable sources that verifies that the term exists, but WP:NEO probably applies. New sources could change my mind. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests per WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK. -Zanhe (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, which is the actual topic here. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 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) feminist (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defunctland[edit]

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

Name-dropped in a few clickbait/listicle articles like Mashable and AV Club, or passing mentions in the greater context of defunct amusement parks. Coverage does not appear to be substantial in any way.Rest of the footnotes are primary or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: ummm... no {Mashable is reliable and it has an IMDb page. https://kotaku.com/defunctland-investigates-how-and-why-theme-parks-die-1828974088 https://scifipulse.net/kevin-perjurer-on-exploring-theme-park-histories-and-his-future-book-defunctland-guide-to-the-magic-kingdom/ please delete this.Coasterdude1 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coasterdude1: I didn't say Mashable is unreliable, just that the coverage is trivial fluff. Same with Kotaku and Sci Fi Pulse, it's just lightweight listicle articles like that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: it is a YouTube channel and there is no lightweight articles on the internet. So what do you want me to do? Why don’t you help us make the Wikipedia page better?Coasterdude1 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sci Fi Pulse article is an interview and therefore a primary sources. Please read this page and deduce what constitutes significant coverage. Most of what's already in the article is just articles in the broader scope of abandoned amusement parks name-dropping him as but one of many people who cover the topic; the rest are just fluff pieces that also name-drop in passing. So far only the Kotaku source seems to be anywhere close to reliable. Having a YouTube channel doesn't confer notability, as I have one. Having an IMDb page doesn't confer notability, as guess what, I have one of those too. "There is no lightweight articles on the Internet" is a lie, because terms like "listicle" exist. Stuff like "10 best websites about amusement parks" doesn't translate to notability for the sites listed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coasterdude1. There was also some coverage of their coverage on the Muppets. [16] [17] [18]. ミラ P 20:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Those are about the Muppets in general, and only passingly about Defunctland. They just name-drop it passingly as a reference. They aren't specifically about Defunctland, just content it's covered. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Thank you for helping me. I think that wikipedia need to change there rules to over 6 months only admin can only put a page up for deletion.Coasterdude1 (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The refs from Mashable, AV Club, SyFyWire, Kotaku and Study Breaks are all articles that are specifically about Defunctland as a website. None of them are listicles. The Study Breaks article specifically analyzes what makes Defunctland different from similar videos. These are clearly coverage of the website in secondary sources; I don't think they should be dismissed as "fluff pieces" just because the coverage is positive. Toughpigs (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Why did you relisted? Please tell me? And don't give me the wikipedia answer. Thank you.Coasterdude1 (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the "Wikipedia answer" I'm not supposed to give you is, so I cannot reply. Sandstein 16:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Seems like there's just about enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Mashable, Syfy, Kotaku, AV Club, Gizmodo, Scifi Pulse, Boing Boing, Study Breaks... Some of these are better than others (general coverage of the channel as opposed to one video, different lengths, different levels of quality), and indeed they're all blog posts, which isn't ideal, but it seems like it adds up to a weak keep to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The characterization of sources like Mashable and AVClub as “clickbait/listicles” seems unfair and misrepresentative; these and other above sources have specifically written articles about Defunctland, not just clickbait lists that happen to include it. With added documentation of Gizmodo, Kotaku, etc. coverage (also above) it appears to have sufficient notability and coverage in reliable sources. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:05, 11 January 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. WP:REFUND applies. Catorce2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indef. Sandstein 07:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allama Iqbal Polytechnic Institute[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Requires more citations and content to meet WP:GNG at least. Catorce2016 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 11 January 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. Sandstein 07:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courting Condi[edit]

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

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Bromance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Doggart, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi, it looks like this is a WP:Walled garden of WP:SOAP. I think this film fails WP:NFILM in spite of an attempt to make it look like it has achieved notoriety. Note that the sources are all very subpar and most are not reliable for the purposes of establishing notability. jps (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep appears to have garnered a couple of reviews and other coverage. Its not a lot (and certainly not enough for an article of this size) buts it may just pass.Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won multiple awards (see movie's awards page on IMDb). Shearonink (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these are "major" awards. jps (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number 3 in NFO is not the only measurement of notability. And I said multiple awards. Shearonink (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What measurement says, "multiple awards"? jps (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film does not meet our inclusion criteria for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film with more than enough good press mentions from reliable sources, but we really need to clean up the overly long resume-like content. May be somewhat promotional but looks inherently notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this movie the same as the now-deleted "...Condi/Neo-Condi" and the "Bromance" films? The subject-matter sure sounds the same. Shearonink (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've been able to find, there is some (perhaps even a great deal of?) recycled footage, but my understanding from IMDB that they were released as three separate films. jps (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The claim is that the film has won multiple awards and received notice in the press. The awards listed are at relatively minor film festivals or they are for minor awards at middle-of-the-road festivals. There is a reason that WP:NFILM asks for major awards as a criterion. There are many other films who won at those festivals who lack Wikipedia articles and rightly so. As for press mention, the best I can see is that there was some kerfuffle press over the screening of this film at various universities. But these publicity stunts don't really make the film itself that notable. Couple this with the obvious WP:SOAP problems and I remain unconvinced that this film deserves an article on Wikipedia as I don't see a way for us to actually write a neutral and decently-sourced standalone article on it. jps (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, speedy delete as advocacy and attack page on Rice. There is a difference between a NPOV account of a notable film that is notable because of its advocacy, and an article about the film devoted to repeated and highlighting its advocacy. Rice is of course a public figure, and WP coverage of even the most negative comments on her is appropriate -- in its place, which is however not here. The place for brief coverage of the film is the artile on the filmamker, which should not have been nominated for deletion. We need to maintain some negree of balance. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious as to why you believe that "highlighting its advocacy" is a title problem, rather than a content problem? Anarchangel (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. Although DGG has expressed concerns about the POV of the article, the film itself is notable and clearly meets WP:NFILM. The Starring and Music by sections in the infobox clearly show a lot of blue links to notable actors and other notable people in the film industry, and so are the awards. Looks like a good keep candidate to me. Placing a POV tag on top would be good if you disagree with the film, but POV is clearly different from notability. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:35, 13 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Abercorn[edit]

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

NO mention of notability whatsoever. Further, notability is not inherited either. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The extensive reference section includes several secondary sources (British peerages) which can be examined online, and provide, in my judgment "significant coverage". (That is, they're not just list entries, but discuss his profession of Roman Catholicism and his debts, key life events, which are supplemented here from other sources.) As a peer and member of a national legislature, he also has a presumption of notability, but that's beside the point given the sourcing here. I suggest the nominator carefully read WP:GNG before filing future AfDs, because the nominating statement shows a lack of understanding of that guideline and how to evaluate articles according to it. Choess (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a peer and member of a national legislature, he also has a presumption of notability, but that's beside the point given the sourcing here. Pure malarkey. This shows no notability, and as far as peerage, how about WP:BIOFAMILY which seems to apply here. The page currently shows that he's from nobility and a peer, neither of which confers notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As far as GNG, it states the subject needs independent reliable sources, this article shows family lines of genealogy gathered on archive.org with no way of verifying the actual website contained that information at all, and genealogy isn't independent. No disrespect to the individual himself, but notability isn't inherited, which is what this article is trying to state. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word, because he passes the WP:GNG: he has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The Complete Peerage, Burke's Peerage, and The Scots Peerage are all standard works of reference on the British nobility; they are published books, and scans from the portions that are out-of-copyright are available on archive.org. (They are not "family lines of genealogy gathered on archive.org".) They were compiled by various genealogists who were not employed by, members of, or otherwise specially connected with the Hamilton family, so they are independent in the sense used by the GNG. If the information about him was strictly genealogical (dates of birth, death, and marriage, and names of family) I would agree that the case for "significant coverage" is weak, but as the entries in the peerages have further biographical details about religion and finances, which are expanded by the other sources in the article, I think this rises above the "trivial mention" referred to in the GNG.

As a Scots peer, he was entitled to sit and vote in the Parliament of Scotland. Precedent in en.wikipedia is that because of their role in the national legislature, peers in the UK countries are presumed to be notable by virtue of WP:NPOL, but I prefer to to make my case on subject-specific notability guidelines when I don't have to.

I think your feeling that people shouldn't be considered important or notable by virtue of being born into the right family is quite reasonable, but up until 1999, this group of people was endowed with actual legislative power in the UK. Whether or not this was just, it happened, and it made them a subject of interest and research and reliable sources were written about them. Therefore, they're a legitimate subject for Wikipedia. That's why peers have generally been considered notable at AfD (I've scanned a number of AfDs for peers from 2007-2016), despite a very genealogical flavor to their articles, whereas a series of articles about successive members of an American family would probably get deleted unless proof of notability was provided for each individual. (By contrast, baronets generally get redirected to a list unless they're independently notable by virtue of the WP:GNG, a consensus we came to here about 12 years ago; there are reference works like the peerages describing them, but the information for most of them is almost purely genealogical—they had no legislative privileges—so they usually fail the "trivial mention" test unless they're covered by other sources.) Choess (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability isn’t automatic because of his rank, but there is enough detail about his life covered in sufficient independent sources to make him notable for our purposes. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with users Choess and Mccapra who have so well argued the case. Johannes Schade (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - earls were a big deal in 17th century politics. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources.NotButtigieg (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He would have been a member of the Scottish Parliament by virtue of his peerage. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per all above. There is massive precedent on Wikipedia for all British peers to be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the comments above that he is clearly notable. As a senior peer, he was an important figure and, as the article indicates to an extent, his religious stance meant he had prominence during his lifetime. Dunarc (talk) 21:58, 15 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Shields[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Being drafted in the NFL Draft does not create an assumption of notability, and I cannot find any significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wide receiver for an FCS team (Richmond), but no accomplishments of the type needed to pass WP:NCOLLATH. Drafted by the Oakland Raiders, but he never appeared in a regular season NFL game. (See here). Accordingly, he does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Finally, my searches found this, but not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 is routine high school football game coverage that briefly mentions one play Shields made. Source 3 mentions Shields for two sentences as a Raiders draft pick. Source 4 briefly mentions Shields was placed on injured reserve as routine transactional coverage. Source 5 is from an SBNation Raiders blog that mentions Shields ran a fast 40-yard-dash at the combine. The first source is the best one, but seems to be more of an advertisement for his realty services than a real news article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Editorofthewiki's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Eagles247's source analysis above. SportingFlyer T·C 01:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the article as written and the sources provided above. The sources provided seem to be either transactional in nature (which we typically ignore for notability) or an "and finally" type article (that we also ignore for notability). Players such as this one have achieved notability and while he certainly could be notable, we really need to see the evidence in some sort of independent third party article collection.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:24, 15 January 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. The sources given are mostly not independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of this person. RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chuan zhi[edit]

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

Searching "Chuan Zhi", "Shì Chuán Zhi" "釋傳智" "释传智" gives no results wrt coverage at all. Eyeofchan.org is the primary source for this article and it's also not reliable, independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see responses in the page's talks page, and on - talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to the paid editing inquiry is unrelated to my nomination reason, which has not changed. Praxidicae (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Too bad, would make for an interesting article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same reason as my PROD – fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR with only one book with two minor reviews. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

His book (removed since it was controversial to have it on the page) has only recently been published. It may become a significant book in time, but for now it does not seem that way. But I used the Kirkus review as a citation for the person of Chuan Zhi
I agree searching Searching "Chuan Zhi", "Shì Chuán Zhi" "釋傳智" "释传智" gives few other results, but since this is a lineage someone I have met knows someone who has met Chuan Zhi in person. All three of us are in discussion on email. There is little use sending you the emails: the email addresses are 'gmail type' accounts. Not verifiable.
I'm pretty sure I've added this citation: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/2854539040/ since this discussion began. It isn't much, but it is something.

Brofitable (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the Internet Archive has an archive of that Flickr page from 2017, so I've used that: https://web.archive.org/web/20170711165723/https://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/2854539040/

Brofitable (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a flickr page archived or not is completely irrelevant and does not lend itself to notability. And emails can't be used to source anything. Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or merge: Request to address, improve, resolve the following pages in this order Jy Ding > Chuan zhi > Koro Kaisan Miles > Michael Pockley as the way one is resolved may affect the next.Brofitable (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – article subject doesn't appear to meet GNG or any SNG. – Levivich 17:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I understand how dharma names are given in this lineage, and have access to the relevant tonsure poem, I was able to conduct a better web search here, for Jy Ding, and for Hsu Yun Temple. Several new citations added to each. Zenothing (talk) 11:49, 18 January 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 Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee. Nobody seems to care much one way or the other... Sandstein 07:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cognizance IIT Roorkee[edit]

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

Still promotional and not notable. And mostly a copyvio. Praxidicae (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a copyvio, what is being copied, please. Specific sources are needed to evaluate any such claim. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start with https://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090323/dun.htm#6 from which a paragraph is copied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Graeme Bartlett. I have edited that, but note that lists of facts, in a natural order, such as alphabetical or chronological, are not protected by copyright. This item seems to consist of two such lists. I am looking for and dealing with other copied content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I see that this article was moved out of draftspace by its creator, thus escaping the AfC process. If returned to AfC, and allowed to ...uh...ferment with the guidance of AfC, it could overcome its promotional issues. I would also support a redirect to Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, since they are WP:CHEAP. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 11 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on Knight Rider[edit]

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

Indiscrimiate list of guest stars (i.e. quite a few are non- or redlinked), fails WP:LISTN. I'll argue that this information is better suited for the episode lists, but it is only there for the first few episodes in Knight Rider (season 1). I am reluctant to merge the actor names there, as I don't know if they were actually billed as "guest stars" in the episodes, or if the list creator just copied the data here from IMDb. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Come on! A list of guest actors on Knight Rider?!! It doesn't get more WP:INDISCRIMINATE than this! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is better material for a fan Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 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 The Screen Savers. Sandstein 07:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests appearing on The Screen Savers[edit]

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

26 guests stars, some of them not even having wiki articles, appear on a TV show with 1300 episodes. Seems to fail WP:LISTN. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC) – sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to The Screen Savers. Merge any information relevant there whenever. Dream Focus 15:51, 11 January 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. Tone 21:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents guest stars[edit]

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

Contested prod. My prod rationale was "Fails WP:NOTDIR, redundant to List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mission: Impossible guest stars (A–M) (2nd nomination)." (Many other guest star lists have been deleted since.) The prod contester said to take this to AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this is a pointless list because the information is in the episode lists for this show which does a better job of displaying it in a relevant useful manner. Dream Focus 15:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:REDUNDANT it is already here as the nominator has stated List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 11 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The West Wing cast members[edit]

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

Contested prod. My prod rationale was "Fails WP:NOTDIR, redundant to List of The West Wing characters for the notable cast. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bad Girls cast members." (Many more link-dumpy cast member lists have been deleted since.) The prod was contested because "needs discussion, as WP does not necessarily follow precedent". – sgeureka ^t•c 12:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For WP:NOTDIR and clear redundancy with List of The West Wing characters (and Redirect to that page), which contains more encyclopedic information about both characters and cast members playing them. No point trying to make this page more encyclopedic when one serving the purpose already exists. Arguing precedent wasn’t followed on another page sounds like whataboutism. If policy needs to be better followed elsewhere, it should be debated (and followed) there, not ignored here. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:REDUNDANT it is already here List of The West Wing characters Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Whilst there's nothing wrong with this list per-se, I feel that this information would be better catalogued in the form of a category rather than as a separate article. And, as already stated, much of this information is already included in List of The West Wing characters. This therefore makes the article WP:REDUNDANT. Rillington (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous AfD: This list does not follow the MOS:TVCAST format and there is no criteria in each list denoting the importance of each cast member in the show. Ajf773 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 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. Sandstein 11:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthest Thing[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it is far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians and hasn't won any awards. There is just a bunch of charts and it takes more than that to meet the criteria, there isn't a single piece talking about this song only. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFILM as it has ranked number 56 on the US Billboard Hot 100. Catorce2016 (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a hit single. Per Catorce2016. Missvain (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, charted in several countries, certified platinum, has at least one valid source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TPH. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The song has been discussed in the following sources which may be helpful for expanding this article further: NPR, Complex, Revolt, Complex again, ABC News, The Globe and Mail, Billboard, and the Chicago Tribune. My primary issue with these sources are they mention the song as part of a larger album review, but they do a decent amount of commentary on the individual song. Only the NPR source is specifically about the song. That holds me back from putting up a keep vote, but I thought this might be beneficial to the discussion since it would helpful to get a better grasp on the coverage this song has received from third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 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. Sandstein 11:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Jakiela[edit]

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

Article about author. Only sources are the author themselves. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did some reorganizing and citing. Little in JSTOR and the newspaper databases I checked. If we could find independent coverage of her having won the Saroyan Prize, or having been nominated multiple times for her Pushcart Prize ominations, then it would be a keep. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More reviews excerpted here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each of her three memoirs has multiple published reviews. It's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR even without considering her win of the William Saroyan International Prize for Writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found citation for: Novy, Marianne. "Class, Shame, and Identity in Memoirs About Difficult Same-Race Adoptions by Jeremy Harding and Lori Jakiela." Genealogy, vol. 2, no. 3, 2018, n.p. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As an MDPI journal, I'm not confident that's a reliable source, unfortunately. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Notability is clearer now. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am convinced that she meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:07, 16 January 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. Sandstein 11:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Students Union[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Only mentioned by some sources for dancing around the fire of controversial issues but has never received significant coverage on its own. WalkingDisks (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fail general notability guidelines. I will reconsider if someone can present decent non-English sources. Missvain (talk) 22:48, 16 January 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major Emmerdale storylines[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:TVGUIDE. Not encyclopaedic, and full of WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. DarkGlow (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst I have historically expressed an interest in Emmerdale articles, I do feel the article in question could do with a cleanup and perhaps trimming. The fundamental purpose should be "major" storylines which is in itself supposedly meant to be notable storylines only. It's also just a single article housing this material, in contrast to other soaps such as Eastenders (which the nominator self-claims to have a vested interest in), which has a separate article per major storyline. If we're getting into the WP:FANCRUFT debate, then we'd have to call into question many sub-articles of every soap that have an article on wikipedia. Essentially, this article separates content that would have otherwise been in the main article, itself justified for inclusion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: I fail to see what relevance my editing interests have here. My user page also mentions my interest in Doctors, but I proposed a deletion on a Doctors article last week. If a page is not notable per WP:OR, regardless of whether I enjoy the topic, I'll nominate it for deletion. (And I do enjoy Emmerdale) – DarkGlow (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkGlow: I was clear to offer a fair rationale in my comment beyond my observation that you appear to only have looked at the Emmerdale major storylines article for deletion over the Eastenders ones. Regardless, in this instance I do disagree with your deletion nomination rationale on the basis that my opinion of this article is that it does, or should, form part of the core articles for the soap in question. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: As with EastEnders, I feel a redirect to a storyline section, such as with Storylines of EastEnders, would be more suitable than a standalone article. – DarkGlow (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the British (or any other nationality) version of Soap Opera Digest. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning to redirect to Emmerdale#Storylines. Let's all remember that daily soaps don't have episode lists on wp, and therefore have no place to "collect" plot for decades of story. However, there is still WP:NOTPLOT, and this is this article's current downfall. If it was accompanied by sourced non-trivial development and reception info, this article would have a reason to exist. Until then, a section in the main article should suffice, and a redirect preserves the history for future reconsiderations. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Currently completely WP:NOTPLOT. I don't know if there's a particular good way to cover the overall plot in a way similar to episode or season lists, but this structure doesn't work. TTN (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus is a bit too divided for even an admin to call NC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 18:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A useful summary for those not fully aware of Emmerdale's storyline history and it is certainly in no way near to being a WP:TVGUIDE. The article, however, could do with more references and it does slant too much towards recent storylines which could dilute somewhat the notion that the article contains information on the soap's biggest storylines. Rillington (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NOTPLOT, which is policy, and mandates that we must not have articles that are only plot summary - whether sourced or not. Sandstein 07:36, 19 January 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. While the headcount is pretty evenly split, it seems like the arguments that the sources do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria are pretty ironclad, mostly because the sources either aren't independent or are little more than passing mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Young (DJ)[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to be a notable DJ. Lengthy careers might look nice on a resume but are ultimately irrelevant on Wikipedia when the subject lacks in depth, independent coverage Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Experienced Radio DJ, presenter of Radio 1 and several significant Radio stations in the UK and recipient of a Sony Radio Award. Passes WP:BASIC Mrluke485 (talk) 22:04 14 November 2019 (GMT)
Keep The article could do with more independent sources but as Mrluke485 says, documenting a career in the national media of 40 years, with references, means that the article passes WP:BASIC. Rillington (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in order to substantiate claims, you'll need to provide actual reliable sources. Simply saying it happened based on primary sources does not make it true. Praxidicae (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added a few more sources. I have little knowledge about radio in UK, but per above points, the article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added are all primary, there is not a single independent reliable source and more importantly, none of these sources credibly verify any of these supposed claims to notability. Praxidicae (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources I added are primary sources, while the others are independent. Hence, from my POV, it's still good enough to pass WP:BASIC. I'm not looking for a debate or an argument. I'll still stand with my vote no matter what. So, BE IT. PERIOD. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but policy matters on Wikipedia and not opinion. Unless sources can be provided to support each claim (and it can be shown that there is any independent coverage) there is a total failure to actually provide a policy based reason to keep. Praxidicae (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments favor Keep, but there is just 1 independent source in the article by my count. Is there more to add, or at least point to in discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is the BBC Genome Project website which carries BBC TV and radio listings, including Radio 1, and this is always a good website for independent references. However, there is no mention that I could find of what was his first show for the station, nor is there any mention of his show on 4 January 1991 being his last programme for Radio 1. Rillington (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’ve managed to add a couple more independent sources, the page needs tidying up but subject definitely passed WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that a number of independent sources have now been added, there are now enough independent references to secure this article's retention. Rillington (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what universe are these independent coverage? This is a mention that he posted about someone's death on FB. Nothing more. this is an interview, this is far from anything that could be considered independent coverage, this is a single paragraph in a questionable source, another primary source, this is a listing of his show, so not even in the realm of being coverage or independent. Please provide some actual sources that aren't affiliated with him, because none of these keep votes are based in actual policy or inclusion criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it is a unanimous decision that users and contributors want to keep this article, it passes as we have mentioned WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Just because it hasn't gone your way, doesn't mean you should try and belittle those who have found sources. If more people are favouring it to remain, it should remain. I've not heard one person other than yourself say it should be deleted. Mrluke485 (talk) 17:45 (GMT) 13 January 2020

Um, no that's not how AFD works. It's not about number of votes, its about the quality of votes and basis in existing policies and criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, has anyone else made a request to delete it... No, only you have. For those who want to keep it, we have a right to defend this article and your trying to make out that our defence to this article is irrelevant. You can’t just delete it by either default or because you don’t like it. It’s a harmless article at the end of the day. I’ve not heard you give any good reason to why it should be deleted. Mrluke485 (talk) 20:42 (GMT) 13 January 2020

I really think you misunderstand Wikipedia. Poorly sourced BLPs are harmful. Praxidicae (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I honestly don't know why this is still being contested, he DJed for stations like BBC Radio 1, Capital Radio, won awards, has worked on documentaries and was featured in reliable sources. Obviously not all DJs with long careers are inherently notable (the same can be said of singers, entrepreneurs, authors, etc) but this one clearly is.MusickMann (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Edit: I am changing my vote from Keep to Comment in light of the arguments brought forward by Praxidicae and User:Bradv, it does appear that some of the sources are insufficient although my first instincts were that the individual was notable. Perhaps it can be improved or recreated at a later date when better sources are available. MusickMann (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. The article has been improved and independent sources added and I've now added yet another independent source which is an audio clip of Jeff hosting Club Culture on Capital FM and 10 seconds into the clip he says "Jeff Young's Club Culture on 95.8 Capital FM". Rillington (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in what universe is a sound byte an independent source?!?! I am baffled by the lack of policy based reasoning in this AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have added are independent sources which you can yourself Google - they were found on Google books. There are two separate independent BBC sources, one from BBC News and one from Radio 2. Yes the Evening Telegraph is merely a mention, but it is a clear independent sources that he is a Jazz FM employee, that's not on the Jazz FM website. Unsourced BLPs cause a lot of damage but this is not one of them!Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This clip is from an independent source, and the site also includes clips from his time at XFM London, thereby providing an independent reference of his time at XFM. As MusickMann (talk) says, I am genuinely baffled as to why this is still ongoing given that all replies have said Keep and that more and more independent sources have been discovered and added to the article. Rillington (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I've just added a source from the Independent, stating that he was appointed to join XFM. This should be the end of the matter. Any further conversation on this matter is vexatious. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be missing the crux of the issue here and that is subjects require independent, reliable coverage. Announcements about positions are nothing more than job titles. They are not coverage, just like his resume is not coverage. It's PR. Have a read of WP:IRS, thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And since there seems to be a misconception here that feelings and opinion matter more than established consensus and policies, let me lay out the sources everyone is claiming are independent. If you disagree, please provide a policy/consensus based reason other than vote brigading as to why my assessment of each source is wrong.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://campsoulfestival.com/artist/jeff-young/		reliable as a primary source only	Obviously coverage is not provided by primary sources	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038xdm0	there seems to be a misconception here that because BBC publishes something, its independent. It's not. Its nothing more than an interview.	~ reliable for primary and basic facts only.		✘ No
https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/founding-member-of-dundees-average-white-band-dies-aged-74/	This is independent but it's as much about Young as it is about Facebook.		Nada. Zilch. This has nothing to do with Young other than he announced the death of someone. Having this in the article is useless.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41414837	Can't be independent when BBC is the owner of the network his show is on.	~ again, for primary and basic facts	Oh look, another listicle!	✘ No
http://www.bluesandsoul.com/feature/226/the_40_essential	?	? I have doubts about the reliability of this but it certainly doesn't lend itself to notability		✘ No
https://www.summersoulstice.co.uk/dj-profiles/youngy/		~ for primary and basic facts only, it's not even worth evaluating as a source.		✘ No
aircheckdownloads recording		"airhackerclips"? This is surely a joke.	This isn't even close to being anything encyclopedic as a source.	✘ No
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/on-air-world-record-holder-1175223.html	It's independent, literally but irrelevant to this aritcle.		Basic announcement, a single one line mention that he is in a show.	✘ No
aircheckdownloads XFMLondon		This is just an (illegal) listing of shows and probably shouldn't ever be linked.		✘ No
https://www.jazzfm.com/on-air/jeff-young/		~ only for basic primary information.	this cannot ever be considered coverage considering it's posted by the company that hosts the show.	✘ No
https://radiotoday.co.uk/2013/11/robbie-vincent-refused-last-show-on-jazz/		~ primary.	again: zilch about Young. And it's not independent.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and how can I forget the book references, the one written by Devlin says Young's name in a footnote, nothing actual about him nor coverage, the other is pretty much self published nonsense and says virtually nothing useful about Young. Praxidicae (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae, you seem to be an isolated voice, we have tried our hardest to find as much independent coverage as possible. You have been nothing but hostile towards us when we are trying to defend the article, with sources and coverage. I think this whole argument that you are wanting is becoming just absurd and ludicrous and also unfair. I think you should except the decision that users and editors want to keep it and give up with this pointless vendetta of wanting to delete it. Mrluke485 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured I am not being hostile. But you've yet to provide a single independent reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I agree with you that some of these sources aren’t reliable, but some are. We have clearly demonstrated notability under WP:GNG to a far higher degree than many other AfD debates I have been involved in. Whilst I’m impressed with the diligent nature of your source checking (oh, if only other editors were like you!), in my opinion your analysis of several of the sources is incorrect.

Right, here goes:

- Independent - this isn’t a press release, it isn’t PR from the company, it’s an independent comment piece, written by a journalist without PR involvement, talking about the presenters on the station. As part of the prose, the author confirms that the subject is a presenter on the station. Therefore, we can use this source to back up the WP article’s claim that he presents for that station.

- BBC - you seem to think that the BBC is one great big monolith where everyone bigs up each other’s shows - not the case. We can treat a BBC News online article a little differently to when someone writes a first-person blog on Radio 1. Firstly, when both of these articles were written, the subject hadn’t been employed by the BBC for over 20 years. Secondly, the articles aren’t PR pieces, but it’s a record of BBC editorial that’s independent from the department he’s been making programmes in - he is notable enough to be invited onto a show and it is assumed by Radio 2 that people will know who he is - because he’s notable. Again, the BBC News article confirms the point that has been made about him presenting the first dance show, so we can use that source to back up the WP article’s claim.

- Radio Today - this is an independent source and perfectly acceptable for WP:GNG - it’s an independent trade magazine for the radio industry. Again it confirms that he is a notable DJ, notable enough to have been mentioned, and that he works for said radio station.

- Evening Telegraph - the fact that this newspaper has chosen to include his tribute as a comment proves that, firstly, he works for the station that we assert, and secondly that he’s notable enough that the Evening Telegraph thinks we’d care what he says.

NB note that I haven’t gone on to talk about every source - I don’t need to. Even if you agree with just one of the points above, that still means he’s notable to close this AfD debate. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with a single point you've made and you contradict yourself. You cannot possibly meet notability guidelines if there is no coverage. Period. This isn't an A7 tag, the bar is much higher. You also fail in your analysis to understand that independence is irrelevant when it isn't coverage. The few independent sources here are not about Young. Praxidicae (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is lifted from WP:GNG - “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you cannot show that someone even meets GNG with only 2 single independent refs that are nothing more than a passing mention, per your own argument, this does not meet GNG because it is literally all trivial. None of it goes beyond "Young worked at x" "young said x died." Read what actual WP:NOTABILITY is. Also take a read of WP:BLP and think about the impact that having a widely visible article about a private, low profile individual means. Every single keep here is a literal encyclopedic example of what not to do. Praxidicae (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I have read those policies, and I disagree with your interpretation. I’m not entering into further discussion. It appears that many other editors also disagree. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's fine, you and others are welcome to disagree. You can disagree that water is wet because "that's what I feel like" but it doesn't make it true, the same way that claiming "he's notable because I said so!" doesn't make it true when policy and consensus disagree. Anyway, have a nice day/night/whatever. Praxidicae (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you clearly want it gone, so why not just delete it then, oh wait I forgot you need someone else to second it, which you clearly haven't got the support to do. It is a unanimous decision that we want to keep it and your argument has just become more irrelevant and also antagonistic as the days have gone on. There are articles outside of this page that have less coverage than this that you should spend more time on them, rather than this page. You've taken virtually nothing into account over what we have said, you are being very hostile towards us, because we have disagreed with you. You just want this deleted, whatever the argument is, I'm pretty sure if we had found something you consider independent, you would have tried to undermined us as you have shown throughout this debate. Also you are wasting your time trying to find some excuse to why it should be deleted. You are clearly looking for an argument and we are finding it very hard to be polite when you think you can just overrule our defence for keeping this article. Mrluke485 (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

disagreeing with bad logic is not hostility. Ironic given your personal attacks here. I’d consider your view if you provided anything - a single independent source about Young - but you can’t, because it doesn’t exist. Cheers. Praxidicae (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says a user who continues to refuses to give a proper answer when one of us try and argue the reasons why it shouldn't be deleted, thinks he's better than anyone else and won't listen to those who try and defend the article. Your the one who began the personal attacks, you think your better than us, you think we are joke and you don't like what we present. You clearly haven't thought this through "MATE". Have a Nice Day Mrluke485 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can see why this is difficult, as this seems like the kind of person who should be notable. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and the in-depth source analysis done by Praxidicae shows that this standard is not met. The sources are all either not independent, not reliable, or only mentions in passing. There isn't a single source that meets these criteria, and typically we would want to see at least three, especially for a biography of a living person. – bradv🍁 15:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG clearly requires significant, in-depth, coverage in multiple reliable sources, most importantly for notability those sources must also be independent of the subject. The table provided by Praxidicae here clearly shows those requirements have not been met here, as does a personal review I conducted of the sources in the article. All that are available are passing mentions, or are too close to the subject to be considered anything but primary. Unless better sourcing can be found or provided, I unfortunately believe this presenter is not notable enough to have an article yet on our site. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Final Comment There really does seem to be a real determination to get rid of this article, so much so that when I added two independent sources, they were deleted. Plus I've found the tone of some of the comments to be somewhat aggressive. Whilst I accept that this isn't the perfect Wikipedia biography, there's nothing wrong with this article and there are now more than enough reliable independent sources for it to pass any Wikipedia notability guidelines. I've expressed my view that this article should be retained so I'm now going to step out of this discussion. Rillington (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rillington If you're referring to these sources that is because not only are they not independent, it's against policy because it's linking to material that is being hosted illegally. Praxidicae (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And let me explain further, this is pretty black and white. It cannot be independent because it's a broadcast of the subject and a name drop. I think you misunderstand what independent is. Just because it's not hosted by his website/employer doesn't mean it's independent and in this case it's a catch-22 because if you want to claim it is independent, it's a violation of Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking and WP:LINKVIO. I highly doubt the hosting show gave the uploader permission for that content and if you want to argue that they do hold the copyright it just circles right back to being primary...Praxidicae (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Lack of in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A BEFORE I’ve just conducted shows him discussed in primary sources not independent of him & the list article about “40 best Dj’s........” is not evidence of true notability as it mentions him in passing & not per WP:GNG standard as in-depth significant coverage is not observed. @Mrluke485, I know this is quite devastating, but knowing a person is notable per your own knowledge & proving their notability on this collaborative project are two different complex things & as editors here, we are taxed/tasked with Proving notability with reliable sources & verifing notability claims, even worse/more difficult for editors residing in third world countries such as Nigeria due to obvious reasons but I don’t see why subject of our discussion should “struggle this much” if indeed he is notable, finding reliable sources to substantiate notability claims shouldn’t be a Herculean task. Hence clearly he isn’t notable enough yet.Celestina007 (talk) 15:18, 17 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Md Moazzem Hossain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

District level politician. Fails WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The subject fails general notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage of them. Also, the subject fails notability guidelines for politicians. Holding a post within a political party is not inherently notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The creator was blocked for sockpuppetry, and the first AFD was closed because the nom was blocked for sockpuppetry. ミラ P 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a local party leader with a failed parliamentary bid. Sources don't signify a WP:GNG pass either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being chairman of a political party's local organizing committee in a single district is not an "inherent" notability freebie per WP:NPOL, but the article is not reliably sourced even remotely close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of tens of thousands of local politicians. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 14 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Dutta[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The subject fails general notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage of them. Also, the subject fails notability guidelines for politicians. Holding a post within a political party is not inherently notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you again Sarah! —usernamekiran(talk) 11:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awe! Hi!!!! :) Missvain (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being president of a political party's youth wing is not an "inherent" notability freebie under WP:NPOL, but this article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and the referencing doesn't establish that Dutta passes WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Gulakova[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:MODEL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we end these absurd articles on beauty queens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. --Muhandes (talk) 10:16, 13 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Gaucin[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:JOURNALIST. Working at a well-known television station does not increase the subject's notability. Minorax (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total failure of any inclusion guidelines for jouranlists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:JOURNALIST. He works for Multimedios but there's very little coverage of him at all. (The article is also very poorly translated from a user that has kind of a vandalism hangup on radio station pages.) Raymie (t • c) 06:37, 13 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robi Ludwig[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. (Speedy candidate?) Weak sourcing. As a doctor, not a substantial contributor to her art. Reads like a resume, clearly promotional. Mikeblas (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to passing academic notability, does not pass GNG, and the article is way too prmotional for WIkipedia. The last in theory could be remedied, but in the process we would probably end up with nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG just like the first time. Promotional article created by an SPA. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? Since this is recreated content (see WP:G4), for one. And the original AfD nomination says something about OTRS, whatever that is ... the link is password protection and gives no way to register or explain what it is. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete I have tagged it G4 as previously deleted by WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.~~ Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, not a speedy as it was recreated 5 years ago. Still, per the BLP's request, I imagine it should remain deleted. Combined with questionable notability, this is a delete from me. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As well as the other issues discussed above, this appears to be a foundational copyvio of [24] (source dated 2014, current version of article created 2015, and the copied phrases do not appear in the earlier version of the article that was deleted in 2014). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 13 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jezweb[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, a single minor award and no evidence of reliable source significant coverage. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a successful small local business, one of gizillions working in webdev. I could find nothing that indicates encyclopedic notability. Aoziwe (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self serving article of little value. Page creator already has several warnings on their user page. Teraplane (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case someone doesn't notice, the Maitland Mercury article is an advertising feature (so not independent RS). — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article main text describes a company going about its mundane business, with no claim to notability, nor does a Hunter Region local business award change that. No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 12:19, 17 January 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. Sandstein 11:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yejimiin[edit]

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

15 years since prior AFD, this article has not improved. No evidence this company passes GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. The Korean Wikipedia page for this looks even worse than our stub, and that's not an easy 'achievement'. WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article survived a previous AfD in 2005, when its title was the company's main product (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purelyn). The article content and any possible notability derives more from the product than the firm? AllyD (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 11 January 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. Sandstein 11:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brella[edit]

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

Non notable singer who doesn’t scale per WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – He's featured in a few articles about the death of fellow musician and collaborator, Ebony, but, it appears it might be WP:TOOSOON for this artist. He had one interview, which blew up in the entertainment media, but other than that, nothing else that qualifies for GNG. Missvain (talk) 00:13, 17 January 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. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elendur[edit]

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

I'm not going to speedy this one because the title could have use as a redirect, since Elendur is discussed a few times at Isildur. However, there is absolutely no reason to have a dab page for this. So I'm proposing this page is redirected to Isildur. Hog Farm (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:59FA:86B8:8C99:E32E (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his father, as "Elendur son of Isildur" does. Harmless alternative to deletion. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not really a useful search term, and we do not need this as a redirect of any kind. I have to admit I am less than convinced Isuldur is notable enough in real life (as opposed to in universe) to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 12 January 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. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion; the reason I am not adding one myself is because there are several proposed targets and no clear preference for one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arathorn[edit]

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

Dab page whose only main entries are two redirects. This isn't necessary. Hog Farm (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like it would save time to just redirect it as well.★Trekker (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aragorn and stop wasting time. Most of these Tolkien legendarium items, even relatively minor ones, need to have a "home", at least a redirect and a decent landing page so readers get an answer to their search. In this case, Aragorn is a leading hero of Lord of the Rings and his immediate relatives can very sensibly redirect to him; they need they briefest of mentions there. As it happens, that article actually begins "Aragorn, son of Arathorn,..." so there isn't a lot of doubt about where to point, really. Rather than just taking everything to AfD, why don't we all think a bit about how the whole legendarium coverage should end up? It's plain that Tolkien, the major books, the major characters, and the major places (The Shire, Rivendell, Mordor, etc) are easily notable by any test (literary or popular), so we should be aiming to redirect all other terms of any significance to those, or to suitable list articles. Redirect decisions can be made by discussion: they do not need to come here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, there's an unrelated article in the "See also" section, so a redirect might not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:59FA:86B8:8C99:E32E (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Rangers of the North#Chieftains of the Dúnedain, as there are two of them. In the latter case, a redirect hatnote in that section could point to Arrathorne (father of Arragorne). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, probably to Aragorn, and don't worry about Arrathorne -- at best it's an implausible typo (forgot an 'r' and the terminal 'e'?) BenKuykendall (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aragorn. This is in part because we need to scrap all articles based primarily on Tolkien's appendices. If the actual book text does not cover a subject, we should not dig into the appendices to create an article. Considering the Radagast article has been debated (well, mainly ignored) on the subject of a redirect since August I do not think discussing these issues at another forum is the answer at all. At AfD we get much more and much faster discussion of the topic than we do in the under notified merge discussion forums. Of course this is porbably in part because Radagast is a super marginal character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On further thought I really do not see why we need a reidrect at all. This is an extremely minor character. In the text we learn nothing of him except his name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 13 January 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. Several delete comments were struck due to sockpuppetry. Several other delete comments were withdrawn following improvements to the article and the withdrawal of the subject's request to delete. A few more were not withdrawn, but are clearly based at least partly on the subject's former request. The significant majority ultimately found sufficient indications of notability, and no reason to delete once the subject was no longer requesting it. RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corinna Löckenhoff[edit]

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

The article subject has requested the page be deleted - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corinna_L%C3%B6ckenhoff

Policy on deletion requests from subjects is at WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."

The subject arguably notes that she is not notable in Wikipedia terms. I will AGF and support her view in this with this AfD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tagishsimon (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable per WP:Academics #3. The subject can say whatever. If this article will be deleted, I will assume that you are no longer a Wikipedian and will recreate it per above guideline. ;)--Biografer (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

Yeah. Cheers for the passive aggressive abuse, Biografer, but please, really, don't be an idiot. If the article is deleted as a result of this deletion discussion, you will not recreate it because those are the rules. Nor do you get to decide who is and who is not a Wikipedian.

So let's look at WP:Academics # 3: "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective..." blah blah blah. Did you stop to look at the criteria for fellowships of the Gerontological Society of America? Probably not. Here it is: https://www.geron.org/images/gsa/Fellows/2020_Code_of_Procedures_and_Requirements_for_Fellow_Status.pdf

By my reading, it does not appear "highly selective". There are criteria, but those criteria fail to meet what I take to be "highly". YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's always tough to judge these things, but FWIW, I agree: the criteria are "selective" but not "highly selective". XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mid-career scientist (currently an associate professor). Only aspect of WP:PROF that might be met is #3, "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society"; but fellowship in the Gerontological Society of America is much less selective than the examples given in the WP:PROF #3 critera. Deletion nomination resulted from my post at WIR, and I gotta say it's really shitty that Wikipedia is making somebody navigate through the bureaucracy of blocks and edit requests to deal with their own biography. Plantdrew (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Weak keep I suppose PROF #1 may be met (but PROF #3 certainly is not; GSA is not selective). Plantdrew (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relatively unknown and non-public figure, any keep argument would rely on a particularly broad interpretation of WP:ACADEMICS, and a subject who wishes for it to be deleted due to ongoing BLP issues. Not only should the article be deleted, but Biografer should be warned/sanctioned for the above threat to ignore the AfD and recreate it regardless of the outcome and Spintendo talked to about his pointlessly obstinate response to the subject asking for inaccurate details in her biography to be corrected. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Weak keep per subject's changed request on this page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishae/Archive. ミラ P 00:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@The Drover's Wife: I know that you want to punish me for whatever I said above, but let me rephrase it. The subject, about whom I don't really care, said (or at least I read it that way) that she is up for "promotion", meaning possibly an associate to professor. That means, that when she will become one, I will recreate this article. Besides, by that time her h-index might be even more higher on GS. :)--Biografer (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] The current AfD is focused on deletion of a subject because of the subjects' personal COI with it. I will be happy to address the inaccuracies, but deleting it because the subject wants it is a no-no. We have many stubs on Fellows of IEEE, but we don't go and delete them, we expand on them!--Biografer (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] The current AfD is predicted on the non-notability - in Wikipedia terms - of the subject. Your #3 has been blown out of the water. You got anything more? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Tagishsimon: The subject meets WP:GNG, so its far from non-notable.--Biografer (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] And so you'll be wanting to adduce some evidence of that GNG. On you go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Two profiles of her on the websites of organisations she's affiliated with and four articles on her in the campus newspaper of the university she works at does not pass WP:GNG in any sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] And equating Fellow of the IEEE with Fellow of the GSA kinda underscores your complete lack of understanding of #3, Biografer. Can you tease out the 'highly' part of their selectivity for us? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Tagishsimon: Maybe its you all who need to rewrite the #3 guideline? You see, to me a Fellow is a Fellow, and #3 guidelines specifically for members and fellows. Maybe you need to create a list of acceptable and not acceptable fellowships? Will be of great help here. :)--Biografer (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Google have many hits for her in the "news" section.--Biografer (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] So let me guess, we have an article here on David Eppstein, so if @David Eppstein: will want his article to be deleted, we will need to bow down and just do it because of "subject request". Really?--Biografer (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] As a Wikipedian, my attitude is that the article on me is Someone Else's Problem. I might take action for serious inaccuracies or occasionally suggest updates for things like changes of job title, but otherwise I'm keeping my opinions about it to myself. I wish more of our subjects would take that attitude. But since they often don't, we allow subjects to request deletion as an outlet when the case is sufficiently borderline. The question at hand is not whether we must always bow to such demands, but whether Löckenhoff is sufficiently borderline for her opinion to carry any weight. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishae/Archive. ミラ P 00:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- @The Drover's Wife: I know that you want to punish me for whatever I said above, but let me rephrase it. The subject, about whom I don't really care, said (or at least I read it that way) that she is up for "promotion", meaning possibly an associate to professor. That means, that when she will become one, I will recreate this article. Besides, by that time her h-index might be even more higher on GS. :)--Biografer (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current AfD is focused on deletion of a subject because of the subjects' personal COI with it. I will be happy to address the inaccuracies, but deleting it because the subject wants it is a no-no. We have many stubs on Fellows of IEEE, but we don't go and delete them, we expand on them!--Biografer (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current AfD is predicted on the non-notability - in Wikipedia terms - of the subject. Your #3 has been blown out of the water. You got anything more? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: The subject meets WP:GNG, so its far from non-notable.--Biografer (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And so you'll be wanting to adduce some evidence of that GNG. On you go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two profiles of her on the websites of organisations she's affiliated with and four articles on her in the campus newspaper of the university she works at does not pass WP:GNG in any sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And equating Fellow of the IEEE with Fellow of the GSA kinda underscores your complete lack of understanding of #3, Biografer. Can you tease out the 'highly' part of their selectivity for us? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: Maybe its you all who need to rewrite the #3 guideline? You see, to me a Fellow is a Fellow, and #3 guidelines specifically for members and fellows. Maybe you need to create a list of acceptable and not acceptable fellowships? Will be of great help here. :)--Biografer (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google have many hits for her in the "news" section.--Biografer (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So let me guess, we have an article here on David Eppstein, so if @David Eppstein: will want his article to be deleted, we will need to bow down and just do it because of "subject request". Really?--Biografer (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wikipedian, my attitude is that the article on me is Someone Else's Problem. I might take action for serious inaccuracies or occasionally suggest updates for things like changes of job title, but otherwise I'm keeping my opinions about it to myself. I wish more of our subjects would take that attitude. But since they often don't, we allow subjects to request deletion as an outlet when the case is sufficiently borderline. The question at hand is not whether we must always bow to such demands, but whether Löckenhoff is sufficiently borderline for her opinion to carry any weight. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at request of subject. She does have a good GS citation record in the high-cited field of pop-psychology but otherwise of routine notability. WP:Prof#C3 is not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's on the edge of being notable, but not yet. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A decent citation record (13 papers with over 100 citations each), and being listed as a fellow by a minor learned society, would normally be enough for a keep for me. I think she does pass WP:PROF, by multiple criteria. But the case is not overwhelming enough for me to want to ignore the subject's wishes. The article is a near-orphan, so I don't think it would do much damage to the encyclopedia to delete it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein: So, on one hand you say that she meets WP:PROF, and on the other hand you are OK with it being deleted??? Can you explain your logic here? As for an article being near-orphan, I see no reason for it being deleted based on that observation. We have hundreds of orphaned articles here, which I currently try to expand (and hopefully connect to others). If you decided to delete this article based on being an orphan, you should take into consideration that many Fellows of the IEEE are also orphans, and yet, no admin and no subject issues AfD debate. :)--Biografer (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
  - What's to explain? She meets PROF, but is neither so far beyond that level that it would be an embarrassment to the encyclopedia to omit her, nor so well-linked that it would reduce the information content of the other articles on the encyclopedia to unlink her. Therefore, my default in the absence of a request from the subject would be a keep, but I think it's a case where we can honor that request without much cost. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above per the change of heart from the subject, below. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but Meh. See the talk page for the actual request from the subject, which doesn't so much say "please delete", so much as "please fix up, or otherwise delete". Independently from that post, I think this is a weak keep. Depending how you read the request from the subject, it either turns into a weak delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, or else stays keep (and we fix any errors, add links to primary sources, and explain to the subject why we need to keep the secondary sources). I lean towards the second, but the first is less work. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the weak keep is via WP:NPROF. 4500+ total citations, several papers over 300 citations looks like C1. ~~Possibly also a case for C3 via Gerontological Society fellowship.~~ Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject prefers deletion; User talk:Loeckenhoff#What would prefer happen with the article about you? Plantdrew (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- on condition inaccuracies are corrected as suggested above. If not, maintain as a draft until corrections can be made. More extensive comments on Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm with Ipigott on this - restore the changes that were requested by the subject on the grounds that accuracy is important. I think it's borderline enough to be deleted but draftified but again only with the changes made. If we are going to write biographies of borderline notable people we should at least get the details right since they will not have as many sources to be correcting them in a brief google by a user of the 'pedia. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-public figure, where the subject has requested deletion. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This revert on the basis of COI reintroduced multiple factual errors. The first two I noticed were that the subject's affiliation is now listed incorrectly, and a co-edited book has become a co-authored one. I dislike COI edits as much as anybody, but this is a case where the subject made changes in good faith and provided citations (e.g., [25][26]). This is definitely a situation where more consideration is required, and blindly following default procedure makes things worse. I have refactored the "Career" section to make it focus on the standard topics of an academic biography rather than reporting individual grants. This was not a major time investment on my part, and I wouldn't regret it if we decide to follow Dr. Löckenhoff's first choice and delete the page. I think there's a good argument made in the !votes above to the effect that, while she may clear the bar set by our notability guideline for academics, her wiki-notability is not so overwhelming that it should mean we override her request. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. ミラ P 00:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@XOR'easter: Keep in mind that people who voted Delete here, had a substantial lack of why she is notable, before I pinged David Eppstein here. In my book, she passes C1 (GS h-index 33) and C3 (being a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America) for WP:PROF. She also passes WP:GNG with additional sources which were added by the subject. Let me explain how I came to writing an article on the subject; I was writing an article on her co-author Anthony Ong who has an h-index of 41 on GS. Despite being highly cited, I found very small proof on the net regarding his notability, yet I managed to write a Start class article out of Corinna Löckenhoff. The thing is, is that if we will blindly follow subjects' wishes, we can say WP:BLP bye-bye.--Biografer (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] That's a fatuous conclusion. Policy in this area is to permit the deletion in a case where there is not consensus as to notability. Where there is consensus, the deletion does not take place. Appliction of the policy does not cause BLP to disappear, but rather provides guidance on a fairly thin margin. The problem for you here is that you have not got anything like consensus to keep, and you're still making dubious arguments, such as for the fellowship as an indicator of notabilty via #3, despite users pointing to the criteria requiring a highly selective process. You've been asked about evidence for GNG, and we still have nothing from you to rebut The Drover's Wife's comments. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Tagishsimon: I already gave this link above: Google have many hits for her in the "news" section. It was meant to answer the GNG criteria.--Biografer (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Dumping a search-engine query is, by itself, not too helpful. Moreover, there are only 10 items returned in that Google News search, which is not a promising beginning. The first is a standard university PR item from her employer, so it's not independent. The second quotes her as the standard "according to a researcher who was not involved in the study" opinion. It's not about her or her own work. The third is just an echo of the second. The fourth is a Forbes "contributor" item, and these are generally seen as not reliable; it only mentions her in passing anyway, as a then-graduate student carrying out research started by someone else. The fifth is a passing mention in a press release about somebody else's research. The remainder aren't in English; four are churnalistic echoes of the second item, and the final one is paywalled so I can't evaluate it. Nothing here adds up to a pass of WP:GNG or WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @XOR'easter: Well, I don't know Spanish, but we never delete articles because they use foreign sources, that is, as long as they are not written in language other then English, which this article is.--Biografer (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] I didn't say that they were worthless because they're in a foreign language. I said that they don't contribute to passing WP:GNG or any other notability guideline because they're superficial churning of a superficial original. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] We're not "blindly follow[ing] subjects' wishes"; we're debating the removal of potentially misleading content about an individual in a situation where omitting that individual's biography from Wikipedia would not even seriously affect our ability to write about the subject area where she works. *Wiki-notability is about whether a subject can in principle* have a Wikipedia article, which is not the same as whether they must have an article.** Yes, a GS h-index of 33 is pretty good, but that's only one factor in our considerations, and as noted above, whether Fellowship in the Gerontological Society of America is enough for WP:PROF#C3 is not so clear-cut. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't — I don't think that specific society has actually come up in any notability debate so far, meaning that the question simply hasn't been settled yet. Nor am I convinced that the additional sources really make a WP:GNG case for wiki-notability: for example, a press release from the subject's own institution is a primary source. We can take it as accurate, but it doesn't really represent the wider world paying attention. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @XOR'easter: The Fellowship enlists 1564 members as of 2019. We also have a category: Category:Fellows of the Gerontological Society of America since 2017.--Biografer (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] That's actually a good argument against regarding Fellowship as being "highly selective", since they have less than 6000 members in all. (According to our page about them, which is surely not too out of date.) Contrast this, with, say, the American Physical Society, in which "Each year, no more than one half of one percent of the Society's membership" is elected to Fellow status [27]. Having a category is beside the point; we have Category:American physicists, a person isn't automatically notable for being an American physicist. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Well, I used to write here articles on Fellows of the American College of Surgeons, until somebody told me that those academics are not notable either, despite have a whopping 80,000 members. That leads me into a confusion of some sort: If a Fellow of Gerontological Society of America is less notable then a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, then what is considered a WP:PROF #3 pass? Like, obviously, various Academy of Sciences, or the AAAS, but are there notable societies for physicians? If an academic is fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics he seems to be a notable pediatrician.--Biografer (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] It's not the size of the society that matters, but how selective the criteria for being a Fellow are. The requirements for becoming a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics seem rather low: FAAP designation after a member's name stands for Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and may only be used by AAP members in good standing who have obtained initial board certification in pediatrics or a surgical specialty board [28]. Their press material suggests that about 34,000 out of 60,000 AAP members are Fellows — more than half. That's not "highly selective" by any stretch of the imagination. And it's nothing like what WP:PROF#C3 is about. XOR'easter (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @XOR'easter: Meantime, the Gerontological Society of America have 5064 fellows and IEEE have 5364 fellows. But while IEEE selection in Wikipedia is "high", the selection for the Gerontological Society of America is "low" according to Wikipedia. Maybe you can explain why 300 more members of IEEE are more notable then 5K of the Gerontological Society of America? To me, I don't see a difference between 5K and 5K plus.--Biografer (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] 1564 Fellows / about 5500 members ≈ 28%. 5786 Fellows / 422,460 members ≈ 1.4%. There's no contest. IEEE Fellowship is more selective. XOR'easter (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] The thing is, is that this article was to no-ones attention until the subject peeped out of nowhere and now we need to abide by her wishes. If she was not notable at the time of the writing, then maybe she should have been deleted by an admin before this debate. As it stands, we have subject that is deemed notable by @David Eppstein: and @Ipigott: (and me, as creator), and we have like three to four people here who apparently felt sorry for the subject (or maybe fell in love with her, because geez, a lady coming to WP makes us men blush). :) Just my theory, don't take it personally.--Biografer (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Ad hominem attacks are always a sure sign of a winning argument. Please don't project your sexist crap on us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] It is tautologically true that nobody noticed a problem until someone came along and noticed the problem. The person who noticed happened to be the subject of the article. Nobody is saying that "we need to abide by her wishes". The argument of those supporting deletion is that it is a simple solution and we have no truly compelling reason not to do it. Feeling "sorry" doesn't enter into the considerations at all. And I'm sorry to be blunt, but bizarre personal insinuations are inappropriate even if dressed up with a smiley and a "don't take it personally". XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Well, I didn't meant any personal attacks, but that's how it was seem to me at the time. :(--Biografer (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @XOR'easter: So notability is not important now, simplicity is? Wow. It would be better to improve the article rather than delete it. Makes me wonder why do I bother to expand on those stubs on IEEE Fellows, knowing that in a near future, you guys will nominate them for deletion because it will be a "simple thing to do".--Biografer (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Where have I ever said that notability is "not important"? If I thought so, why would I have put in the time to evaluate the cases for WP:PROF#C3 (probable fail, since we have no grounds to say that Fellowship is "highly selective") and WP:GNG (also a probable fail, since the available sources are a mix of superficial and/or not independent)? And what is the relevance of stubs for IEEE Fellows, since again, all the evidence we can find indicates that Fellowship in the IEEE and in the GSA are simply not equally selective? XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @XOR'easter: While you didn't say it, you did said that The argument of those supporting deletion is that it is a simple solution and we have no truly compelling reason not to do it, which indicates that you support simplicity of deletion, like, it will cause less headache, over fixing the factual errors and let the article be.--Biografer (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] As for IEEE Fellows relevance, if you consider to delete an article because of simplicity, then maybe you want to delete a ton of IEEE stubs and not waste your time on expanding them? But trust me, I put an effort on expanding them, even though for simplicity reason, it will better to just delete them. :)--Biografer (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. ミラ P 00:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- @XOR'easter: Keep in mind that people who voted Delete here, had a substantial lack of why she is notable, before I pinged David Eppstein here. In my book, she passes C1 (GS h-index 33) and C3 (being a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America) for WP:PROF. She also passes WP:GNG with additional sources which were added by the subject. Let me explain how I came to writing an article on the subject; I was writing an article on her co-author Anthony Ong who has an h-index of 41 on GS. Despite being highly cited, I found very small proof on the net regarding his notability, yet I managed to write a Start class article out of Corinna Löckenhoff. The thing is, is that if we will blindly follow subjects' wishes, we can say WP:BLP bye-bye.--Biografer (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fatuous conclusion. Policy in this area is to permit the deletion in a case where there is not consensus as to notability. Where there is consensus, the deletion does not take place. Appliction of the policy does not cause BLP to disappear, but rather provides guidance on a fairly thin margin. The problem for you here is that you have not got anything like consensus to keep, and you're still making dubious arguments, such as for the fellowship as an indicator of notabilty via #3, despite users pointing to the criteria requiring a highly selective process. You've been asked about evidence for GNG, and we still have nothing from you to rebut The Drover's Wife's comments. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: I already gave this link above: Google have many hits for her in the "news" section. It was meant to answer the GNG criteria.--Biografer (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dumping a search-engine query is, by itself, not too helpful. Moreover, there are only 10 items returned in that Google News search, which is not a promising beginning. The first is a standard university PR item from her employer, so it's not independent. The second quotes her as the standard "according to a researcher who was not involved in the study" opinion. It's not about her or her own work. The third is just an echo of the second. The fourth is a Forbes "contributor" item, and these are generally seen as not reliable; it only mentions her in passing anyway, as a then-graduate student carrying out research started by someone else. The fifth is a passing mention in a press release about somebody else's research. The remainder aren't in English; four are churnalistic echoes of the second item, and the final one is paywalled so I can't evaluate it. Nothing here adds up to a pass of WP:GNG or WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Well, I don't know Spanish, but we never delete articles because they use foreign sources, that is, as long as they are not written in language other then English, which this article is.--Biografer (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that they were worthless because they're in a foreign language. I said that they don't contribute to passing WP:GNG or any other notability guideline because they're superficial churning of a superficial original. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - We're not "blindly follow[ing] subjects' wishes"; we're debating the removal of potentially misleading content about an individual in a situation where omitting that individual's biography from Wikipedia would not even seriously affect our ability to write about the subject area where she works. Wiki-notability is about whether a subject can in principle have a Wikipedia article, which is not the same as whether they must have an article. Yes, a GS h-index of 33 is pretty good, but that's only one factor in our considerations, and as noted above, whether Fellowship in the Gerontological Society of America is enough for WP:PROF#C3 is not so clear-cut. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't — I don't think that specific society has actually come up in any notability debate so far, meaning that the question simply hasn't been settled yet. Nor am I convinced that the additional sources really make a WP:GNG case for wiki-notability: for example, a press release from the subject's own institution is a primary source. We can take it as accurate, but it doesn't really represent the wider world paying attention. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @XOR'easter: The Fellowship enlists 1564 members as of 2019. We also have a category: Category:Fellows of the Gerontological Society of America since 2017.--Biografer (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's actually a good argument against regarding Fellowship as being "highly selective", since they have less than 6000 members in all. (According to our page about them, which is surely not too out of date.) Contrast this, with, say, the American Physical Society, in which "Each year, no more than one half of one percent of the Society's membership" is elected to Fellow status [27]. Having a category is beside the point; we have Category:American physicists, a person isn't automatically notable for being an American physicist. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I used to write here articles on Fellows of the American College of Surgeons, until somebody told me that those academics are not notable either, despite have a whopping 80,000 members. That leads me into a confusion of some sort: If a Fellow of Gerontological Society of America is less notable then a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, then what is considered a WP:PROF #3 pass? Like, obviously, various Academy of Sciences, or the AAAS, but are there notable societies for physicians? If an academic is fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics he seems to be a notable pediatrician.--Biografer (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not the size of the society that matters, but how selective the criteria for being a Fellow are. The requirements for becoming a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics seem rather low: FAAP designation after a member's name stands for Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and may only be used by AAP members in good standing who have obtained initial board certification in pediatrics or a surgical specialty board [28]. Their press material suggests that about 34,000 out of 60,000 AAP members are Fellows — more than half. That's not "highly selective" by any stretch of the imagination. And it's nothing like what WP:PROF#C3 is about. XOR'easter (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @XOR'easter: Meantime, the Gerontological Society of America have 5064 fellows and IEEE have 5364 fellows. But while IEEE selection in Wikipedia is "high", the selection for the Gerontological Society of America is "low" according to Wikipedia. Maybe you can explain why 300 more members of IEEE are more notable then 5K of the Gerontological Society of America? To me, I don't see a difference between 5K and 5K plus.--Biografer (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        1564 Fellows / about 5500 members ≈ 28%. 5786 Fellows / 422,460 members ≈ 1.4%. There's no contest. IEEE Fellowship is more selective. XOR'easter (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The thing is, is that this article was to no-ones attention until the subject peeped out of nowhere and now we need to abide by her wishes. If she was not notable at the time of the writing, then maybe she should have been deleted by an admin before this debate. As it stands, we have subject that is deemed notable by @David Eppstein: and @Ipigott: (and me, as creator), and we have like three to four people here who apparently felt sorry for the subject (or maybe fell in love with her, because geez, a lady coming to WP makes us men blush). :) Just my theory, don't take it personally.--Biografer (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks are always a sure sign of a winning argument. Please don't project your sexist crap on us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is tautologically true that nobody noticed a problem until someone came along and noticed the problem. The person who noticed happened to be the subject of the article. Nobody is saying that "we need to abide by her wishes". The argument of those supporting deletion is that it is a simple solution and we have no truly compelling reason not to do it. Feeling "sorry" doesn't enter into the considerations at all. And I'm sorry to be blunt, but bizarre personal insinuations are inappropriate even if dressed up with a smiley and a "don't take it personally". XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't meant any personal attacks, but that's how it was seem to me at the time. :(--Biografer (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: So notability is not important now, simplicity is? Wow. It would be better to improve the article rather than delete it. Makes me wonder why do I bother to expand on those stubs on IEEE Fellows, knowing that in a near future, you guys will nominate them for deletion because it will be a "simple thing to do".--Biografer (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I ever said that notability is "not important"? If I thought so, why would I have put in the time to evaluate the cases for WP:PROF#C3 (probable fail, since we have no grounds to say that Fellowship is "highly selective") and WP:GNG (also a probable fail, since the available sources are a mix of superficial and/or not independent)? And what is the relevance of stubs for IEEE Fellows, since again, all the evidence we can find indicates that Fellowship in the IEEE and in the GSA are simply not equally selective? XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: While you didn't say it, you did said that The argument of those supporting deletion is that it is a simple solution and we have no truly compelling reason not to do it, which indicates that you support simplicity of deletion, like, it will cause less headache, over fixing the factual errors and let the article be.--Biografer (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for IEEE Fellows relevance, if you consider to delete an article because of simplicity, then maybe you want to delete a ton of IEEE stubs and not waste your time on expanding them? But trust me, I put an effort on expanding them, even though for simplicity reason, it will better to just delete them. :)--Biografer (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable yet. Also, the person in question has requested deletion.--Darwinek (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person is notable and meets C1 and C3 of WP:PROF. Weather the subject likes it or not, we should retain this article for its encyclopedic value. We should never bow to the wishes of a subject. We need to fix the article and tell the subject "sorry, good bye". If she wants to sue us, we will gladly pay her some hush money to keep her happy. An article on a notable academic should never be deleted just because the subject said so.--Biografer (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

*Delete Currently I don't feel they pass NACADEMIC (under the several criteria mooted, the specific reasoning is considered above). I don't know what scale of promotion the subject is going for, which they mentioned on the talk page, but it's possible that would move them into notable grounds. However, that decision can be made if and when that's appropriate. As the non-public subject has requested deletion, it needs to be a clear keep on notability grounds to retain. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. ミラ P 00:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Nosebagbear: Confused. You are proposing a deletion and at the same time you are saying that it needs to be a clear keep on notability grounds to retain? In other words, you are voting Keep if I am not mistaken?--Biografer (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Biografer: - no, "it needs" in the sense that the consensus has to be for a Keep, or it should be deleted (i.e. in BLPDELETEs, "no consensuses" default to delete) Nosebagbear (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. ミラ P 00:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Nosebagbear: Confused. You are proposing a deletion and at the same time you are saying that it needs to be a clear keep on notability grounds to retain? In other words, you are voting Keep if I am not mistaken?--Biografer (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: - no, "it needs" in the sense that the consensus has to be for a Keep, or it should be deleted (i.e. in BLPDELETEs, "no consensuses" default to delete) Nosebagbear (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ The available sources don't support a pass of the general notability guideline. As far as the specialized scholars-and-academics guideline goes, WP:PROF#C3 is inapplicable, because we have no evidence indicating that Fellowship in the GSoA is the kind of "highly selective" honor that WP:PROF#C3 is talking about. The point of WP:PROF#C3 is to rely upon an academic community's judgment in recognizing lifetime achievement. It's a "top 1% of the field" kind of criterion, not an "above the median" one. There's a decent case for WP:PROF#C1 just by the numbers, but we do have to look beyond the numbers unless we just want Google's algorithm to make all our decisions for us. Keeping an article based solely on the h-index when there's a dearth of sources to write the article with is poor form. In the absence of a deletion request from the subject, I might incline to a weak keep (weak because reliance on a citation profile alone is unsatisfying). But as the matter stands, I see no grounds to argue that it's in the public interest to override that request. As David Eppstein said above, her professional renown is not so great that it would be an embarrassment to the encyclopedia to omit her, nor so well-linked that it would reduce the information content of the other articles on the encyclopedia to unlink her. I'd be willing to reconsider if the subject unambiguously withdraws her deletion request (I don't want to get into close reading and hair-splitting, thank you very much!). XOR'easter (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I said that I'd reconsider if the subject unambiguously withdraws her deletion request. She has now done so. Consequently, that's no longer a factor. I still think everything else I wrote above applies: decent case for WP:PROF#C1 just by citation numbers, but not great sourcing to actually base an article on, and WP:PROF#C3 not really coming into play. So, my re-evaluation lands me where I hypothesized that it would were the situation different, because now the situation has changed. (Levivich, thanks for pinging me. In turn, I will ping Yngvadottir and Ealdgyth, who have "per XOR" in their comments below.) XOR'easter (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per XOR'easter and David Eppstein, but the presence or absence of incoming links doesn't matter much to me, given that our coverage is inevitably uneven and subject to change (plus the presence or absence in an article of templates such as footers from which many articles are linked distorts results). More importantly, there is little independent coverage of her career, so since she has herself requested deletion, the principle of respect for living people makes deletion preferable at this time. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. (Ping doesn't seem to have worked, but I saw the change before leaving for work and now have a little time to be online.) Like others, deferring to the subject's changed request, and also to those with expertise in evaluating citation counts. I would still be a lot happier if it were possible for the article to include some biographical details, such as year of tenure, city in which she finished secondary school, whether the Cornell Medical appointment was the same year as the Ithaca campus appointment and if not, when. IMO the cv would be sufficient to cite these, but possibly there's a Cornell announcement including some such details? (And congrats on the promotion!) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete per XOR and David E. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - also per XOR and David E. Note that the author has been blocked following an SPI; if not for the edits by others, this would be a G5. – Levivich 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: +WP:HEY, –WP:BLPREQDEL. – Levivich 06:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis of being an authority in her field, as shown by the citation record of her papers. The importance of somebodys work is measured by their hgihest-cited papers, because the most cited work is by definition the most influential--that's what influence in science eans. H-index is not intended to show it--it works to distinguish those who have done vey little from those who have done an average amount of work, but it fails to measure beyond average, and that's the range where notability is relevant. Her h-index is 33 (using the google scholar figures): in her cas ththis mean papers with citation levels of 499, 348, 330, 327, 271.... with a number of different co-authors. This is very different from someone who hmight have a h index of 33, with it representing citation of 33 papes all with between 33 and 40 citations--that person would never have done any highly influential work, do matter how many middle level papers they publish. David Epstein, you are arguing here very differently han you usually do, because normally we agree on the signifcance of the highly cited work. You said above "(13 papers with over 100 citations each)" is not significant. In the past, you;ve usually said that 2 or more with over 100 is sufficient. And here it's not as if there were 13 papers with betwene 100 and 150 citations, but 4 with over 300, which is a very high level indeed. Some of her work has been highly influenctial. At this level I don't think its borderline, and we only consider requests when it is borderline.

There are two contradictory principles: NPOV, and BLP. The only real BLP problem is the description of thesubject's research , where the preferred description was in somewhat more detail than is customary; since the subject objected to the previously written description, the recourse is, as was mentioned earlier, to give just the basic information. We need to be objetive in coverage. I do not see the realism of potential harm, for the posible effect of this discussion would be to my mind equally possible of misinterpretation DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject of the article in question I withdraw my deletion request. I initially requested deletion since it seemed the easiest way to remove the inaccurate information in he article, but by now I have spent so much time on this back and forth (and the entry finally looks good) that I would hate to see that work go down the drain. In case it helps, I'll be a full professor in a couple of months :-)

Loeckenhoff (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my !vote was "per" XOR'easter and David Eppstein, both of whom mentioned the subject's keep/delete request in their !vote rationale. So... what do you two think now? (I don't like having to think for myself, so I'm just going to do what they do.) – Levivich 04:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, if you do keep it, please block Biografer from making further edits to it. They seem to be a bit biased at this point. Loeckenhoff (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's already been done. Biografer is the "blocked sock" referenced in the collapsed sections above; they've been indefinitely blocked from making any edits to any page on Wikipedia. You can click on the "sockpuppet investigations" link above (and WP:SOCK) for more info. Turns out Biografer had a previous account that had been blocked (for similar issues), and the Biografer account was an unauthorized alternate account. You're also not the only person who has raised issues about biography articles written about them by the Biografer account. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of article creations over the past few years, and a review/cleanup is underway. Thank you, by the way, for bringing this to the community's attention; who knows how much longer they'd have flown under the radar otherwise. Sorry you've had a rough introduction here and... welcome to Wikipedia :-) – Levivich 04:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the changes made to the article since the start of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Loeckenhoff. ——SN 54129 05:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable and has withdrawn objection. PamD 08:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability now established, and subject has withdrawn objection. Edwardx (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable by citation record for WP:NACADEMIC. No subject objection. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - With the blitz of changed !votes (and the subject's change now that the article has been improved, which is good to see regardless of this AfD), I've had another major read through. Most of the ACADEMIC criteria still aren't met, though the sufficient position one might be in a few months. However, the citation count has been considered above. It's one of my least favourite notability criteria because it's really hard to calculate and then still hard to assess. Still, there certainly is a case to be made, and some individuals who know it better and whose opinions I trust feel it is met. It's not a clear-cut example of such, but I am now leaning Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is shown both by the reference from the Association for Psychological Science, and by her election as a fellow of the Gerontological Society of America. Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others; h-index and citation count pass PROF criterion 1 and the subject no longer has concerns; great turnaround. Pet peeve, but it would be helpful if some experienced editors in this discussion read MOS:LISTGAP for future reference. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per the good work of editors who came before me. Notability now established in my opinion. Much discussion on her fellowship here. Wm335td (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements to the article that have been made since this AfD was first opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:32, 17 January 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 WAPA-TV. As noted by User:Bearcat, the discussion of TV stations in WP:NMEDIA is explicit about what to do with this type of station. Since all the recreation is being done by IPs, I will semi-protect; this can be upped to a higher level if the problem persists. RL0919 (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WTIN-TV[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:NTV. TV listings alone do not satisfy notability. Also courtesy pinging @Rosguill, Bankster, and Red Phoenix to this discussion as other users that have dealt with the repeated recreations. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nowhere near GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WNJX-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really much here in terms of content, and clearly not meeting GNG. I was fine with the redirect, but given all the recreation, keeping the redirect would also have to mean either semi protection or ECP on that redirect. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WAPA-TV. Per WP:NMEDIA, television "stations" which exist only as relays of other television stations, and do not originate any of their own programming, are not "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles — which is precisely why this has been stable for years as a redirect to WAPA, and only just got converted into a standalone article within the past two weeks. Deleting it outright would still most likely require protection, because open redlinks are even more vulnerable to recreation than redirects are, so the idea that we might have to protect the redirect is not really a reason to privilege deletion over restoration of the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 13 January 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. Most participants judge that her roles in multiple productions were significant enough to indicate presumed notability under WP:NACTOR. Since the arguments for deletion also focus on the same SNG (just making the opposite judgment about the significance of her roles), the majority judgment is enough for a keep result in this discussion. RL0919 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Young (actress)[edit]

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

Has only had minor roles, does not meet WP:NACTOR Rusf10 (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The top 10,000 of the IMDb StarMeter is a good sign for notability, and she has been in the top 10,000 for much of the time over the last 20 years. I would give her the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where in our notability guidelines does it say to use an IMDb ranking to judge notability? Also, IMDb is not considered a reliable source.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found a number of pieces from reliable sources that talk about her film and theatre career. Her performances in certain stage productions have been noticed by the press. Yet not the greatest case for notability. Perhaps someone with theatre chops or who has Variety access could find and add more. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Splinemath (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive filmography Djflem (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: several main roles in notable films (Heat, Jaws: The Revenge, Criminal Law, among others). Meets WP:NACTOR. A definite keep, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lead roles on Broadway and several supporting roles in films. She was rated a top ten performer by the New Yorker. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While an absolute numerical reading of the votes would make it a Keep, at least one Keep vote isn't policy backed, so a relist for a clearer consensus seems reasonable (particularly due to disagreement over specific SNGs being satisfied). If it becomes very obvious in a couple of days I'm happy to close it then, if preferred
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as noted above, prominent roles in several notable films, including Heat, Jaws: The Revenge, and Daylight. Looking at this one, not sure why it’s subject to an AfD. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not really a WP:PILEON as I have conducted a minor WP:BEFORE and the person is clearly notable per WP:NACTOR. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lightburst. Funny enough, I've seen her in many movies and didn't know who she was until this AfD. Missvain (talk) 04:35, 12 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmin Rauma[edit]

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

Non notable Journalist/TV presenter, haven’t receive any major award to claim notable. Failed every criteria listed on WP:JOURNALIST. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC) (I might be wrong but i'm suspecting this article might be paid editing: Look at the photo on the article. The photo is clearly a selfie, there's no way anyone can took that photo with that angle except Sharmin Rauma herself. But article creator uploaded that as own work,)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 00:41, 17 January 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.