< 20 January	22 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 Moved to Draft:Historical territories of China by primary author with an edit summary of "moved to draft as per consensus reached on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical territories of China". All commenters suggested moving to draft or user-space as options. This is an "early" close, the discussion did not run the full week. (non-admin closure) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical territories of China[edit]

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

Relies on 1 source. Would be better if content was included in individual articles of dynasties Jungguk (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve sourcing obviously. Move to draft if necessary. The ebb and flow of the geographic territory of China is an important historical topic, and one worthy of encyclopedic treatment. BD2412 T 04:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it is a horrid article, which is largely meaningless to those who know little of Chinese history. I would suggest adding the dates of the dynasties, and putting the lists of countries ruled by each in narrative form, not vertical lists; also ensuring that the three maps are attached to the periods to which they refer. Perhaps userify for amendment. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft like others say Jungguk (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to draft. I have already moved this article to draft to improve on the various points that have been raised. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 04:11, 23 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 speedy delete by User:DESiegel per A7 and G11. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stark Enterprises, LLC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. Has some coverage in Cleveland-area newspapers, but not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Coverage appears to be routine in nature: June 2016 in Cleveland.com is selling its old HQ via auction. July 2018 in Commercial Executive buys land and buildings. Crain's Cleveland Business - paywalled, so I can't read all of the content, but Jan 2019 appears to be an announcement is sold a HQ building, and Sep 2019 (coverage also in another Cleveland.com piece) that the company is part of a partnership wanting to build high-rises in Cleveland. This coverage does not appear to be enough to pass GNG or NCOMPANY. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible evidence of notability - this looks like a candidate for A7 or G11 speedy deletion. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator originally hijacked Stark Enterprises. I'll try to histmerge in case there are missing sources in the current iteration. I think I A7'd those revisions. I did Revdel them. I went on to explain to creator about WP:CORP, WP:AfC and WP:42. She then again replaced the redirect with this content and then went on to create the current article.-- Deep fried okra 23:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. I did revdel under A7. There was no difference from the current iteration.-- Deep fried okra 00:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Run-of-the-mill property developer. Expected mentions in local newspapers and other light coverage is all that appears to be out there. Skeletor3000 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Exists only to promote the company. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete totally not notable without credible sources, case of WP:CORPSPAM.--WikiAviator (talk) 02:51, 22 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) 00:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Édouard Cointreau[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I struggled to find enough coverage to pass GNG about him, specifically. However, his cookbook award appears to be notable. Missvain (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple sources available such as this[1] from the Jakrta Post, or this[2] from the Hindusthan Times etc. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both sources barely mention him, and are nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,Lacks enough coverage to pass WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:MILL. He's not notable just because his granddad made spirits. His awards are run of the mill, cf. James Beard Foundation Award. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 27 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. Deleting based on rationale presented by the reviewers. Feel free to redirect after deleted if you consider it warranted. Thanks everyone for your particpiation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Kaggs[edit]

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

Fictional character from a book series, with no sources for 13 years. Mattg82 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NORESCUE. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per npm. not sourced , not notable. Alex-h (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Willard Price's Adventure series where the character is already briefly mentioned. This could be a viable search so it may be helpful for some readers, but I would not be entirely opposed to a deletion. Either way, there is not enough coverage to support this character having an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ordinary character who dies; sounds like a Redshirt (stock character) to me. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 27 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. Keep, passes GNG and can be improved using WP:BASIC. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isra Hirsi[edit]

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

Subject is a minor child of a famous politician, receiving a very small bit of coverage that she otherwise would not if it was not for the famous relative. Should e deleted per WP:NOTINHERITED Zaathras (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this individual is noted by numerous national publications for their work in the American environmental movement besides being the daughter of a member of Congress. I've added more references documenting notability. –Tod Robbins (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sustained coverage or other notable activities, doesn't meet WP:GNG. She is primarily "famous," or rather, covered in a couple news pieces, because she is the daughter of a high-profile and controversial congresswoman. Little indication of genuine independent notability other than a single Vice piece, which mentions the mother extensively. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTINHERITED is intended to keep out articles about subjects that are only covered in the context of a more notable related subject. That Hirsi would likely have received less attention from the press (or fewer opportunities for leadership in climate activism) had she not been the daughter of Ilhan Omar is not something that we should be taking into consideration here. Incidentally, this was a mistake that I made a bit over a year ago, when I nominated an article about a grandson of Nelson Mandela for deletion. Coverage like this goes a long way toward establishing notability, and it's hardly the only example of significant coverage in an independent source. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does the subject independently meet WP:GNG? There is a complete absence of substantial or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice piece covers her in the context of her leadership of an ongoing, notable activist movement. Based on the coverage already available, I don't think Hirsi meets the antecedent in the advice described in SUSTAINED: If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.––I think that even the existing coverage is beyond the context of a single event, and it's pretty clear that Hirsi is not keeping a low profile.

WP:SUSTAINED (which, nitpicking, is not part of GNG) is more about keeping out flash-in-a-pan WP:BLP1E cases like "twin girls separated at birth reunited", minor events with no long term significance (adorable cat given cool looking prosthetic legs!) and other viral stories with no long term importance. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's pretty clear that Hirsi is not keeping a low profile Predictions are a dime a dozen and there's no indication the subject has lasting notability. As for my "nitpicking," WP:SUSTAINED is part of the overall policy on notability, as are WP:GNG. Both take weight in considering whether the subject deserves a page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, SUSTAINED uses the example of "Brief bursts of news coverage" as the standard to check against. Multiple in-depth stories about a subject over a couple of months does not really sound like "Brief bursts of news coverage" to me, does it? SUSTAINED also points to WP:NEVENT for more details, a SNG which mentions diversity of sources (check), "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle" (check) and "significant or in-depth coverage" (check) as indicators for notability. Regards So Why 13:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, I meant that I was nitpicking. You're right that all notability guidelines are relevant, I was just pointing out that it's incorrect to say that SUSTAINED is part of GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not voting at this time, don't know if I will, but my ask to the closing admin is that if the outcome is delete, instead consider restoring the redirect to Ilhan Omar#Personal life, much like I had created the redirect before it was spun off. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG with multiple in-depth articles (Vice, Grist, City Pages). Notability is about her role in US Youth Climate Strike and as User:Rosguill noted, although the coverage might be increased due to her relation to Ilhan Omar, this makes her notable in her own right. Achaea (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED is in itself not a valid reason for deletion. Failing WP:GNG would be but in this case, the subject seems to have attracted sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG or at least WP:BASIC. Does she receive a lot of coverage mainly because of who her mother is? Most likely. But it's not our job to chastise reliable sources for why they cover a subject as long as they do cover it substantially. In addition to the coverage already mentioned, there is also The Root, Jacobin, The Wrap, New York's The Cut and even The Weather Channel for example. That appears to be sufficient to meet the bar of both GNG and BASIC. Regards So Why 12:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources, notable awards and organization. Gamaliel (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, meets GNG with non-routine coverage. Quidster4040 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage still in the main goes back to who her mother is, notability is not inherited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question that we should ask ourselves is this: "At what point does Charles, Prince of Wales cease to simply be the eldest son of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and become notable in his own right?" Maria Shriver, Paris Hilton, Kylie Jenner and Kelly Osbourne are all now notable figures, but there once was a time when they were not. The cachet of being related to a famous person was an important factor in their initial successes, and yet they all managed to keep their pages for long enough to make their own marks. If Miss Hirsi is a leader of the climate change activist movement, then she has as much right to keep her page as Greta Thunberg does. O.ominirabluejack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's look at the nomination statement. I would suggest that "receiving a very small bit of coverage" is incorrect and instead, I judge the amount of coverage as meeting WP:GNG. And to say that she gets "coverage that she otherwise would not if it was not for the famous relative" is irrelevant; since when have we cared why somebody gets coverage? Schwede 66 18:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article requires some refining (it leans too much on WP:PRIMARY-inflected sources for my liking), but the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO on the basis of the Vice article and National Geographic coverage. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG with the significant coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:12, 27 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Feel free to redirect if you feel it is warranted. Missvain (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Stone (artist)[edit]

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

Subject appears non-notable. The few examples of coverage I found that extend past name mentions in credits for cover art are not independent of the artist. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked up archives of http://locusmag.com to see if there was any coverage of Stone, but the archived versions of the page that was used as a source don't mention him, and even if they did, all the show is the image of a cover. There is nothing there that could have been used to write an article from. Unless some usable sources emerge (I tried and found nothing), I don't see that he meets the requirements of any of our notability guidelines. Vexations (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might be notable for having designed a lot of covers, but how are we going to write an article if nothing can be verified by sources? I cannot find any decent sources beyond the fact that he has lots of illustrator credits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shannara for which he's connected. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 27 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. Deleting for now. If he hit the big time (so to say) then we can refund. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Chernikov[edit]

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

Fails GNG and, more to the point, WP:ACADEMIC. Associate professors are not inherently notable, and a 30 year old fresh doctor with barely 600 citations in his particular field does not cut it per criterion 1, especially when being a co-author in all but 40 of those citations. PK650 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent coverage, does not pass WP:GNG, and does not pass WP:ACADEMIC as per nomination. Achaea (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sacks Prize, CAREER Award, Sloan Award. This mathematician is a star. The awards alone qualify him under item 2. of WP:PROF. As for "coauthor issue" it is neither discussed in WP:PROF nor relevant. Having coauthors is normal in maths, and it is he personally who got the individual prizes rather them being a joint award. Mhym (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The prizes are strictly early career stuff, and do not contribute towards notability. 600 citations in a low citation field, however, looks like enough for WP:NPROF C1. The level of coauthorship doesn't look especially high, and I'll comment that Pierre Simon, who he's collaborated with the most, is another young person (so it doesn't look like he is being pulled along by his advisor or similar). The article appears to have been originated by the subject's colleague, and unsourced personal details should be removed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which unsourced personal details are you thinking of? I read the article carefully and found none - the article seems well referenced. Mhym (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My complaints are limited to the personal details in the lede -- date and place of birth. It'd be good style to repeat and expand with citation in the first sentence of education and career, or to pare them down if a source can't be found. I notice that he has DOB on an old CV, but I'm guessing place of birth is hard to back up. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I googled and found an old Flickr page [3] which has the same name, place of birth and his picture [4]. The Flickr also points to a defunct LiveJournal blog [5] which is in turn lists his email artyom.chernikov@gmail.com and WordPress blog [6]. Both of those appear on Chernikov's math articles [7]. I am not sure if this suffices as RS but looks good enough for me as an outsider. Mhym (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:ACADEMIC per Russ Woodroofe's comment. TJMSmith (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The awards and status are strictly early career stuff. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't think the early-career awards are enough for WP:PROF (sorry, Igor). But he probably will pass in a few years, on his current trajectory, so it's no great harm if this is kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 28 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaborone Football Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable run-of-the-mill football academy per GNG and NCORP. Could not find SIGCOV to substantiate its inclusion. PK650 (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. It's one of thousands of soccer camps around the world. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 27 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 speedy delete. kingboyk (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Godspower Oparaugo[edit]

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

Non notable author who falls short of WP:AUTHOR & in general has not been discussed with in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him hence fails WP:GNG as well. A before I conducted only shows his book on sites like Amazon which isn’t an evidence of true notability. Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11. Clear vanity page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:21, 21 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Chernyak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Chernyak

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

Article about footballer who made a single 83rd-minute substitute's appearance in a Russian National Football League match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [8]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here. Jogurney (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we made the bar for notability higher than playing in one game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a handful of minutes in a professional game do not make up for WP:GNG failure. Giant Snowman 21:19, 23 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muna Gauchan[edit]

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

the only claim to notability here is that she was crowned Miss Eco, which as we know is not actually notable. There's no coverage of her elsewhere and something being nominated (??) for a guiness world record isn't inherently notable either. None of the sources write about her in any great detail and those that do are not generally reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As an actress, she does not pass the notability standards. I'll defer to other editors as regards her notability as a model. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. She's not even remotely notable. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above users. No coverage beyond puffery or passing mentions. PK650 (talk) 21:45, 27 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. This AfD was flawed by naming, and it's hard to follow who referred to what situation. Nevertheless, there never was consensus for deletion. A merger discussion may be started if someone feels this might produce better results. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (Thomas Wayne)[edit]

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

Duplicate of Thomas Wayne scope_creep^Talk 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' It seems to be important to you although I don't understand it one bit. I think I have wasted everybody's time. I will close it as a solid keep, if it is ok with @TTN:. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The info is not even on on Thomas Wayne any more. Besides it was a notable topic all by itself as it is a different character. Kind of like Spider-Woman (Gwen Stacy) of Gwen Stacy or Old Man Logan of Wolverine (character) for prose. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This pop culture topic seems notable enough, since this was indeed a published work in a notable fictitious character in a well-known publisher and franchise. I agree with the comment above. @Jhenderson777: if that's your view, then could you please vote "Keep" on this? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's terrific. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. This Batman has appeared beyond the "Flashpoint" storyline. Plus, @Jhenderson777: and @Sm8900: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Based on the current incarnation, it fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. TTN (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to where? JIP | Talk 00:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of sources in the "Further Reading" section that are specifically about the character, especially the Comicbook.com, IGN and CinemaBlend articles speculating on who's going to play the character in the Flashpoint movie. It's obvious that the character is notable if there's multiple discussions about who's going to play the role. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the nomination. How can an article be a duplicate of itself? JIP | Talk 00:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @JIP:Thomas Wayne is the parent article to where it was split off to. Hope that helps. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is not going to get a fair shake. When you look at page views, it was was getting 6 a day until it is nominated, no worse nor less than the most obscure article. When you examine it, all you find is an information listings article, who did what and why, and so on, and the process is duplicated in both articles. There is no analysis, or comparison, nor discovery nor insight offered, just the listing what is happening in the magazines. I find it totally banal. Great for fan's, bad for everybody else, or not so much bad, but of little value. The worse thing about it, is the huge template that is preset, with most of the other articles already created, making this Afd almost a foregone conclusion. scope_creep^Talk 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand your issue and the article can be better. Even though the info it is obviously an incarnation of an original character. It’s obvious that it’s an notable incarnation. That’s why I brought it back and still lenient on keep. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination seems to have been critically flawed by naming the article as duplicating itself, rather than Thomas Wayne. Since this was only brought up yesterday, I'm relisting to allow the chance for it to be discussed with that correction in mind.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree with the relister's note that the original nomination is confusing -- I just took the bold step of editing the original nomination to point to the correct page. It'll be easier for folks to understand what we're actually talking about. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for Revised Nom. (Note: 2nd comment by me at this AfD) I appreciate the clarification!! my vote for "keep" still stands. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Thomas Wayne. The vast majority of the page consists of overly detailed plot recaps. If trimmed down to a basic summary (not a beat for beat retelling), this could easily be slotted into the main Thomas Wayne article. An unnecessary split. I see no evidence that this version is separately notable. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dang, @Killer Moff:, that's a great handle there, on your user name!!! lol!!

you just cracked me up. I like that! I'll be visiting your user page real soon. expect a visit, where I expect I'll find more whimsicality and whatnot!! lol

thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Wayne. We don't need two pages about what is in essence the same character.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This happens a lot. Just look at my examples above which are clearly notable. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:That was unnecessary to relist this twice. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator even withdrawn. I am not sure why it was relisted when the nominator withdrawn??? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that Jhenderson777 specifically canvassed Darkknight2149 on their user page to participate here. I doubt it'll particularly affect the outcome of this regardless, but likely should be discouraged in the future. TTN (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did invite. We are both a member of the Batman task force if I remember correctly and so he would have wanted to weigh in an relevant info. I didn’t know what his vote would be. Wp:Assumegoodfaith Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting @Masem: to vote, to address TTN's concern. Dark Knight 2149 23:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Thomas Wayne - Significant third party coverage. Dark Knight 2149 18:41, 22 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 Currie Street, Adelaide#History. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Topham Petherbridge[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Dawnseeker2000 19:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dawnseeker2000 19:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable settler.IceFishing (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. 2 small mentions in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I could find nothing to indicate any degree of notability for the subject in his own right. Yes he definitely existed, and must have had some standing to have a street named after him, but I cannot find anything else despite searches across many historical newspapers. I have merged to Currie Street, Adelaide#History and pretty much exhausted available sources in the process. Given the historical link to a current place it might be a search term hence redirect rather than delete. Aoziwe (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, since the content has been merged well. Aoziwe has done a good job of this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.IceFishing (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination – Thank you everyone for helping this article out. The redirect is a fine solution. Dawnseeker2000 02:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it's essentially a WP:SNOW and a moot point. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 27 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vatroslav Piacun[edit]

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

Unsourced for 12 years now; virtually nothing can be found online. No claims of notability, WP:GNG is not met, and neither is WP:NBASKETBALL. It seems that the article was created by a family member, in violation of WP:COI. GregorB (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the hr article? It seems to have a few sources and more information then the English one. Including a few photos of the guy. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Five sources are listed, of which: two are names of family members (!), one (PDF) is apparently self-published, one is simply Vjesnik (no article titles, issues, dates, page numbers), and the last one is a book about KK Cibona (Vukovi s Tuškanca). So, only the last one counts toward WP:V and WP:RS, but there is no reason to believe it gives Piacun more than a passing mention, which is insufficient for WP:GNG. The photos are family-supplied. GregorB (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near enough sourcing to show notability. Well, no sourcing here and no good sourcing has been identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:01, 24 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toks Asher Young[edit]

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

The subject of the article fails WP:GNG. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in signification coverage independent of him. None of the sources in the article (the ones that actually discuss him) are independent of him. All of the awards and nominations he's received are not notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject not notable, article promotional in tone with primary sourcing. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes general notability criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia. (Techwritar (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Techwritar is the creator of the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 14. The gist of the review was that we need a more detailed and rigorous discussion of the sources in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly a stronger keep, per my comments at DRV where I explained that based on my review of Google web and news searches, I'm able to provide two sources here (in-depth, and reliable and independent source) and here (another in-depth, and reliable and independent source), from Guardian Nigeria and News Ghana respectively, that meet our common sense definition of reliable, independent sources. Moreover, the articles themselves are both at length and in-depth. Moreover, these are just two sources I found, and I haven't, and am not able to assess offline sources, which I expect there to be. Thus, an easy WP:GNG pass here. Finally, as a professor who has generated significant press source in mainly African news sources, he passes the SNG(s). Doug Mehus T·C 21:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dmehus. Sources appear over the GNG bar. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 22 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. Thanks everyone for your additional comments. I appreciate it! Deleting. Thanks again for contributing and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Data Ladder[edit]

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

Non-notable software development organization; I found a page that praises 10 different "data quality tools" including Data Ladder with a "Some of the products...are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation..." disclaimer in the end and some comment spam on blogs, and that seems to be it. The user FarahKim seems to claim to be "a product marketing manager for Data Ladder" and "the author of this article", suggesting that the article may also be an undisclosed paid contribution (the page's creator is a different account though). Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The COI related templating on the article and talk page appeared incorrectly applied and I've attempted to remedy it. FarahKim has made a good faith attempt to make us aware of his COI, albeit somewhat belatedly after some tag removals and other content additions.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ~~Weak delete~~ (unless wP:THREE WP:RS sources presented here): The COI editting likely make any edit attempt too hard.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I observe my comment and signature has been copied below so I wish to make it clear to a closer this should be considered to be my only vote. I concur with Headbomb below a WP:TNT is needed here with an extremely strong recommendation any further submission should go via WP:AFC with any COI editors listening to advice from sources such as the WP:TEAHOUSE. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, please find our responses against these pointers.

Responding to Page Deletion Pointers:

1. Non-notable software development organization:

Please find the following recognition and notability of Data Ladder by Gartner, IDC and state institutions of the United States.

Gartner Peer Review with 4.6 Rating https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/data-quality-tools/vendor/data-ladder/product/datamatch-enterprise Gartner Vendor: https://www.gartner.com/reviews/vendor/data-ladder Gartner Quadrant: http://docshare04.docshare.tips/files/23488/234889991.pdf IDC Companies Covered: https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=US45454519 Crunchbase: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/data-ladder

A record linkage study by Curtin University of Australia where Data Ladder was compared with renowned companies like IBM and SAS: https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6947-4-9/comments

Technical report by University of Wisconsin where Data Ladder is recognized as one of the top 15 commercial data quality products: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~anhai/papers/magellan-tr.pdf

Connecticut State Department of Education (SDE) and the Board of Regents for Higher Education uses Data Ladder for conducting matches:

http://www.ct.edu/files/pdfs/p20win/ValidityofDataMatchingUtility-P20_WIN_0002-Final.pdf

Due to the non-promotional policy of Wikipedia, these were not discussed within the body and were mentioned only in the References section.

2. I found a page that praises 10 different "data quality tools" including Data Ladder with a "Some of the products...are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation..." disclaimer in the end and some comment spam on blogs, and that seems to be it.

We are in no way affiliated with said publication. As a data quality tool used by numerous public and private institutions, we are regularly mentioned by tech blogs.

Here is a list of where we are mentioned, which are also disclosed in the Publication section in the Data Ladder wiki: https://analyticsindiamag.com/10-best-data-cleaning-tools-get-data/ https://www.datamation.com/big-data/10-top-data-quality-tools.html https://www.em360tech.com/data_management/tech-features-featuredtech-news/top-10-data-cleansing-solutions/

As for the comment spam, please note that Data Ladder has been around for nearly two decades and it may have been an old backlinking technique used by someone which we no longer endorse. All such links have been disavowed from our end.

3. The user FarahKim seems to claim to be "a product marketing manager for Data Ladder" and "the author of this article", suggesting that the article may also be an undisclosed paid contribution (the page's creator is a different account though). Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am the author of this article and I am a Product Marketing Manager, employed at Data Ladder. It is not an undisclosed paid contribution. The template for COI has been implemented to mention connection. Since this my first time, the template may have been applied incorrectly.

The COI related templating on the article and talk page appeared incorrectly applied and I've attempted to remedy it.

* Bulleted list item FarahKim has made a good faith attempt to make us aware of his COI, albeit somewhat belatedly after some tag removals and other content additions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The author was not aware of the COI template. It was added after an editor pointed out the need to make a disclosure. I appreciate you pointing out that we made an attempt to disclose COI. If the deletion flag is removed, I will my best to ensure all COI templating is done correctly.

• Weak delete (unless wP:THREE WP:RS sources presented here): The COI editing likely make any edit attempt too hard.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources from .edu domains have been presented in the first counter-argument, along with references on Gartner.com and IDC.com.

Please know we are committed to objectivity and are publishing this page solely for the purpose of a company biography. We look forward to suggestions for improvement and editing wherever required. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarahKim (talk • contribs) 11:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 publications you linked to are all top-10 lists. The Datamation one includes the "Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensatione" disclaimer, the analyticsindiamag.com one has a page named "Advertise with us" about how good they are at "making it easy for you to propagate your brand", and the em360tech.com's "About Us" page includes sentences such as "The mission at EM360° is to provide a platform for your messages[...]", "Move your campaigns to the next level[...] Call us today[...]". The page at https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=US45454519 seems to offer to purchase a 6-slide online presentation for $2500, I haven't missed a decimal point somewhere in the first half of that number, and the only part I can see is a huge list of companies covered (including Data Ladder). The "A record linkage study by Curtin University of Australia where Data Ladder was compared with renowned companies like IBM and SAS" link seems to be actually a comment on some kind of a data stuff-related study, where the study itself doesn't seem to compare anything, as far as I see. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 12:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it's found to be notable, it's best to have a clean slate because the COI issues here are insurmountable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External Link [Company Information] is a web archieve link from 2013, which hides the real link showing a filed complaint from 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reichrob (talk • contribs) 09:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TNT at best, failure to meet any semblance to a balanced notability guide at worst. Ifnord (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Many of them don't even identify who wrote the content. Going through the sources, http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~anhai/papers/magellan-tr.pdf, identifies its authors, but it barely mentions the subject. "tom" at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46007/tools-for-matching-name-address-data/127893 who says that he "used dataladder.com for a big dataset of names. They did a fantastic job matching up different databases with very different spellings and cut through a lot of duplicates". http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~anhai/papers1/umetrics-edbt19.pdf names it's many authors, but again, makes barely a mention of Data Ladder. https://analyticsindiamag.com/10-best-data-cleaning-tools-get-data/ was written by Srishti Deoras, who works as Associate Editor for Analytics India Magazine. But all she has to say is "These user friendly tools help businesses from any size and any industry to manage their data cleansing processes with ease." The rest is similar. Barely paraphrased material from press releases trying to pass as analysis in "top 10" listcles. The sourcing of this article doesn't come close to meeting the notability requirements for companies described in WP:NCORP. Vexations (talk) 02:50, 22 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) 11:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Vijayan[edit]

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

Non notable person. Kutyava (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 05:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 05:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Page has been already reviewed by User:Wilhelmina_Will.this article does meet notability criteria Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 14:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact an article has been reviewed by someone is not an automatic counter to be questions of notability. It was reviewed in 2011 [9] when standards were lower. It made huge unsourced claims and is mostly sourced to the person's website. Other statements aren't supported by the sources. I've removed several of the significant claims that weren't sourced, rephrased a few things and tagged what else needs to be sourced. I added the "primary sources" tag since almost half of the sources are to their website. Of the remaining sources, one is an interview which doesn't help notability. One is a list which doesn't help much, one is a short passing mention and the other talks about him for a paragraph at most. The films get more support for notability. This article can use some help to make it an easy pass, and I think that's out there for an interested editor. Ravensfire (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails notability standards. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Strongly recommend to KEEP This is a very notable person in the Indian Movie and Music industry. He is one of the very popular music and music video producers and also a noted movie director. This article has already been reviewed and definitely passes the notability criteria. This is an Unnecessary tag to remove this article and I recommend that this article should be retained. Duryodan001 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC) — Duryodan001 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padavalamkuttanpilla. Cabayi (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Struck sock vote. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Recommend to KEEP He is a notable person in the Indian Movie industry, having produced several movies and also into the Music industry. He has published several albums and some of them were super hits in Malayalam. This article should be retained CosmicAdvent (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Struck sock vote. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain about the notability of the person. Kutyava (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far we've had one decent analysis of the sources, two people just saying he's not notable without elaborating, and two people saying he is notable without evidence. Further participation to reach a useful consensus would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 12:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:He is well known in the field of film producer, director and Lyricist in malayalam film industry.and He also produced and directed more than five films

Movie 1[[10]]

Movie 2

Movie 3 [My Boss (2012)]

Movie 4

Movie 5

These sources are ample to indicate his notability.-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 09:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb & Wikipedia are user generated content and not reliable sources. Cabayi (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To build on this comment, notability is not transferable. The films themselves are notable, but that doesn't transfer here. We need good sources that are not interviews that have extensive coverage of the article subject, and that's just not here. There is some pretty obvious promotional edits happening here with the AFD socks showing up to vote keep with no policy basis. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just aren't the sources with extensive coverage about this person present in the article despite specific requests being made. Some of the edits here suggest that some COI / UPE is happening with the AFD keep socks showing up suddenly. There are sources for films, but that doesn't transfer. Ravensfire (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Ravensfire::I don't know if the people who came here were AFD socks. If so, Please notify the CheckUser.BTW film producer like other creative professionals qualify via WP:ARTIST by producing notable work.East Coast Vijayan has been a producer of many projects that have their own Wikipedia articles. Here I adding few credible references

In addition, there are numerous articles about him in the local news media.

He Clearly meets WP:GNG,WP:ARTIST WP:FILMMAKER-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 19:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Padavalamkuttanpilla, a fair number of those sources either aren't reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them, or they have at best a passing mention of East Cost Vijayan. For example, the 1st and 7th sources are just searches on those websites - that's not a source for Wikipedia. Others are about films and have a passing mention at best - that's not helpful for establishing notability. They help the FILM show notability, but that doesn't transfer to here. Interviews, like the 2nd source, also don't help much for notability. Could you list the top three or four sources that have significant coverage of Vijayan? Ravensfire (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire ... I read it is possible for creative artists of well known work per WP:AUTHOR/WP:ARTIST/WP:FILMMAKER guideline to have notabilty established through the work; and in such cirumstance a single mention can be a significant mention; thus I might argue [11] would be good ... except it is a pre-release and not a post-release source which is a problem and possibly disallows it. But the key point is having best three sources to scrutinise in depth for discussions such as this.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We'd appreciate one more round to discuss this. Thanks everyone. A few other reviewers would be great.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: This is an absolute case of help me to be able to able to !vote support. And my gut instinct is this should be a !vote support ... by a scrape, as on the face of it we do probably have a satisfaction of WP:ARTIST/WP:FILEMAKER from WP:V sources. But ... Every meaningless WP:VAGUEWAVE !vote of someone's opinion simply gets in the way and looks like a WP:VOTESTACK. We are simply swamped by sources presented to keep and when I go into many I find the poorest of quality there ... so if we do have WP:RS amongst them its been cluttered out by the crud. Please can someone THINK and when presenting foreign language sources at fully elaborate the cites including trans-title, dates authors, website etc .... even quotes. If no-one can be arsed to that then I've I'm not going to consider source worthwhile. Please please please read WP:THREE, three or even two WP:RS sources would keep this. There's been a right WP:BATTLEGROUND going on with shame tagging on the article and various reports in parallel with this AFD with attempts to get the chief supported blocked and various negative COI's and vexatious article shame tagging. The whole thing is a mess.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:35, 27 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. Deleting. Concerns abut verifiability and notability, and the persistent COI does not help. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalvithanthai Haji. S.M.S. Shaik Jalaludeen[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability from the sources (all of which seem to be just directory entries). Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (note: I originally prod'ded the article). Sources added don't add any notability, and I can't find anything better online. Perhaps something exists in non-Latin script sources, but unless these are provided, this should go. Fram (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Regarding Deletion Proposal
Dear Slatersteven. I hope you have prompted me with deletion proposal. I think my article ("Kalvithanthai" Haji. S.M.S. Shaik Jalaludeen) still needs some strong sources. I can still provide more citations. This is a history of a Person who have started Institutions in developing rural area. We as a team uploading the History in many sources. I have added a reference of published website named "Kalvimalar" (which is a Guide to Education for people in Tamilnadu) published by daily news paper publisher named "Dinamalar" (which stands as a standard Daily news company of state Tamilnadu, India) which is started by A Patriot Freedom fighter, Social- Conscious Philosopher and Self-made Champion Journalist^[1]. I hope you can help me on improve my article and prevent deletion. Thank You. --Azarudeen Syed Bahurudeen 15:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Azarudeen S

Do you have a wp:COI?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a list (even one published by an RS) does not establish notability, please read wp:n. It has to be in depth coverage, about the subject of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Dear Slatersteven. I never had any conflict of interest. As I mentioned we are a team of Youngsters involved in Social activities. We are in aim to develop our town with physical activities and with technologies. Because we believe development of a country starts from town. The Person I wrote about in my article made a revolution in a small town which had economically weak people in Tamilnadu, India. He made their Higher Education Dreams become True. That is the only reson I wrote an article about him. And I want to spread the history to motivate more youngsters in the rural areas as well as urban areas. Please consider, I am not a paid editor. --Azarudeen Syed Bahurudeen 15:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Azarudeen S[reply]

COI does not just mean getting paid, it means do you have a connection with them. Also I fell you need to read wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I don't have any connection with them. The town were the institutions are located is my hometown. Those institutions are also the reason for the development of this town. I have clearly mentioned in my user page that, I am here to write about the legends, powerful personalities and many more about our hometown. Please help me with the issue and guide me through how I can prevent the deletion.--Azarudeen Syed Bahurudeen 16:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Azarudeen S[reply]

Two of us have looked and two of us cannot find any wp:rs to use to establish wp:N. I can do no more than that, if I cannot find sources I cannot support inclusion. All I can do is tell you to recreate as a draft and work on it there, but frankly I think it will be a waste of your time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Let me Improve my article. Thank You. --Azarudeen Syed Bahurudeen 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Azarudeen S[reply]

I put up two "needs work" tags, you removed them. That is when I AFD this, when you did not listen to what needed to be done. You have still failed to find one reasonable source (despite having been told what to look for). Go ahead if you wish and create the draft, I cannot stop you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I removed the "needs work" tags after I added some references to the article(As mentioned in tag). I have provided the website institution itself where the history of its founder was mentioned. Also I provided a reference of online published "[12]" a part of tamilnadu's no.1 newspaper publisher dinamalar. Still what else i need to provide. --Azarudeen Syed Bahurudeen 17:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Azarudeen S

I will reply one more time, You need third party (not affiliated with the subject, thus not organisations they have worked for or established) in depth (About them as a subject, not about their employers, employees or organisations they have set up or run) reliable sources discussing them. You need to establish wp:n (read it, its what its there for) for them, not just that they exist. You have been told this multiple times here and on your talk page. I suggest you ask for help now at WP:TEA.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Thank you. --Azarudeen Syed Bahurudeen 18:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Azarudeen S @Fram:@Slatersteven: can you suggest me some reliable newspaper sources from India.--Azarudeen Syed Bahurudeen 18:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Azarudeen S[reply]

Delete Does not pass GNG, nor is spreading inspirational messages a purpose of Wikipedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Azarudeen S: what exactly do you mean by "we as a team". Are multiple people using the Wikipedia account that you are writing from? GPL93 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93: I am the only person who have the access to the Wikipedia account. "we as a team" I mentioned is a group of youngsters involved in social activities, including me.Azarudeen Syed Bahurudeen 04:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Azarudeen S @Slatersteven: Regarding moving as draft I decided to move the article to my draft. Let me work on the reliable source. I request you to close this discussion page as soon as possible. Thank you --Azarudeen S[reply]

I never close anything I started to avoid any COI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I don't have any COI.--Azarudeen S

I said if I never close because I may have a COI. I started this AFD, so may close it in my favour.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I came across many articles and did some research on them. They too wrote about their political leaders, their townmates and actors. Why they might don't have a COI? But you said I have COI??? I need to know if I can give a book which is published in google books as reference citation, will this article accepted? Azarudeen S

KEEP. Article represent Biography of a person, Notability is depicted in many news sources.( !dea4u 03:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Can you present some examples of these "many news sources"? As Slatersteven has pointed out, none of the current sources used in this article are significant coverage from reliable sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The article is about a notable person from Tamilnadu, South India. I attach a news clip from reputed newspaper The Hindu in the article. Riyasafrim (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So they published the article today? That's fortuitous. Seeing as it's in today's copy of The Hindu, can you scan the whole page please. It would really help. - X201 (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@X201: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b3TzLFl3y0sbNBakcMsQb4lkPTdbiRWt/view?usp=drivesdk

That is not an RS, for a start why is it different from the rest of the front page?Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: As the font size and other specifications are,we believe,decided by the newspaper authorities,we have a limited say on it. We vouch by its authenticity as responsible educators.

Not if its paid for.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — to Khadir Mohideen College, apparently he's the founder → college history. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources have been provided, the questionable scans and photos put forward in this discussion shows at best an advertising feature, more likely a fake. I do not buy for a second that The Hindu happened to carry a tribute to him on their front page just as the article is being discussed for deletion Dexxtrall (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today is 100th birthday of the person whose article is published. The authorities of the institution or may be somebody else from the family have published it on The Hindu newspaper today. How do they know about the article I published is under the discussion. Also I would like to state the published one is not fake as I have a copy of the same newspaper. Read the words and the newspaper is not same as in the article. But both mean the life history of a person who born before 100 years. Please refer the birth date of the person and consider. Azarudeen Syed Bahurudeen 12:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If 'The authorities of the institution or may be somebody else from the family have published it' then by definition it is not a reliable source, and almost certainly paid for advertorial Dexxtrall (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azarudeen S (talk • contribs)

Delete Fails WP:V; insufficient sourcing to establish this person as meeting WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 28 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Grokhin[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made a single appearance in a Russian Cup match between two Premier League clubs, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [13]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here. Jogurney (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL for one appearance. Giant Snowman 20:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the above in that his NFOOTBALL claim hangs by a thread and is trumped by his lack of coverage overall. 10 appearances during his entire career (as an amateur, no less), for a second division team is unfortunately not enough for him to be considered notable under any set of criteria. PK650 (talk) 22:41, 22 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. Because there is clearly a high urgency for this to be closed by lots of very worried editors LOL Missvain (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connections-based learning[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

I did some cleanup work on Connections-based learning today, then I went looking for better references and couldn't find any. Then I realized that the article subject does not meet the general notability guidelines. There are a few articles about the subject in local news sources and in blogs that I had never heard of. There is a self-published book, a self-published website, and self-published videos, all by Sean Robinson, the subject's creator. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and its creator is nonexistent. I wanted this to be notable and was sad to nominate it for deletion. Biogeographist (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Connections-based learning is an approach to teaching used around the globe. Independent articles stating its use in Canada, US, Nigeria, Norway, Israel, Cambodia, and China support its notability. The approach is either quoted in or corroborated by current research. The article has been updated to reflect CBL supported in Krutka and Carano's research in the Journal of Social Studies Education Research. - Sean Robinson, the creator of CBL Serobinson01 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Connections-Based Learning is a book, a method, and a globally recognized approach to navigating 21st learning in new and novel ways. In addition to the research cited above, it is a unique methodology put into practice on a daily basis and shared frequently through social media and keynotes by educators around the world. Connections-Based Learning is also one of the first and only pedagogical frameworks available that explicitly connects student learning to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals; not only is Connections-Based learning worthy of a Wikipedia entry, it's valuable for the benefit of humanity. Matt Murrie (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Murrie (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC) — Matt Murrie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Note that Matt Murrie, the previous commenter, is a new single-purpose account who created an account today and made one edit to Connections-based learning and to this deletion discussion, and he may be connected to the subject (he included <nowiki> markup in his comment, like Sean Robinson, which is curious—if there has been off-wiki communication between Matt and Sean, the creator of CBL, they would do well to disclose it). Connections-Based Learning is indeed a book as Matt said, but I noted above that it is a self-published book (see WP:RSSELF), and the book is held by a grand total of one library in WorldCat—not an impressive distribution for a book that was published a few years ago. Biogeographist (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Confirming that I have had off-wiki communication with Matt Murrie and encouraged him to contribute to the article and the AFD section. Serobinson01 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Remember that the issue here is not whether CBL is "good", "beneficial", or "worthy" of being more widely known—I agree that it appears to be all of that. The issue here is Wikipedia's Notability guideline, which is based on the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not based on testimonials from a handful of people who are connected to the subject. The notability of the package called CBL is the issue, not the notability of the various elements of the package such as (to quote the article lead) "online and offline connections with students, experts, organizations, the community, and classrooms around the globe" (e.g., as in dialogic learning), "contacting and interacting with others inside and outside the class" (e.g., as in service-learning), and "giving students a 'real-world' experience" (e.g., as in experiential learning), all of which are also done apart from CBL. If there were a single non-self-published book devoted entirely to CBL, or even a single rigorously peer-reviewed article devoted entirely to CBL in a major journal, the subject would likely pass notability and I wouldn't have bothered to nominate it for deletion. A handful of self-published sources, non-peer-reviewed blog posts, and brief mentions doesn't cut it. Biogeographist (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IGI Global is publishing a book called Paradigm Shifts in 21st Century Teaching and Learning in April 2020. They are devoting a whole chapter to connections-based learning. Here is a quote: "Connectedness is essential to human growth and learning. This chapter presents an analysis on Connections-based learning from four distinct frameworks: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, interdisciplinary, and media-based." This is significant coverage and independent of the subject. Serobinson01 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a chapter in a book to be published by IGI Global does not necessarily help the case for notability; IGI Global is a controversial publisher that has been called a "rogue book publisher" in Eriksson, Stefan; Helgesson, Gert (June 2017). "The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 20 (2): 163–170. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3. PMC 5487745. PMID 27718131. It is hard to discern whether a book from this publisher has had rigorous peer review or is vanity publishing. The publisher's bad reputation in book publishing led to its Wikipedia article being deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination). JzG has had something like a campaign to remove citations of IGI Global books from Wikipedia (e.g. User:JzG § Vanity press), which is how I learned of the company's bad reputation in book publishing. I would like to hear what other editors think of the relevance of the IGI Global book chapter to the notability discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Full disclosure - I am a former colleague of Mr. Robinson's who recently heard that his listing was being considered for deletion. I had to chime in. One of the problems facing this listing is the fact that so many of those affected by this pedagogical approach are in areas of the world where western news outlets and academic researchers are less likely to take notice of the work being done (e.g. The Dominican Republic and Uganda). I don't know if there is wiggle room in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines to account for this unintentional bias of omission, but hopefully, there is. I just posted my first edit to add another reference in the hope that we can keep this transformative concept in front of educators. Thank you for considering it. Gtjosvold (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC) — Gtjosvold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for your disclosure. I think there is some wiggle room, but I don't understand your argument; the creator of CBL is based in North America (if I'm not mistaken), and what I have read about CBL does not suggest that it is less relevant to the Global North than to the Global South or that there is any reason why people in the former would ignore or be uninterested in it.

Regarding keeping CBL "in front of educators", I doubt that Wikipedia has been contributing much (though perhaps Sean has some anecdotal evidence to the contrary): during 2019, Connections-based learning had a daily average of 3 pageviews, compared to, for example, a daily average of 68 for Global citizenship education, 121 for Service-learning, 289 for Nonformal learning, 418 for Problem-based learning, and 541 for Experiential learning! Biogeographist (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is basically promotional. It was created by user:serobinson01, who admits to being the inventor of the term. The sources are appalling: either they do not mention the subject, or they are junk journals (e.g. a Turkish journal with no DOI), or mere namechecks ("She is also a mentor, creative learning methods researcher and an inaugural ambassador of Connections-Based Learning by Sean Robinson, Canada."). IGI, incidentally, is an academic vanity press. It makes its money by selling vanity copies and archive copies to libraries whose mission is to buy one of everything. If Johnathan Bishop can publish a book under their imprimatur (and he did), they have no editorial standards at all. Having stripped out some of the obvious crap, what's left appears to be a discussion of a potentially valid subject but with a heavy overlay of somebody trying to claim ownership of the bleeding obvious. There's nothing out there that supports the strident claims made, and most of the original content was naked self-promotion. Guy (help!) 09:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. The sources do not support notability. I'm also concerned that the article has been written and maintained by someone with a book to sell, in contravention of COI. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is a promotional brochure resting on sources that do not support notability. Reyk _YO! 10:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment nor sure about this, yes its 100% a promotional. But there also does seem to be some degree of limited notability. I think what we have maybe a subject that would be weak keep written so badly it needs to be started form scratch by a neutral party. This means I lean (but its not firm) towards weak delete.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy's analysis of the references in the article and per he and Girth Summit's concerns about having created by a COI-conflicted editor. I agree there could be notability to this book from Slatersteven, but would concur it's probably best to have someone neutral rewrite this article (assuming someone neutral cares to do so). Doug Mehus T·C 15:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there could be notability to this book: As I noted above, the fact that the book is held by a grand total of one library in WorldCat does not bode well for the notability of the book. Biogeographist (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeographist, Comment Lots of libraries don't subscribe to WorldCat because of the high membership and subscription fees. Or, they don't synchronize their catalogues with WorldCat often. So, I wouldn't use WorldCat for notability. That said, there's no reason for keeping this article given the above and EEng below. Doug Mehus T·C 20:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: Oh, I'm not at all suggesting that WorldCat would be decisive for notability, but it's very much a clue: it does not bode well for the likelihood of finding other indicators of notability, such as finding the kind of reviews that librarians use to select books. Biogeographist (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unintelligible promotional edubabble. E Eng 15:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I

Like that. Good rationale! It is rather indecipherable to those outside of higher education circles. Doug Mehus T·C 15:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's indecipherable to anybody. E Eng 16:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reminds me of a mini-version of [14]; virtually incomprehensible to those outside of education. Home Lander (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me (I repeat) it's incomprehensible to everyone, inside or outside. E Eng 18:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as free of meaning. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Jschnur (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even putting aside the lack of notability, there is a clear COI issue Dexxtrall (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The comparison to the now-infamous Information and communication technologies for development is mean but sadly accurate. This article is a dense blob of promotional gobbledygook that manages to use hundreds of words while being totally devoid of encyclopedic merit. While this article is not as impenetrable as the aforementioned deleted page (due mostly to the fact that it is shorter and was not written by as many people), it is still very bad and clearly not notable. Michepman (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not observed. Celestina007 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can only imagine that this relisting "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" is someone's idea of a joke. E Eng 21:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confusing and self-promoting. Doesn't meet notability requirements, even after revision. The Savage Norwegian 21:29, 21 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BJP Minority Morcha[edit]

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

All of the sources are routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 04:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one committee of a political party. This would require a re-do of it were kept. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable. Seems to have been created with the sole purpose to promote its office bearers.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:27, 25 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) 11:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lee (businessman)[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, just PR and placement on a list. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet GNG. I tried to find more references and couldn't find anything via reliable, independent sources.JSFarman (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are few things about the subject that are not in par with WP:ANYBIO. But I don't think it fails WP:GNG. There are citations from Thrive Global, Inc. (magazine), Ocean Drive (magazine) and Digital Trends. Plus, I think 30 under 30 is a notable list. So placement here is notable too. I've added reference to list. Lunar Clock (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman. The coverage is not at the level of indepdence or indepth enough to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May be we can discuss the depth of coverage but I'm not convinced how this isn't independent. Lunar Clock (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL - reading between the lines, this is a head salesperson for a start-up. How is that notable in any way? Bearian (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the misinterpretation of the subject. Being in a 30 under 30 is a notability criteria not a head sales person in my opinion. Lunar Clock (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Founder and CEO of Neon Roots, with $2.25 million in Revenue in 2015. SWP13 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is revenue under $5 million enough to make anything notable anymore?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rather WP:MILL businessperson that doesn't have enough significant, in-depth coverage to meet GNG. Over 1,300 people are named "30 under 30" yearly so it is not a particularly good identifier of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is a non-notable businessman who has not been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:GNG. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources exist. Sambhil32 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the current sources, he passes WP:ANYBIO. I agree with Lunar Clock, even 30 under 30 makes him passing the general notability. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should not be confused with Ben Lee but with mentions from third party sources, there is enough significant coverage to establish WP:BASIC and WP:GNG Bingrick (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NBIO as the founder of an Inc 5000 company, and is a columnist for several notable magazines and newspapers such as Forbes, Inc, Huffington Post, and more. Meets WP:SIGCOV in notable sources such as Inc, Forbes, Ocean Drive (magazine), Thrive Global, and others, and the mentions certainly aren't passing. Sources are enough to pass WP:GNG. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I specifically want to disagree with (1) the assumption that 30 under 30 is a a reason for notability . Forbes very frequently publishes thise lists, and derivative lists in vatious fields. It's essentially somewhere between a promotional listing and a mere mention. (2) theview that writing opinion pieces for various magazines is notability . At least one of them, HP, until very recently published them without editorial supervision of any sort. Getting these placed in various magazines might possibly go towards showing the notability of the subject's PR agent, because that's part of that person's job. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Adding that regardless of its value (or lack thereof), as a contributor to Inc.(https://www.inc.com/author/ben-lee) Ben Lee's appearance on the "30 under 30" list is not independent.JSFarman (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nevertheless, I do believe he meets WP:GNG, and there aren't any Wikipedia pages saying that businesspeople need to have over $5 million in revenue -- and it looks like he does have over $5 million. [15] 30 under 30 and Inc 5000 are pretty notable merit-based business awards, but many other businesspeople on Wikipedia don't have those. The press mentions aren't passing, and I don't quite see anything blatantly promotional about them. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’d argue that Inc. Magazine’s 30 under 30 list is next to Forbes’ in notability, and to be one of 30 people in a nation of over 500 Million people is highly notable. Although Forbes' has several categories, Inc Magazine 30 under 30 was literally only 30 people total. Both 30 under 30 and Inc 5000 are amongst the most notable business awards in the world. Regardless, he fulfills the WP:GNG requirements for notability having numerous publications featuring him. Forbes Technology Council is another notable group he is in. In order to be in it you have to be invited by the Forbes Technology Council, be revenuing above $5M, and have enough notability to be approved to contribute. In addition, GNG standards would be said to be unimportant because PR agents, which is not the case, and passing GNG standards shows the person is sufficiently notable enough. PR agents can’t land people in magazines unless the client is notable enough to be landed there, so the fact that he was notable enough to so many publications is sufficient to say he is notable enough here. There are multiple sources like Maxim that were not mentioned on the page. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round at this. I'm leaning towards keep but the 30 under 30 debate is interesting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He contributes to Inc. The list was published in Inc. It's not independent. JSFarman (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll present a counter narrative here. Being a columnist to Inc doesn't mean the subject works for them. If that were the case, majority of columnist were part of 30 under 30. So I don't agree that its not independent. Lunar Clock (talk) 07:40, 23 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love Football[edit]

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

Nominating this for its lack of notability. Cannot find any sources online and it being Japanese exclusive it may not have any English sources to it. GamerPro64 17:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 17:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 17:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is one of the reasons I think A7 should matter for products too. I was simply unable to find multiple in-depth coverage in reliable sources (nor there is a JP Wiki counterpart to look for more), and this a clear failure of WP:GNG. There are pre-release brief articles like [16] and one Japanese indepth review [17], but nothing that would signal GNG being met/need for a standalone article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are enough sources. https://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20060721/lf.htm 21:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludost Mlačani (talk • contribs)

One indepth source is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a search for "LoveFOOTBALL 青き戦士たちの軌跡" which seems to be the official Japanese name (I don't speak the language sadly). I found a few different game database entries, but was unable to find anything more than what Ludost Mlačani found. Without more, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:37, 25 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naveed Butt[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable spokesperson of a banned political party, does not meet WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 14:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because he exists — but the article is referenced entirely to primary sources (a directly affiliated human rights activist campaign and his party's own self-published website about itself) and blogs, with no evidence whatsoever of any notability-supporting reliable source coverage about him. This is not how you get a person over the notability hump. We're also not here to right great wrongs, so people are not exempted from having to have any reliable source coverage just because they were victims of a human rights violation in a country with press freedom problems — even in that situation, we still require evidence of neutral attention from sources that don't have a vested interest in the topic. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Party officials are not inherently notable; see WP:POLOUTCOMES. The coverage is all local. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 27 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 Devil Hunter Yohko#Video games. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Devil Hunter Yohko video games[edit]

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

This is a bare bones list that does not seem to be needed. With only three games listed there does not seem to be a use for it. GamerPro64 17:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 17:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 17:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely useless content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This could have just been redirected/merged to Devil Hunter Yohko#Video games. Invoking AFD bureaucracy is a complete waste of time when there's such an easy editing solution, not to mention contrary to policy. postdlf (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil Hunter Yohko#Video games as there are some earlier versions of this article that could help be mined for information, although that information would require a video game reliable source. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devil Hunter Yohko#Video games as an obvious WP:ATD per above. Doesn't serve the navigational purpose as there is only one game with Wiki article (also having questionable notability on it's own), and there aren't many sources that talk about the games to support the list. The section is quite sufficient to cover the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:14, 24 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) ミラ P 15:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Jilke[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Internet searches on Google, Google Books, and Google News+Archive reveals only one source not from the UN (and thus affiliated with the subject), a news article on Ynet. Multiple sources are generally required, especially since the subject appears to still be living. NightlyHelper (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets #2 of WP:SOLDIER and is mentioned in various books for his role in UN peacekeeping operations.Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a general officer, clearly meets WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER; sources are available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears to pass the WP:SOLDIER requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:27, 23 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. Coverage based solely on a person's candidacy for a non-national office is typically discounted at AfD (see WP:POLOUTCOMES for more info), and most commenters have followed that model here. If this individual is notable for other work, the sources for that have not been shown in the article or this discussion. RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Tulp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only change since the previous deletion is that Tulp is running for Congress. However he currently fails WP:NPOL. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it's substantially different enough to warrant a second AFD but yeah, there's still no coverage. He's not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biographical article for a non notable individual who falls short of WP:GNG standard.Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and he isn't really notable outside his campaign. Minor COI disclosure but Tulp appears to have been two years ahead of me at Fordham and I kind of remember his face from College Democrat/College Republican debates. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retain He is on the ballot in Mississippi for a major political position in a major political party. He is notable, particularly in the region and to the intended audience, and should be able to retain his page, at least through the Primary election cycle. Matevian (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)--Matevian[reply]

That falls way short of WP:NPOL as thousands of people qualify to be on congressional primary ballots each election cycle. Wikipedia is not a voter information service. GPL93 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — in other words, he has to win the election before he "automatically" qualifies for an article, and to qualify for inclusion any earlier than November 2020 he would have to demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway. Simply running as a candidate is not, in and of itself, enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only news regarding him entering politics is running for a major political position in a major political party. Since election is several months away & he hasn't won yet, it fails WP:NPOL. On the other hand, the article has a lot of reliable sources about him. It should do away with a couple of primary sources. Per Matevian, article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 20 footnotes here, six are duplicated repetitions of the same source, so there are really just thirteen references in total. But six of those 13 are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as his campaign website and staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers and newspaper articles where he's the author and not the subject; two more are blogs, and two more are glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him. Which means ten of the thirteen footnotes are doing nothing at all to demonstrate notability — and since every candidate in every election can always show two or three hits of "person declares candidacy" coverage in their local media when they launch their campaigns, the three remaining hits of campaign coverage are not in and of themselves enough coverage to hand the candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL. The notability test for unelected candidates is not the ability to offer technical verification that he exists; it is the ability to offer nationalizing coverage that makes his candidacy much more special than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to marginally meet notability guidelines with his academic and radio careers, in addition to being the major party candidate for a seat. There is no reason a candidate for office SHOULDN'T have an article, and we shouldn't hold them to a higher standard than typical articles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 04:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of reasons why unelected candidates for office shouldn't have Wikipedia articles, and they aren't being held to a higher standard than other topics — there are a lot of classes of topic (school board trustees, small town municipal councillors, local bands, local writers, high school and junior league athletes, etc.) who could show a couple of hits of purely local hometown coverage without actually accomplishing anything that would clear our notability criteria for their occupation. Such people are not handed a "GNG"-based exemption from having to clear a notability standard just because a small handful of local media coverage happens to exist in purely local interest contexts. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that gets to two": it tests for depth and range and context, not just number. The less "inherently notable" a person's notability claim is, the more "well above and beyond the ordinary" their sourcing has to get before it translates into a GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates for public office do not meet WP:NPOL by virtue of being a candidate. We regularly say the campaign (in this case 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Mississippi) is notable even if the candidates are not. We have also recognized there of some candidates like Christine O'Donnell who receive reliable sourced and independent coverage (often international) that become notable through their campaigns, that do end up passing WP:GNG.--Enos733 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to pass WP:GNG with the multiple reliable sources in the article. His academic and radio career seem to make him notable, and his congressional run, which alone isn't notable, does contribute to his notability.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero sources here covering him in the context of his academic or radio careers, and I've already explained above why the vast majority of the sources present here aren't notability-supporting references. All we've got for GNG-worthy sourcing is three pieces of routine campaign coverage in the local media — which is not enough coverage to make a candidate more special than other candidates, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show three pieces of purely local campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have always deleted articles about DJs and talk show hosts, unless they are "drive time" are otherwise well documented in a serious of reliable sources. We always delete articles about candidates for Congress. Everybody knows this in 2020. Redirect if needed. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 27 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 Albert Bond Lambert. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Bond Lambert House[edit]

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

non notable. Every house in which Lindberg stayed is not therefore automatically notable DGG ( talk ) 10:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it is notable it will be as an historic building, not as somewhere where Lindbergh stayed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The St. Louis airport is named after Lambert, not Lindbergh. Durindaljb (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect into Albert Bond Lambert. I struggled to find WP:SIGCOV for the house. Missvain (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It sounds like it could be NRHP-eligible, but I checked and find the mansion is apparently not individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, nor is it a contributing building in any NRHP-listed historic district. There are other "Lambert"-related NRHP listings in St. Louis however:

Lambert Pharmaceutical Building (info available from selection at here)
Lambert Building (redlink currently) Maybe the same as above?
Lambert-Deacon-Hull Printing Company Building (redlink currently) (info available from selection at here)

Note also Lambert Pharmaceutical Co. is merely a redirect to Pfizer. The Warner–Lambert article would be a better redirect target. However a single article on the company and its building is probably better. --Doncram (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (was "Merge", probably into the Albert Bond Lambert article.) Each of the articles should link to the others. The mansion sounds substantial; it was significant IMO as the scene that it was; it is not merely a place that Lindberg stayed at, as the deletion nomination suggests. It seems plausible it was the setting where naming "Spirit of St. Louis" might have been proposed/adopted, by the way (tho that is not asserted, it is my speculation). It may not be significant enough as a mansion architecturally or otherwise to justify its own article currently, but if more info comes out or a big real estate sale price is achieved, it could become more clearly individually notable. IMO this merger is obvious as an alternative to deletion, and therefore there is no way this article should be outright deleted. By the way, why do we not have a list of places where George Washington slept? I looked for such a thing recently. That would be the top candidate for a list-article of that type, and I actually think it would be valid; there is substantial discussion (often sarcastic) about the numerosity of his sleepovers. --Doncram (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "Keep". Thanks User:MB for coming up with those sources in your comment below. I can't access The Atlantic article right now (too many reads by me this month), but its title "The Mansion of Early Lindberg Benefactor Albert Bond" sounds spot on. And you say the other one is more clearly a significant source. Also by the way I have begun an article on the mansion's architect George W. Hellmuth, who is indeed a noted architect. --Doncram (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here is one article about the house that qualifies as SIGCOV. Also another real estate listing type article in The Atlantic. This may be enough for GNG. MB 00:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this mentions the house, but is paywalled so I can't tell how extensively. There is some kind of ghost story about the house in this book, but an Amazon reviewer says it is bogus. (I came across another blurb somewhere else that said there were seances held in the house at some point). Here is a Page-1 New York times article from 1907 reporting an incident at the house (ST. LOUIS, July 29.—Some-Sticks of dynamite in a miner's trunk exploded ... Early this morning the Lambert mansion which he then hired, was damaged by fire.) And it is included in this book about St. Louis architecture. And this announcement - 3 story, brick, $45,000, architect. This is enough for me to say Keep. MB 01:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Albert Bond Lambert since it appears house is name for him, and body of this article is partially built on background info already covered in target. Djflem (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Albert Bond Lambert. The article does not appear to assert notability and I cannot find enough significant sources; a quick Google search turns up only something from a website named Curbed (here) and a listing in The Atlantic which is essentially a copypaste of that (here). I simply do not think that this is notable enough to include as a standalone article, but there is enough information that I think it could be included in the article about Lambert. NightlyHelper (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Albert Bond Lambert no evidence in article or this discussion that the house has any independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:15, 28 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Colhoun (director)[edit]

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

this is a puffed up resume that lacks in depth coverage and reliable sources. It looks pretty convincing at first but several of these sites are built to promote individuals and are not reliable, such as telenews.pk, which can't even keep their company name straight on their about us page. In fact, several of the sources are just copied from the businessinsider piece which appear to be the only thing that's actually independent of him/a pr team. Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Telenews was not a good source to include as it was redundant but it doesn't appear to be a good enough reason to delete a page. Deleting the source that copied business insider seems more reasonable than deleting the entire page. There are plenty of relevant press links to support notability on this individual. Jamesdanglewood (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesdanglewood Like which ones? Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business insider, Vacations and Travel, Tech Advisor, Daily Herald, Fstpoppers, london daily post. Jamesdanglewood (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost laughable. this is a one sentence mention, this is an interview, i am 100% sure that this piece is unreliable as it's clear they didn't even bother to do a cursory editing check and it was user submitted via this garbage site, appears to be mostly an interview and this is 100% a fake news site trying to pass itself off as legitimate.Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This daily herald piece should be removed as it appears to be a less reliable source. Other sources included appear to be reliable. Please note there a source that states otherwise to be able to reference. I have removed the Daily Herald citation. Annemariecarney (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not for exactly the reasons I pointed out. Praxidicae (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles look to be from reliable sources and the subject meets the requirements of notability.Britannica Staff (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica Staff~~If you think that the articles I pointed out are reliable, I genuinely question your ability to edit Wikipedia for the better.~~ I've struck my comment as it was unduly harsh however I am just going to point out my above edit which shows very clearly and indisputably that they are not reliable source and are literally using photos of famous people to pass themselves off as legitimate.Praxidicae (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am going to agree with Praxidicae. The sources are not strong, and there seems to be some meat and/or sock issues with multiple COI editors.VViking_TalkEdits 19:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Praxidicae. The sources used in this article are at best a bunch of PR pieces. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:38, 28 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gleb Odinokikh[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made a single 90th-minute substitute's appearance in a Russian National Football League match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [18]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here. Jogurney (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mere statistical entry. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a handful of minutes in a professional game do not make up for WP:GNG failure. Giant Snowman 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:17, 28 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. Consensus is there are not quite enough suitable sources to write an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Anderson (artist)[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Fails WP:ANYBIO also. Celestina007 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am more or less neutral on this one. The LA times review is excellent, and there are a few other sources, but it is hard to find extensive coverage. At the same time there is some coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it may be a too soon. As the LA times points out, Anderson was (in 2018) not yet 30 and fresh from the MFA program in ceramics at UCLA. It doesn't make sense to me to have encyclopedia articles about people who haven't had a career yet. This is clearly an emerging artist. As art careers go, we can differentiate between emerging, mid-career and established artists. While some mid-career artists have a significant body of work that has received sufficient critical attention to make it possible to write an article about them, only established artists have a career that shows an extensive and mature body of work, consistent history of sales, auction records, museum exhibits and monographs that make them notable. We should focus our efforts on those artists. Vexations (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Per User:ThatMontrealIP, I'm pretty undecided on this one as well. The LA Times piece is clearly the best kind of coverage for establishing notability, but as far as I can tell, this is the one piece of "good" coverage the guy has. I'm not sure that cuts mustard. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This artist has presented at Art Basel Miami, the Seattle Museum of Art, and has credible news sources. DustyLosAngeles (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DustyLosAngeles, with regards to credible news sources: https://wsimag.com/art/40096-wonderland is problematic. It has nothing to do with Wall Street or the Wall Street Journal. It's published in Montenegro. The problem with Wall Street International is its business model: It's free and it features no advertising. I suspect that they get paid to promote their subjects. Vexations (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant media coverage, purchases by museums for permanant collections, stuff like that.NotButtigieg (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks all needed sources. Some sources are credible but needs more work. If not deleted needs to be moved to draft for improvement. DaMonster997 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:SIGCOV - while he has exhibited in the art capital of LA, his recent Fulbright and lack of substantial media coverage indicate he's still up-and-coming. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep artists are known for their work and this one was reviewed in the Los Angeles Times. He gets a bio in the Wall Street International Magazine. A bio in a college newspaper The Phoenix. Also passes WP:ANYBIO for his Fulbright Scholar award. Lightburst (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, the Wall Street International Magazine is not a reliable source. Vexations (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fulbright Scholar award does not confer automatic notability, but I put it with the other sources like LA Times and I think we have WP:BARE. Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, now we have one source that we can use to write a biography. How are we going to do that? Vexations (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artists need to pass WP:ARTIST. This one does not.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N the subject must pass SNG or GNG. I appear to be outnumbered here yet my !vote stands. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Lightburst says, this is a case of WP:BARE. Curiocurio (talk) 19:05, 27 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. Deleting this one. If someone wants to write a German article I'm happy to copy the article to the userspace, just ask. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frazan Kotwal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I found only a single article in my research. That doesn't seem to meet the requirements of being broad. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There's some marginal coverage, but the article likely has WP:AUTOBIO issues. NickCT (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerodlycett, there are actually many articles in formidable german newspapers and magazines of Frazan, his full name is Frazan Adil Kotwal and goes under that mostly. IN english there are also many interviews and articles done about him by some small and some big newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolframwagner (talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving time for non-English sources to be checked into, or at least confirmation from editors that they looked into them during their BEFORE check (pinging User:Jerodlycett for comment).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: My search found one article that mentions him only in bare passing: [19] and one on him [20]. I do not see anything else on him. The first one that basically confirms he exists is non-English. That said, en-wiki is not meant to be prime-wiki. If this were the case the other-language wikis would simply be a translation effort. If he's notable in only the German speaking world, de-wiki exists for that. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect, if he's notable in Germany then he should be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki - delete from here, merge (or create) in german wikipedia. When the german article is good enough for english, it can be transwiki'ed again. @Atlantic306: WP:V is a core policy of enwiki. As long as we cant be certain that the subject is notable, we shouldnt have the article. If a german speaking (or any) editor can provide sources, we can evaluate/translate the sources. But until then, subject fails WP:V, and I cant find significant coverage, so the subject fails WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As I'm not familiar with the German sources my position is neutral, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 25 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cap St. Georges[edit]

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

Article is promotional (body and particularly external links) and has only primary references. On its face, the only possible notablity is a non-notable award it won in 2011. Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails WP:NCORP, as it does not contain a single reliable source, and per NCORP non-notable awards do not confer notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:37, 23 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. We're going to keep this for now – there are probably Arabic sources. If someone can try to improve the article using those sources, that would be great. Feel free to re-nominate in the future if there are concerns and the article isn't able to be improved. Missvain (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zainuddin Makhdoom II[edit]

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

Non Notable Person, Failed WP:GNG WP:NAUTHOR Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many sources available online. Authordom (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
examples please? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Is he notable as an author? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes many books, Tuhfat Ul Mujahideen is famous one. Authordom (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The is not a real person lived in Kerala. Speedy delete and close. The Hindu Nation (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC) — The Hindu Nation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Notability can be discussed here, but existence is not in doubt per the source already in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable author. Zainuddin is transliterated variously. See Zayn ad-Din for variants. Worldcat lists him as Zain al-Dīn, al-Maʻbarī and Malībārī, Zayn al-Dīn ibn ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz,. Tuhfat Ul Mujahideen is cited widely as an important Indian account of the Portuguese invasion of Kerala. See, e.g., Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
can we be sure it is the same person? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The genealogy chart I linked above in Monsoon Islam page 112 (showing his grandfather as Makhdum) and the quote from page 113 n. 48, "He is often referred to locally as 'Makhdum II'." removes all doubt for me. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the explanation :) —usernamekiran (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently there is an unsupported Keep !vote, and one other participating editor hasn't yet chosen their position, so the discussion remains non-clearly decided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Sounds as if he is a notable author. The works were no doubt written in Arabic script, so that the variation in transliteration is to be expected. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 22 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. Per WP:TNT. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Chandrakant[edit]

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

Pure puffery, Notabililty aside WP:TNT applies here. Fails GNG, doesn't qualify parameters of persistent, significant and in depth coverage Accesscrawl (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TNT. I read the entire article twice, without skipping a line. Every section is verrry verrry interesting. I wonder why the great wise seer and knower couldnt see her own article getting nuked. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; it's full up with promotional waffle and copyvio material, and if there's a case for notability somewhere in there, the text would have to be completely rewritten anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 23 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 Queens Park Rangers F.C.#Stadium. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 15:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Queens Park[edit]

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

Short, poorly sourced article about a proposed stadium that was never built. There is nothing notable about the proposal and in my opinion a mention of it on the Queens Park Rangers F.C. article is all that is needed. Not eligible for PROD due to a previous PROD five years ago. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 13:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 13:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Queens Park Rangers F.C.#Stadium. Giant Snowman 19:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was a cancelled project that fails WP:Notability. @GiantSnowman: on the face of it, I would normally agree with you to redirect but the only source given is the Daily Lies and one of the things I most like about WP is its classification of that as an unreliable source, which it is. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: plenty of other sources out there including BBC and BBC again and Architects Journal. Giant Snowman 22:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queens Park Rangers F.C.#Stadium as above. I accept that there are reliable sources as given so I agree that a redirect is the better option and have changed my previous entry to a comment. Thanks, @GiantSnowman:. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:25, 21 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umar M Shareef[edit]

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

Non notable musician & actor who falls short of WP:NMUSIC & WP:NACTOR and generally has no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Although I should mention that he was named as One of the new artists to “watch out for” but that isn’t evidence of true notability. Fails WP:GNG ultimately. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletedoes not meet criteria forWP:NMUSIC & WP:NACTOR. Sources in the body of article mention him passively.Watchbotx (talk) 08:24, 25 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) 13:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmal Industrial Controls Pvt Ltd[edit]

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

Non notable organization that does not satisfy WP:NORG. A before I conducted shows the company having some hits but all are entries they themselves made in business directories they basically gives the organizations address & directions on how to get there. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article makes no credible claim of notability; fails WP:NCORP; references are all press releases or based on press releases. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the other user says, it clearly lacks notability. Plus, one of the headings being "About us" makes it seem as though it was written by the company as an advert and not a legitimate reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. -MA Javadi (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and is written as if it was an advert for the company. Edi7* ^{(Message Me! • 📜)} 11:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a company, supported by press releases. A supplier award does not indicate notability and I am finding nothing better than listings, insufficient for notability. AllyD (talk) 09:40, 28 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 speedy delete. Materialscientist (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Singh "Villain baba" (Actor)[edit]

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

Subject of at is an alleged actor but does not satisfy WP:NACTOR & lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence also falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd draftified this, but was swiftly reinstated in mainspace by overwriting the speedy deletion tag generated as part of draftification. I believe the mainspace version should be deleted. The editor can try to improve the draftspace version if they wish, and submit it to AfC in due course. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:43, 21 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Isaias Group[edit]

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

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

This is some heavily white washed long term spam and I’m nominating it on the basis that it needs to have some C4 strapped to it and blown into oblivion. Praxidicae (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a statement as to how the article does not meet the "Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)" requirement, which is the rule that states the requirements that must be met for a company to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article? At this time the article appears to meet those requirements. Sarcasm is not a legitimate basis for deleting a Wikipedia article. Thanks.--Francisco Fredeye (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be worth distinguishing two aspects which are fused in this article? The first would be the Grupo Isaías / Isaias Group itself, described as having been the "most important protagonist" in Ecuador's media sector [21], [22], indicating a WP:NCORP claim. The second aspect is more like "The Isaias Group case", relating to the confiscation and subsequent legal actions, and it is presumably WP:NPOV concerns around the presentation of this aspect which triggered this AfD? AllyD (talk) 18:03, 22 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Baratono (Author)[edit]

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

No evidence of actual notability. Lots of very passing mentions, some in reliable sources, many not (e.g. a book published through lulu.com). Previously deleted at AfD as Ron Baratono. Fram (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly WP:G4. A total blank when searching for sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the article lists a role as an extra (that is his role in Batman v. Superman) you can tell it is way too long on promotionalism and way to short on anything even vagely like notability. He didn't have "roles" in major productions, significant or otherwise, he was an extra.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 23 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bieraaa (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Semiconductor[edit]

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

Currently, Taiwan Semiconductor redirects to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. But these two companies are unrelated and independent as discussed in the Talk Page of TSMC. A redirect page would be misleading. Furthermore, so far no article has been written for the former company, a disambiguation page with a red link to an uncreated article is unnecessary. IMHO, it's best to simply delete the misleading redirect.

See Talk:TSMC#TSC and TSMC are NOT the same company. Bieraaa (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bieraaa (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirect - TSMC is referred to at least occasionally as "Taiwan Semiconductor" (see e.g., here and here) so it's a plausible search-term for TSMC. It doesn't matter that there is another firm with that name as that firm does not have an article and as such there is no confusion. If anyone ever decides to create an article about the other firm, they can remove the redirect. FOARP (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for the sources. As the nominator of this AfD, I withdrawn this nomination. Bieraaa (talk) 15:37, 21 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) 09:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena[edit]

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

No assertion of Notabililty, fails WP:NORG Accesscrawl (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NORG. As per the reports, this was a right wing, fascist, fringe group with a "perverse form of nationalism" that attacks people and free speech, in hopes of getting media limelight. I see, that since 2012, there has been, no news of the organisation. There are a few WP:NOTNEWS type coverage but the criteria of "significant, independent, reliable, and secondary" is not met, so I agree with the nom that the WP:NORG is failed here.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:51, 25 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) 09:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aboleth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional monster with very little coverage in non-primary sources. Out of the two non-primary sources cited in the article, the first, Tested: Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting is merely a trivial mention. The other, a SYFY WIRE article, is not enough to establish notability alone, as a single source doesn't count as significant coverage. Not a very active user (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination or merge into a list if there is one suitable 212.161.78.84 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:25, 28 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 speedy delete. Materialscientist (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fura Chhamzi Sherpa[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. None of the achievement claims about the subject are supported by independent reliable sources. The only sources included relate to a few donations. Comments on the meaning of life and education are unencyclopedic, and drawn from a variety of self-help sources. I am conscious of geobias, but the subject is not yet worthy of a Wikipedia article. WWGB (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this was G11ed as a draft. Author needs a firm warning against self-promo. Agree that the subject isn't notable either. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:12, 21 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. No prejudice against creating a redirect, but there are multiple possible targets and no clear consensus for any one. RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Werebear[edit]

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

Non-notable Dungeons & Dragons creature. D&D's werebears don't seem to be discussed in non-primary sources, so this article fails WP:GNG. If this article gets deleted, redirecting it to WereBear might be possible, (and in fact, this page originally was a redirect to WereBear, until an IP changed it into an article about the D&D creature), but I'm not sure if that topic is notable, either. Not a very active user (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable fictional creature. There are no reliable secondary sources currently being used in the article, and none available upon searching. The concept of werebears is not even unique to D&D so the current article title would not even be appropriate as a redirect to any of the remaining D&D lists. I would also not suggest using it as a redirect to WereBear as it was originally created as, because that toyline does not appear to pass the WP:GNG either. Rorshacma (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the concept has recieved some mentions, there is nothing significant discussing it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). BD2412 T 04:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AFD is not a vote. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, too trivial in the grand scope of D&D to worry about retention of information. Fan wikis can cover it. TTN (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:25, 28 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. If a rename is needed, it can go through the normal move process. RL0919 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specialty Fashion Group[edit]

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

Very short article with only one non-primary source. Doesn't appear to prove notability. – numbermaniac 05:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ There are quite a number of non primary sources to be found immediately with the default google search. However, they are all routine business reporting, or the reporting of the single event selling of some of the iconic brand store chains it owned. There is nothing that I could find to indicate notability of this subject in its own right, and notability cannot be inherited from the iconic brands it held. Aoziwe (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Scott Davis, etc. below, yes I now accept there is sufficient sustained and broad coverage. And yes, rename and merge, with redirects from previous names. Aoziwe (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Speciality Fashion Group has been a well known corporate brand owner in Australia for a while. It is a listed company and on the ASX 500. It has appeared regularly in business columns (e.g. search on pages from The Australian and pages from the AFR) - not every article in those lists has significant coverage but there is enough there even from two 5 second Google searches that show that the company is notable and reliable sources exist. Bookscale (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - more searches from Inside Retail, another article from the Sydney Morning Herald. I surely don't need to demonstrate any more. There are page after page of news articles on it if you go past the linkedin profiles and other non notable Google search returns. It may be appropriate to rename the article to its current name but that's not a matter for AfD. Bookscale (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a lot of what you refer to, and yes there is no doubt at all that it exists. My concern is that a lot of the above seems to be very repetative routine business reporting. I do like to keep content if at all possible. Can you point to a few references in particular which would support a little in-depth more than permastub article, and I may well change my !vote. Aoziwe (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3, as examples. The problem is that SFG is a brand-owner, so its work is always inexplicably caught up with its brands in news articles. But surely a company that owns (or owned) so many well-known clothing brands is itself notable? Bookscale (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back to me. But surely a company that owns (or owned) so many well-known clothing brands is itself notable? - well that is definitely WP:INHERIT? There seems to be only three things with the company - please correct me if I am wrong: 1: it owned/bought a few well-known brands; 2: it got into some financial trouble; 3: it sold a few of the brands and recovered. It might be possible to build up a non stub article by carefully going through many many references over time and developing a history in the article and hence demonstrating sustained coverage, but it still might not be broad coverage if it never makes it out of the "finance/business pages". It there anything else to demonstrate broad coverage? Did it ever do anything other than own a hand full of clothing store chains. Did it ever make the news for something not directly related to clothing retail? I like to keep content as I said earlier, but I just cannot see what there is to keep at this point. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That a Wikipedia article is not well-written or comprehensive is not an indicator of notability; there are plenty of sources (some listed above) which would provide sufficient material to do a better job, and thus the correct thing to do is to allow that to occur. In terms of asking whether this company ever "made the news for something not directly related to clothing retail," when was the last time IBM made the news for something not directly related to computers? Companies tend to be notable primarily for doing what they do; asking for notability beyond that seems unnecessary. TheOther Bob 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That a Wikipedia article is not well-written or comprehensive is not an indicator of notability - agreed; which would provide sufficient material to do a better job - sorry but I do not see what will nontrivially improve it past the three stages I mentioned above - I am happy to be corrected; try googling "ibm solar power". I was not saying a subject has to be multifacited to be notable. I was say if it is multifacited, it makes it easier to demonstrate notability and was asking if such existed. Aoziwe (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources provided above are fully sufficient, as they are significant reports from reliable sources that go fairly far in depth about the company. Moreover, I'm always hesitant to delete an article about a company listed on a national exchange, as such companies tend to be notable in many or most cases. TheOther Bob 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is very brief, only 2 sentences. Teraplane (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Teraplane: please remember that AfD is not cleanup. Have you read any of the comments above about the notability of the company? Bookscale (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've read the comments. Only suggesting that if the article remains so sparse and undetailed, it's not worth keeping. Teraplane (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being sparse and undetailed is not an argument for deletion. Wikipedia has many sparse and undetailed articles on notable topics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ASX-listed company which operated six of the largest and most well known fashion chains in Australia until 2018 and still owns one of them. AfD is not cleanup, and this company has abundant sources if anyone could be bothered. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to draftspace~~ As a listed company, annual reports and stock exchange announcements should provide scope to expand. But as it has remained as a stub article since created over 3 years ago with little attempt to date to expand, suggest moving to draft space to allow time to expand. Just because a company is ASX listed doesn't automatically make it notable, turnover of $148 million is fairly small by listed company standards. Happy to reconsider my position if someone has an attempt at improving before the AfD closes though. Bromptop (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup, and it is certainly not a means of compelling people to improve articles on notable topics under threat of deletion. The comment about turnover is a bit disingenuous because it refers to the figure after they sold five of their six major fashion chains, given that they were making turnover of nearly a billion dollars a year prior to that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @The Drover's Wife: the reason the article is up for AfD is that it is not up to minimum standard, or in your words a 'crap article'. Surviving an AfD but not addressing the issues will inevitably result in the article being nominated again in the future. Best way to address is not to whinge about why has it been nominated, but make an effort to improve that will both enhance it chances of surviving this AfD and not attracting a future nomination. The AfD has at least another 5 days to run, so plenty of time for someone to address if motivated, or if it is moved to draft space, 6 months. Bromptop (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being a crap article on a notable subject is not an argument for deletion. Neither is the possibility that someone, somewhere, in the future, might fail to do WP:BEFORE when nominating a notable article for deletion. Wikipedians are not here to do work on your command because you feel like giving orders. That is fundamentally not how this project works. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @The Drover's Wife: you are right, Wikipedians are not here to do work on my or anybody else's command, never suggested they were. The reality is that the article is up for deletion, and based on opinions expressed so far, it could go either way, so like it or not, there maybe a finite window. If you had dedicated the amount of time you have on this page to improving the article that you have to trying to discredit the opinions of those who disagree with your own, you would probably be well on the way to creating a good article by now. Bromptop (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Or maybe it's important to make the point that an ASX-listed company that made turnover of nearly a billion dollars in 2017 and owned a substantial portion of Australia's major fashion chains is notable and should be given equal treatment to say, a footballer who has played one game in a professional league and has a crap article and not have demands for an instant remake to avoid deletion. This attitude of demanding rapid salvage operations to stop articles on objectively notable topics in certain areas from being deleted needs to stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Point noted, but we need to deal with the reality rather than what should or shouldn't happen, in 5 days the article may be gone. Beefing up the article may not save it, but surely it won't do any harm? Ball is in your court of those who want to keep. Bromptop (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the ball is in the court of people who are demanding objectively notable topics get a makeover on their whim under threat of deletion and need to stop it. One single "delete" !voter has advanced any kind of argument whatsoever relating to notability or Wikipedia deletion guidelines whatsoever: the rest haven't even tried to mount an argument to challenge its notability but are just demanding it be improved on their whim. The more these people learn through failed AfDs that those tactics need to stop, the better. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - short and incomplete article is a reason to expand it, not delete it. There's a link up the top of this page to a guide that includes Wikipedia:GDBN advice on what should be done before deciding deletion is the solution. I see no evidence of this having been attempted yet. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated comment: Also Rename and merge from predecessor. I set about cleaning up the top of the article. The business was renamed to City Chic Collective over a year ago, so that is the name the article should now have. Prior to being named Specialty Fashion Group, it appears that the company was Miller's Retail Limited and I discovered that Wikipedia already has a Miller's Retail article. That article should be merged with this one, renamed to the current company name, and updated. I'm not an expert on companies or clothes, so hope that someone else can contribute to the content. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with merging the Miller's article is that CCC/SFG doesn't actually own the Miller's chain anymore, and most people would reasonably assume that article would be about the chain, not its now-renamed one-time parent company. Given the content, though, it would make sense to merge the parent company content here and keep that as an article about the chain. I agree that this should probably be renamed to City Chic Collective though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Specialty Fashion Group (Miller's Retail should join them). Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnbod: This an AfD for Specialty Fashion Group, so it's a bit hard to merge and redirect to itself. It would also not make a lot of sense to merge one of the country's largest discount fashion chains to its former parent company. Probably a good idea to read AfDs and articles a little bit more closely before !voting next time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, la-di-la! People have been moving the deckchairs around today - I meant City Chic Collective but that has now been redirected & is how the article now starts. I think I'll leave you all to it. Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Johnbod: That could be my fault - I turned round the lead sentence to put the current name first, but did not move the article while the AFD is ongoing. I stopped when I realised there was also an article Miller's Retail written in present tense about a listed company with a business called "Miller's Fashion Club", but that article seems to have received little maintenance since 2006 before the company changed name to Specialty Retail Group. It could be appropriate (to address The Drover's Wife's comment) to spin out an article about Miller's Fashion Club/Millers Woman as a business formerly owned by Miller's Retail/SFG, and now owned by Noni B/Mosaic Brands, but at the moment, there is one sentence 14 years out of date, and I haven't found a relevant parent article yet. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries - retail is clearly in as fluid a state Down Under as where I am. I'm in favour of keeping something, but in as few articles as can be managed. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have struck previous vote as some editors have now expressed an interest in making an effort to improve. Support renaming this article to City Chic Collective. Bromptop (talk) 04:08, 24 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) 05:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Key Glock[edit]

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

There's far more articles about his arrests than his music, and most about his music are about Young Dolph. The two I could find are in The FADER and simply are press releases about his videos and a mixtape. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Key Glock is credited in the chart listing for "Major", so it still counts toward WP:MUSICBIO. I was able to find a bit more coverage in Pitchfork. I'm also not sure I see how this coverage in FADER is a press release. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. PK650 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Criteria 2 at aWP:MUSICBIO. and per WP:GNG,BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has a charting release and has coverage in multiple music reliable sources such as Pitchfork, Fader, AllMusic and XxL mag, all added to the article, and therefore passes WP:GNG , imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 26 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) 06:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie DeVille[edit]

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

Unclear if notable. Sourcing is minimal, most of it relating to a publicity stunt presidential candidacy. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting but does not meet WP:ENT. More suited for Pornopedia. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to those in the article, there are also seven sources in the talk page that are not in the article. ミラ P 05:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mainstream media articles could not be found during a search. Running as a presidential candidate appears to have been a publicity stunt, a one-off, and a case of WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to the nontrivial significant coverage or, given that can be contested, redirect to her running mate Coolio, where she is mentioned in the article. ~~I don’t have time to explain everything right now, but I’ll do it tomorrow.~~ ミラ P 05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing whatsoever to go on besides the stunt "candidacy" and as someone active in the internet age the fact that Google turns up with nothing doesn't bode well for there being sources we don't have access to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the subject doesn't meet the GNG through this faux "candidacy," then under what notability guideline does any keep proponent claim she does qualify? Ravenswing 02:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ravenswing: I think it does, if you look at the articles for Uproxx, Fox News, Daily Beast, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and this article from The Hill where Cherie DeVille "insisted at the time that the campaign was legitimate and not a PR stunt." Which should be enough to address the issue on the campaign's legitimacy. ミラP 03:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And is there significant coverage for other than this "candidacy?" No. (That being said, let me make sure I understand here: you're stipulating that this wasn't a PR stunt based on the subject's say-so?) Ravenswing 10:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uproxx isn't a notability-making source. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bearcat: No comment on the others or the seven sources ([23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]) in the talk page? ミラP 15:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aside from what I already said about them below? Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is her campaign filed at FEC? If not, delete. --Lunar New Year is cancelled due to Brexit (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:BLP1E as a policy overrides GNG. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 19:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: Then can we turn the biography into an article about the candidacy? Cherie DeVille 2020 presidential campaign? ミラ P 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absent a reason why the candidacy could be deemed noteworthy? Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Well Coolio was her running mate, but I didn't say I wanted to. ミラ P 15:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naming a running mate who was already notable as a musician, but still has no notability as a politician even now, is not an instant free pass over NPOL either. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I didn't say it was, but I have no objection to redirecting this to Coolio's article. I'll just drop my support for keeping the article at your suggestion. ミラ P 15:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our notability standards for porn performers have been considerably tightened up, and are no longer satisfied just by sourcing their roles to the Adult Film Database or their awards to XBIZ's own self-published website about itself — they now require stronger evidence of real media coverage independent of porn SPIP, much more in line with what non-porn actors have to show. But declaring oneself a fringe candidate for president is also not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — literally any citizen of the United States can say they are or will become a candidate for the presidency, so even that isn't an instant notability clincher in the absence of reliably sourced evidence that anybody else took the candidacy seriously. But there are just two hits of genuine media coverage being shown about that (Uproxx is not a reliable or notability-making source either, folks), which is not enough coverage to make a person notable just for being a withdrawn candidate in an election she never had any chance of winning. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearcat: just two hits of genuine media coverage being shown I know about Daily Beast and Fox News, but the Huffpost piece was, if you click the author, written by a journalist. That should be three, right? ミラP 16:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Huffington Post can be fine for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been nailed to the wall by stronger sources, but is not in and of itself a GNG-nailing source if it's up near the top of the best sources you can find. It's a blog, not a notability-clinching established or major media outlet — it's not entirely worthless, but it's not a golden ticket either. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bearcat: Analyze all the sources involving the candidacy but Hoffpost and Uproxx so I can be done here. ミラP 16:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Daily Beast: Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person; fine for supplementary verification of stray facts, but not a data point toward passage of GNG.
        Washington Examiner: not a reliable source at all, thus not even acceptable for verification of stray facts in the first place, let alone a load-bearing pillar of a GNG claim. Times two, since it accounts for two of the sources you're talking about.
        Billboard: about Coolio, not Cherie DeVille, so not speaking to Cherie DeVille's notability at all.
        Reason: mentions her name, but not about her in any non-trivial way.
        So really all we've got is Fox News, which is not enough all by itself. We're looking for substantive coverage in reliable sources about her, not just blogs or sources that mention her name or interviews in which she's talking about herself.Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Bearcat: Thanks, I'm officially done here. I wasn't objecting to this article being deleted anyway. ミラ P 16:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to admins: ~~Please relist this (can't do it myself because I'm involved).~~ There's a discussion at WP:RSN regarding Uproxx. ミラP 01:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? Our arguments are mainly based upon BLP1E and Uproxx makes no difference whatsoever. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @J947: Thanks. I'll let the admins delete it. ミラ P 02:22, 28 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiuri kharka[edit]

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

I think Dr. Blofeld got all the legally recognised villages in Nepal. This one created by someone else doesn't meet GNG and doesn't have a valid redirection target. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible sources and does not meet WP:NGEO in general. PenulisHantu (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not demonstrate notability, and no sources to prove it exists. – numbermaniac 05:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It does have an article at Chaurikharka, possibly a local variant spelling. Believe it or not there's still missing localities, I started all the VDCs which are like municipalities and the most notable villages but there's probably a few hundred villages/hamlets without an article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Chiuri" is the butter tree, "chauri" is the yak and "kharka" is a fairly common suffix for names of places which apparently refers to a certain type of grazing land at high altitudes. So, I think redirecting would not be helpful, as people are likely to be actually looking for "Chiurikharka" when they enter it into search, of which I expect there are a fair few in Nepal.

Also, the article creator, based on the version they created and their other contributions, seems to have meant a non-notable village in western Nepal, while Chaurikharka is in the east. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 22 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) 06:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Boykin[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable individual. There are many sources, but some are self-published and others do not appear to provide in-depth coverage of the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Freezer Bernie (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Freezer Bernie (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Peter Boykin is very notable as the founder of Gays For Trump, as indicated on the page. He has been featured on multiple mainstream media sources, including Newsweek, Time Magazine, BBC, and a slew of various gay publications. As well as he is a politician who ran for political office. Although there may be some items that are self-published they tend to just add to the sources and his notability. One would assume that someone who has been featured in so many mainstream publications must be notable. Also, note the size of the contributions of sources indicates that this individual has a place on this page. I would suggest that instead of removing the article one would suggest what changes should be implemented. 7valentine7 (talk) 24:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Tag from the article, if you would like examples from other pages where a lot less information about individuals are supplied and they are still up I can provide. I would hate to say that due to the nature of the individual in question and his being controversial that in the same realm of milo yiannopoulos that many will attempt to shut down this article. I in good faith created this article with as much information as I could find on the subject. I have attempted to add information that has remained with fact and neutral to the matter. This person is notable, as many mainstream sources have covered him, and that he is a registered politician. All one has to do is a simple google search on this individual and the results are very high. Such is not for many people out there. This is why this person is of interest and is notable. I will remove the tag, as I object, I would have to claim that instead, this review history of the page has seen many individuals that did not have an issue with the article so this could be conceived as an attack on this article. 7valentine7 (talk) 24:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@7valentine7: Please do not remove AfD tags while the discussion is still ongoing. I have restored the tag --DannyS712 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have indicated reasons on the talk page of Peter Boykin also there should not be any POV on the page as no reason was listed. I am not related nor involved with the subject nor am I paid by the subject, he has no influence in the article, as noted I have included all the information I could gather on the subject and created the page. There also is a large amount of information included. I believe I listed more than an ample amount of information. I would like to say that at this point I have reason to believe this article is being attacked due to the subject's conflicts with others in his community. I would hope this would not be the case. Please suggest a edit or a change that could satisfy this request for deletion. I would also suggest that if Gays for Trump is notable to be in wikipedia then one would expect that its highly news covered founder would also is a politician would be notable to be on wikipedia. 7valentine7 (talk) 24:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - the article is currently a mess, but from GNEWS I can see significant coverage online in multiple WP:RS, e.g. [30], [31]. Freezer Bernie (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Freezer Bernie, Newsweek isn't being considered a reliable source any more based on their terrible journalistic practices of late. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. So, that's one source, which is definitely not "multiple". – Muboshgu (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's also significant coverage at Heavy.com [32], PinkNews in the UK [33], Washington Blade [34], and Gay Star News in the UK [35]. Freezer Bernie (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I've made some minor improvements to the introduction and Another Believer recently made several big improvement on the overall structure. I think the article has a big pile of problems, but it's not unsalvageable. agucova (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So if you do not believe Newsweek is reliable how about BBC, and Time Magazine which has both covered the subject? I would believe that sources can be objective, end of the day it would be like saying Fox News or CNN is all Fake News would you agree? 7valentine7 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you believe this page "is a mess" then suggest ways or make edits to clean it up instead of requests to delete it. As it seems that there is more bias coming from those that are trying to take it down. This article has been created from sources only and no opinion (that I believe) has been specifically given by myself. If so gladly indicate or correct. 7valentine7 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When can we remove the tag? I am willing to help improve the article if people will work with me. 7valentine7 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was a mess, not Muboshgu, who nominated the article for deletion. Deletion discussions can last a week or more. Please be patient, thanks. Freezer Bernie (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7valentine7, welcome to Wikipedia. I'll try to offer some helpful explanation and advice. First, the tag on the article just tells people that there's a discussion open on whether to keep or delete the article. Such discussions normally remain open for 7 days. Removing the tag won't change anything... removing the tag merely conceals the link for additional people to come participate in this discussion. Removing the tag was 'unhelpful'. All we expect is for people not to repeat unhelpful things after they are informed that it's unhelpful, chuckle. It's pretty clear that this discussion is going to close as KEEP, so just relax and wait for Wikipedia to flow through this routine process. A lot of articles get tagged for discussion every day... more than half of those articles do get deleted but it's also common and normal for articles to get evaluated and kept. Just accept that it's considered normal and acceptable for an editor to question an article, and to open this sort of discussion. Most editors are just trying apply our countless policies and guidelines to clean up and improve the encyclopedia. The open-editing process means running into endless disagreements. It helps to try to just accept the Policies Guidelines and processes without getting stressed during any particular issue. We all started knowing zero, and editors who stick around simply learn as we go. Alsee (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is definitely notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable, regardless of the current reference quality, and the page has been improved a lot since the request. agucova (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. This was a common case of needing cleanup, deletion was never needed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Failed political candidates are not notable. Almost all of the (search result)sources look rather dubious as Reliable Sources. Almost all of the sources that clearly are Reliable are pretty worthless for establishing Notability because they are trivial passing mentions. His notability basically amounts to being commonly cited in passing mention as a token freak, or (metaphorically) for persistently juggling dead babies in clown suit. However this NBC News piece plus a rather large pile of mostly crap other sources does add up to passing the Notability Guideline. It looks like the article is likely to be a time sink, requiring cleanup work to clear out youtube videos and other crap that doesn't belong in any article. It would be a net plus if we did delete it. C'est la vie. Alsee (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After the editing of multiple individuals that agree the page needed work they have all agreed this article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7valentine7 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing new to add. Notable enough to have standalone article. Just needs some work to remove puff. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:55, 27 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~~ No consensus - seems I messed this up, after these comments below it appears that the league was added to WP:FPL. I'm not sure that this the evidence for full professionalism is convincing but the league is on the list now, so cant really close any other way. Fenix down (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Ugalde[edit]

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

Ugalde is a young Costa Rican forward who most recently won the Best Young Player of the Tournament award for the CONCACAF League in 2019. I am new to the process of deletions, but I read that the Liga FPD is not classified as a fully professional league as per WP:NFOOTY. Does winning this award qualify Ugalde as notable to keep the page?NYMetro96 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think we need to hold fire on this one because Costa Rica isn't included in the WP:FPL lists unless I'm missing it. Need to clarify status of Liga FPD. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Liga FPD for discussion links. I'm afraid it's a loose end so begs the question of giving him the benefit of doubt. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plays in a professional league. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:10, 23 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. An obvious concern for nominations of this type of subject is that editors may comment based on political bias rather than Wikipedia policy. However, in this case the comments seem to legitimately reflect the state of the sources, which include material from the claimed coiner of the term (not independent), uses of the term (which makes them primary, not secondary sources for discussion of a neologism), and brief definitions (not significant coverage). Therefore I see no reason to discount the clear majority consensus for deletion. Since this seems like a distinctive search term, no prejudice against creation of a redirect if there is a target article with relevant, sourced material. RL0919 (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoplophobia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a neologism coined by a firearms expert to mock gun control advocates, saying people have an "irrational fear of guns." In the previous AfD from 2015, people conflated this non-medical political pejorative with "real" entries in medical dictionaries to justify notability. Of course, if the article is about the psychological phobia, almost none of the sources meet WP:MEDRS. If it's about the neologism, the medical sources are inapplicable. Neither is notable on their own, but it was closed as no consensus. Nominating one more time, with some time gone by, to see if we can find a consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been linked to from WikiProject Medicine. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree. The page is notable for just being a term that is widely covered in RS. It does not need to be a diagnosed psychological phobia to warrant a page. Nothing new introduced in this AfD that wasn't already addressed in the previous two. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which topic are you saying is notable? By your third sentence, I presume the neologism, not the psychological phobia? Which are the sources that make it notable? In the previous AfD, people combined both subjects to claim single notability, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- two sources about different subjects that happen to have the same name doesn't make the subject notable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A good example, here. I see you just added this citation to the article, which is clearly making claims about a psychological disorder but does not satisfy MEDRS: Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... and a self-published book called Democracy --- The Painted Whore --- An Extremist Explains War, Drugs, Guns, God, Gold and Santa Claus... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoplophobia is a real phobia as evidenced by the medical references. Of course the word is not widely printed in medical journals because of its obscure nature and limited relevance. However, to say the word doesn't warrant a page would be to say it doesn't exist because to the extent it does exist it describes a condition that obviously warrants a page. The word hoplophobia does exist of course because we are using it now to describe the fear of firearms/weapons. Jeff Cooper used the exact same word to mean the exact same thing as the medical journals. His use of it to describe a political phenomenon he disagreed with does not subtract from its legitimacy as a word. I disagree with the argument that because a word was used by vastly different parties one cannot combine the use by both parties to legitimize the word because in this case the word was used by the two parties to describe the exact same phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieltexas (talk • contribs) 05:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoplophobia is not shown to be a real phobia, as the sources you've used are far too weak to support a biomedical claim per WP:MEDRS. The word exists, but doesn't warrant a page, except in a dictionary. Existence =/= notability. I exist, but I don't warrant a page. There is no recognised medical condition that the word describes. If there were, we would have sources meeting MEDRS. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that's the argument that decides notability. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable for both topics however, the term alone and its coverage in RS is enough to meet general notability requirements. The sources, as the nom mentioned, are not about two subjects that happen to have the same name. They are one is the same... Hoplophobia would be compared to Islamophobia. The same rational editors arguing for deletion are using could be used against Islamaphobia yet, I see no issues raised on that page. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not notable for the medical topic. There is no medical condition and we know that because there are no WP:MEDRS sources describing the condition. The dictionaries attesting to the existence of the word contain insufficient content to write an article, WP:DICTDEF. There's no point in comparing it to a different article because it's not the same consideration. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --RexxS (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can join any word with phobia to create one. What bar do we need for these? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary - WP:NOT#DICT. The neologism should not be there. There should be no debate on that one. The medical condition is where there may be some debate, but in this case the quality of sourcing does not meet GNG and it is hard to see how this can be argued to be an accepted medical condition considering the silence of all major and reliable sources on the matter. This from Danieltexas is telling: "Of course the word is not widely printed in medical journals because of its obscure nature and limited relevance". So those supporting keep admit it is not found in medical journals because it is obscure and of limited relevance. Thus it does not meet GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think the article as it is strikes the right tone: it puts the term in the context of its use in politics. This is not a medical diagnosis and "hoplophobia" should not be portrayed as a medical diagnosis (as it is without appropriate WP:MEDRS-compliant references). However, there isn't enough evidence of notability for an article, so we should not have an article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources used in the article are not good enough to support any medical claim about the existence of a phobia. They are certainly sufficient to show that the neologism exists, as most of them are dictionaries. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there is insufficient content in the sources to write an encyclopedic article on the neologism. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per RexxS rationaleOzzie10aaaa (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and pretty much everyone else. Praxidicae (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Delete’’’ or we’re going to need Neologophobia any day now LeadSongDog come howl!
KEEP MEDRS is irrelevant. The topic clearly passes GNG, as both the word itself, and the social phenomenon the word describes are discussed at length in independent sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion reason. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to phobia. Probably not a real medical term, but a valid search term regardless. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This should never have been an entry. It is not a legitimate medical term and it only serves as a pejorative for pro-gun people to denigrate gun control people. There is a Wiktionary entry and that should suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.208.203 (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt article appears to be getting out well over its skis. Would be an appropriate paragraph on a page about gun advocacy in the US but doesn’t stand up on its own. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:21, 27 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. Chetsford (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New folk media[edit]

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

Tagged for 13 years for no sources and that is because there isn't any available. While using copyrighted material is nothing new, there doesn't seem to be anybody that uses this term to describe it. Apart from Index of aesthetics articles, no article points to this page. Mattg82 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The idea this article refers to may be real, but I can't find any evidence that it's called "new folk media". Détournement and culture jamming appear to be terms more likely to be used instead. Since we already have articles about these concepts and the term "new folk media" cannot be sourced, this article should be deleted rather than redirected. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a joke. The author, on his user page says his name is B. Leonard Zelig. Leonard Zelig is the protagonist of Zelig a "nondescript enigma". Vexations (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking verification in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 27 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. Chetsford (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Retrospective (EP)[edit]

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

An EP that appears to be non-notable. The article is unsourced, and my attempts to find sources have turned up an entry at AllMusic that only really seems to prove that the EP exists, and a reference to the EP in an interview done by Moore. Unless "melodic-hardrock.com" and "metal-archives.com" turn out to be RS, this EP fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Hog Farm (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The AllMusic entry is all I could find when I did my search and it has no review or rating. To answer one of the questions posed by nom: metal-archives.com is an open wiki and not a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. It exists and that is about it. Mattg82 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pamela Moore where the EP is already mentioned. I do agree with the above comments as I do not think there is enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG requirements for a standalone article, but a redirect may be helpful for some readers since a valid redirect target already exists. With all of that said, I would not entirely be opposed to a deletion, but I go for a redirect per Wikipedia:ATD. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 21 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.