The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional bio mainly built around having published one book. Mccapra (talk) 03:00, 16 September 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 cited sources are (1) a press release, (2) coverage of the press conference announcing the launching of the bank, and (3) a photo caption. The Daily Star also covered the press conference, ostensibly independently of The Financial Express, but their story is strikingly similar, suggesting that neither performed any real analysis, just repeated the company's presentation.[1]
Searches of the usual Google types found one independent article about the government threatening to penalize the bank (and 21 of the country's 54 other merchant banks) for not managing any IPO for two years. There's also one article about an industry award, Euromoney#The Euromoney Awards for Excellence, that is made to sound as if it's hot stuff.[2] But every year about 1,000 banks self-nominate for a couple hundred awards by the organization. Editor JzG has written, "Most industry awards exist as an excuse for a night out on expenses." These awards look like a prime example of that.
I'm not seeing significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Self-promotion is not the route to notability. Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 9 September 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.
Delete: Lots of references in passing connected to vending machines, but not to this company. Fails WP:CORP. I suspect a close connection between the author Mrfreeport and this organisation. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No qualty RS here to substantiate this company. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least this time I can find some map that has a dot on it labelled "Moll Ranch", but the containing publication doesn't otherwise mention the spot, much less describe it, and we are thus left with another case where Durham is the sole testimony to the nature of the place. There was/is another Moll Ranch in a different county which provides most GHits. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A ranch not a community. Reywas92Talk 17:43, 11 September 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.
Her so-called claim to notability was allegedly being the “mistress” of Kennedy. This is no Monica Lewinsky situation. Nothing eventful or notable happened here. Does the article not say this alleged affair is based on her own account? Trillfendi (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a rationale for deletion. Wikipedia notability doesn't care if the affair was made up or not. In addition to the Washington Monthly source, this Vanity Fair piece is clearly substantial coverage of her. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to delete is lack of independent notability. Your idea of notability is only contigent upon two other people she may have had sex with. And now a story about her son finding her in 1990, is a claim of notability? Trillfendi (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Her "claim to notability" is WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. She had a by-lined obituary in the New York Times. The nominator failed to present a policy-based deletion rationale. It doesn't matter why she's famous, only that she is famous. pburka (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the so-called Before showed anything resembling an act of notability. It all came down to the idea that she may have had sex with a gangster and a president who ended up being shot in the face a few years later. Trillfendi (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI agree with the above editors, given her place in history, the RS, and the fact there was a TV movies made about her life, she is clearly of note. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator seems to have misunderstood our notability guidelines. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC don't require anything like an "act of notability." Instead, we require evidence that independent, reliable sources have taken notice of the subject. Obviously they have. pburka (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You say that, then half of the other articles for deletion discussions show otherwise.... Just being reported on is not what makes notability (at all). But hey, disagreement is what makes Wikipedia what it is. Trillfendi (talk) 19:06, 14 September 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.
I'm not convinced that this topic has gained enough independent coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN. I also think WP:NOTDIR applies. Spiderone 20:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTN, and WP:NOTDIR: no notable entries, no notability as a group, and we don't even have tennis club or Category:Tennis clubs. The closest we have seems to be Category:Real tennis venues (and I don't know how close that is), and there apparently aren't even enough of those to merit separate lists by country let alone by federated state. postdlf (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. for reasons given above by others. Real Tennis is different from normal tennis and rather old and special, so the venues are likely to be notable. --Bduke (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very clearly fails WP:NOTDIR. Seems to be a project of someone with too much time on their hands. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per all of the above. No evidence of notability. None of these clubs have articles. Listcruft at its best. WP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIR I am baffled about the fact that this managed to stay here since 2008 (!) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coincidentally, I live in Victoria, but I don't see the rationale for a page on the Tennis clubs here. Its just a random list. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:38, 12 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article consists mostly of gazing into a crystal ball into a sea of red. This is not really a useful guide to future articles on association football. It was already draftified once and moved back to article space anyway.
No objection to draftifying again, provided it stays in draft space until it has more substance, but moving it back to draft space unilaterally would be move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for a topic of this nature, so soon, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. GiantSnowman 21:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've had these articles going back years, why are you nominating this one? They always have good cited sources for WP:GNG so this nomination is just stupid. Govvy (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given to delete. There is no possible to eliminate the article, then recreate it in a few months from now. Just let it be. DreamFocus 14:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not meet WP:GNG and there does not seem to be any significant coverage in independent sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see coverage in RIS, although there may be historic newspaper coverage I can’t see. Mccapra (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable references - I can't even verify the book exists. The references are a dead blogspot blog, and another book I can't verify exists. Based on the author's creation of Apocrypha of the Virgin Mary, I have no idea if the book was supposedly written in modern or ancient times. There is no reliable content here at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete After a great deal of looking around I have found the actual text referenced, which in English (rather than, apparently, Spanish) is referred to as the "Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea". New Advent has it here and Bart Ehrman talks about it in his blog here. It may be worth an article, but this one is worthless and has the wrong name. Time to break out the WP:TNT. Mangoe (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Firstly, thank Mangoe for providing the research. There are unsubstantiated claims in this article, which does not examine New Testament apocrypha as a phenomenon, nor does the article give any sources for the mss, nor the original language, and no exegesis of the document. The whole thing is likely to be a fake. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:28, 10 September 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.
Does not appear to be a notable book. Written in 2003, despite the article author attempting to portray it as New Testament apocrypha. No secondary sources about the book - the two references are to websites selling the book. No coverage found in English or Spanish. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I managed to find the book on Amazon, and that is about it. Appears to be some sort of devotional work, judging from the paucity of negative reviews; if it were true NT apocrypha being written about things would be different. There is a real Gospel of Mary but given its nature he is unlikely to have written about it. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there was enough sourcing to justify the article, I would re-write the opening. The word "false" is too strong. It is written in a preseumed historical voice, a technique employed in a slightly different way by R. Lanier Britsch in his book Nothing More Heroic on the 19th-century efforts of missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in India, written in the voice of A. Milton Musser.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a devotional treatise based on the Gospel of Mary, and not the apocrypha text itself. Sources discovered (and translated) show there is no neutral point of view in this text. It is devotional, not academic. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book which appears to be the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Though various entries about the book appear on Google, almost all of them are from vendors. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see very few references to thia book, needs more RS to substantiate notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:44, 12 September 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.
Article does not indicate how subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NMUSIC. He was involved in a court case and a minor social media scandal but that does not reach the level of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ...discospinstertalk 19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is dependent on sources that are about other people, in which this guy is either mentioned briefly or (in at least one case) credited for some podcasts used by the journalist for confirmation. He was involved in a dispute that got some minor news coverage in Poland, but that does not get him beyond WP:BIO1E. This Wikipedia article tries to use his momentary media notice to promote his music career, for which there is definitely no coverage in reliable sources. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... and move to Tania Pleitez Vela. pburka (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On a promising road, but for now I'd say, overall, she does not pass the average professor test of WP:NPROF, nor (analogously) an average author/poet test. Somewhat low number of citations, even considering her low-cited field. Plus, I'd expect more than two or three secondary sources talking about the work of a poet/author to establish WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, even if they were blog posts, and I am not convinced she is notable in this sense yet (WP:TOOSOON). Walwal20talk ▾ contribs 23:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the fact that the citation counts are low is particularly meaningful; she's not a scientist, and I would expect them to be low in this subject, even for notable people. It would be a fallacy to say that many notable people have low citations and hers are low so she's notable; I think we have to look elsewhere instead. But, looking at reviews, she appears to have no books of her own. We have (as listed above by pburka) a single review of a volume edited by someone else that has one of its 12 chapters by the subject, and another published article specifically about the subject's poetry. I don't think the first of these counts for much at all. The second one seems a lot more significant to me, and comparable to a single published book review, but it's still only one source, and it's the only such source I found. I don't think it's enough for WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, or any of our notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A few things have changed since his first AfD in 2018, but not much. He is a longtime musician whose works were never noticed in the reliable music media. He got some significant but momentary coverage for his weight loss achievements ([3], [4]), but I think he is still stuck with WP:1EVENT. This article is written with a focus on his old music career and new motivational speaking career, indicating that he is trying to use his momentary media notice for his weight loss as promotion for his other ventures. He can do that all he wants, except on Wikipedia where there are notability standards. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few references here, but no particularly inspiring RS, and some of the references are his own website. He has won a few awards, but that doesn't seem to be enough to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:48, 12 September 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. There is clearly no support for the nominator's arguments. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual played in 22 first-class and 10 List A matches in his 10 year career. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 06:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while CRIN has some issues, and clearly does not have the full support of the community, the subject of this article played 32 matches at the highest level of the domestic game in Pakistan. During his 13-year career at that level, he appeared for six different teams. Additionally, we have some information about his lower-level cricket: his score of 410* ranks as around the 48th highest recorded score in the history of the game. The nominator suggests that "Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist." But that is part of the point of an SNG. From what I can see online, I feel very confident that there would be local, offline coverage of this player, but I acknowledge that I do not have access to that, and can not demonstrate it. Ultimately, he well exceeds the bar set by CRIN, and any likely future iteration of it. Harriastalk 08:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His fairly extensive career, playing a significant number of FC & LA matches over many years, and the sources unearthed already would seem to suggest a notable cricketer for which further sources are likely to be around. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: CRIN makes mention of suitable first-class domestic tournament; I find that the banking tournaments in Pakistan fall into this category on a domestic level.
Keep. Has played multiple notable matches over a 10 year career. Also doubt this editor is new. StickyWicket (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can someone please link to the sources which have been found?Iitianeditor (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:05, 11 September 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 article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts, more than satisifies the CRIN requirement. Such a shame that there seems to be so little effort to expand cricket coverage these days. StickyWicket (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable cricket player, as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:50, 12 September 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. There is clearly no support for the nominator's arguments. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played in 12 matches, across all three formats, in his career. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 06:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Records show he has played First Class, List A and T20; a good showing in T20 --Whiteguru (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in multiple domestics CreativeNorth (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played 12 matches across all formats. StickyWicket (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played in six first-class matches for Multan. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 06:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nice strike rate against Multan, 72:72, a good first class cricketer. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep six first-class matches means he easily passes WP:CRINCreativeNorth (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Only six FC matches played over a period of 10 weeks, contributing very little in any of them – averaging under 10 as a specialist batsman, so very much not a "good first class cricketer". No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:03, 11 September 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. If a reasonable redirect target exists, a redirect may be created, but no such target has been demonstrated here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - unlikely to have further cricketing notability, only playing one List A match. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. One solitary match played, in which he contributed very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Dophins cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karachi Dolphins. Meets NCRIC but it's difficult to presume notability in the absence of any qualifying coverage. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - unlikely to have further cricketing notability, only playing one List A match. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. One solitary match played, in which he contributed very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Meets NCRIC but it's difficult to presume notability for this player at the dusk of his career. Better hold off on a standalone article until some actual sources are found. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Islamabad cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 19:35, 14 September 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. Anyone can create a redirect if the suggested target page is created. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - unlikely to have further cricketing notability, only playing one List A match. Out for a duck! --Whiteguru (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Just one FC and one LA match played, contributing very little in either. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to lists of Islamabad Leopards and Hyderabad (Pakistan) cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets NCRIC, but it's difficult to presume notability in this case, and the subject seems to be around retirement age. Better hold-off on a stand-alone article till some supporting sources are actually found. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lugnuts. Also it is funny how this doesn't show up in a WP:BEFORE which further shows that the article passes WP:GNGCreativeNorth (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a routine match report it is entirely reasonable to discount such sources when performing a WP:BEFORE check. More concerning is that articles are still being written exclusively from statistical databases (routine coverage), without finding other sources (significant coverage) that would more robustly support notability claims. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played several first-class matches for several notable teams. StickyWicket (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in six first-class and three List A matches. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 06:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts from what I understand, this doesn't establish notability. Only sources which talk about the person in detail and are inpendant of him count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitianeditor (talk • contribs) 07:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. The presumption of notability offered by WP:NCRIC on the basis of appearances has proven very unreliable where few matches have been played (hence progress at WT:NSPORT on removing it), so must be disregarded. Sources must be found that offer substantial coverage of the individual beyond routine & indiscriminate statistical databases in order to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:SPORTBASIC, etc. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. The notability has been meet by playing in those matches. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 12:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, only the requirements for a presumption of notability offered by WP:NCRIC has been met (which is unreliable at best). More is required to confirm notability, i.e. substantial coverage in reliable source independent of the subject (indiscriminate cricket databases such as cricinfo/cricketarchive do not count). wjematherplease leave a message... 12:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they meet the notabilty. They are not indiscriminate cricket databases, infact, they are quite the opposite, as any per any dictionary will tell you. THe bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus from this RFC is that no subject specific guideline supercedes GNG, specifically sport (including NCRIC), and arguments must go further than bare "meets SNG" assertions. Ideally, articles such as these would simply be merged into lists, but those lists do not exist in many cases. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per previous editors, passes WP:CRIN. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:51, 12 September 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. There is clearly no support for the nominator’s arguments. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played more than enough matches to satisfy WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 19:34, 14 September 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. BD2412T 00:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Just two FC matches played, contributing almost nothing in either. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Just five FC matches played, contributing very little in any so seems unlikely that sufficient substantial coverage would have been generated. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. (Note: updated after double checking links) wjematherplease leave a message... 15:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played five first-class matches. StickyWicket (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5 first-class matches as per above. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low — 5 is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:55, 13 September 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 , defaulting to "keep". The outcome of this discussion hinges on the weight given to WP:NCRIC. There has been enough doubt cast on its utility that I am not comfortable unilaterally declaring it sufficient to overrule the concerns of those !voting "delete"; however, it is still a guideline, as things stand. A community-wide discussion about this SNG, and any others frequently seen to be too low a bar, would seem to be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar appearance criteria. One solitary match played, in which he contributed very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets NCRIC but it is difficult to presume notability in absence of any coverage beyond stats. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Faisalabad Wolves cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Lugnuts says are six first class matches not notable? CreativeNorth (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in 11 first-class and 11 List A matches, scoring a century and three 50s in his F/C career. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 07:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you had performed a WP:BEFORE then you would think at least 1 of 6 sources would come up? Anyway he also meets WP:CRIN and as per lugnuts. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings and twitter, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:CRIN and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has played in the PSL which is definitely notable and passes WP:GNG. Also forgive me if I am wrong but looking at your edit history you nominated this and 3 other pages for deletion within the space of 2 minutes which doesn't suggest to me you performed a WP:BEFORE on all of them. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and CreativeNorth. StickyWicket (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Just one LA and one T20 match played, contributing very little in either. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played multiple first class games which satisfy WP:CRINCreativeNorth (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly unremarkable 21-storey building that does nit seem to have attracted any architectural attention.Mccapra (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he played 6 first-class games in addition to 2 List-A games so he easily passes WP:CRINCreativeNorth (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CreativeNorth and Lugnuts. StickyWicket (talk) 11:42, 13 September 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 , defaulting to "keep". The outcome of this discussion hinges on the weight given to WP:NCRIC. There has been enough doubt cast on its utility that I am not comfortable unilaterally declaring it sufficient to overrule the concerns of those !voting "delete"; however, it is still a guideline, as things stand. A community-wide discussion about this SNG, and any others frequently seen to be too low a bar, would seem to be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. One solitary match played, in which he contributed very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's difficult to presume notability; meets NCRIC nonetheless. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UTBC. The individual meets the notability requirements. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 19:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Lahore Lions cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in multiple first class games so not a marginal case.CreativeNorth (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria – as such, arguments based on this criteria should be disregarded. Only three FC matches played over a period of one month with three unremarkable performances, so unlikely to have generated coverage. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in numerous notable matches. StickyWicket (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "played in matches" only proves existence, not notability. Also, the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's played in 6 first-class games this is not a marginal case. Also quite funny how you did not see this and this when performing a WP:BEFORE. Anyway this further supports the claim he passes WP:GNG. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus (at WT:NSPORT) that the number of matches played is a very poor indicator for presumed notability, especially when that number is low (six is low). Having said that, I'm inclined to believe it is likely the required coverage (somewhere) could exist of someone who has played at FC level over several seasons, even if the total number of matches played is low. Also, neither of those match reports constitute significant coverage of the subject (he is only mentioned in passing) so could reasonably be disregarded when doing a BEFORE check. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Any fabled consensus at [insert talk page here] should be codified to WP:NCRIC before AFD is asked to follow suit. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:42, 11 September 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. When someone who passes a SNG is reasonably challenged, as happened here, it is helpful if those advocating keep actually do more than reiterate that they pass the SNG. However, there is broad enough consensus here that despite the absence of sources there is still clearly a keep consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has played 9 domestic games so it is not a marginal case which easily passes WP:CRIN and other sources are right here and here for WP:GNGCreativeNorth (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CreativeNorth GNG clearly mentions that the sources have to be in depth about the subject. The sources don't say anything about the person in question at any depth.Iitianeditor (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok while I do disagree about this, as I think you are contradicting yourself by not letting Cricifno and Cricket archive count and also WP:GNG saying "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source". Anyway I think we should just agree to disagree. However he has played 9 games. With your objections to WP:CRIN mainly being that it is too inclusive, 9 first-class games clearly show he is notable. CreativeNorth (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CreativeNorth Yup, let's agree to disagree. Thanks for being polite and civil which I'm afraid a lot of people seem unable to follow. Iitianeditor (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual has played in nine matches: two List A and seven T20 fixtures. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria – as such arguments based on this criteria should be disregarded. Only two LA and a clutch of T20 matches played, contributing very little in any of them – averaging under 10, presumably as a specialist batsman, so very unremarkable and unlikely to have generated coverage. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it apparently meets WP:CRIN. Baseball's WP:NBASE trumps the GNG, and that's fine and that works, and we end up with articles about people who we don't even know their first name. Cricket's a big deal so I suppose for cricket its the same. As a practical matter, that's how people treat it. If you want to tighten up CRIN that's a different matter. Change CRIN, don't nominate articles that meet it. Also BTW the majority or our X million articles do not meet the GNG, which is a guideline IIRC.
As always, a point to consider is: "For people searching on the string 'Taimur Siddiq', rather than taking them to this article it would be better to show them nothing, because _______." What goes in the blank? You'd want a compelling argument here.
Granted, in this case, very few people access the article -- fewer than .5 a day, which rounds to zero. I think a reasonable question to ask at the CRIN page is "this guideline is supporting articles for which the daily readership approximates zero. Is this worthwhile? Would a series of mere lists be better for players with this level of notability?" But that's an issue with the guideline, not this page in particular. Cricket is important enough that, if cricket enthusiasts are controlling the page and are too liberal in their criteria, a WP:CENTWP:RFC would maybe be in order, since cricket is pretty important.
On the other hand, we do have many articles with approximately zero readership... probably hundreds of thousands at least, articles like Mitrulinia (a fungus of extreme obscurity) and Pisgah, Virginia and so on. So maybe deleting cricket players of mind-boggling obscurity, and not funguses or populated places of mind-boggling obscurity, is just snobbery. Another point is that the First Pillar ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia") says right off "Wikipedia... incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias". Is www.espncricinfo (the main ref for the article) a specialized encyclopedia? It says here that it is. Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus from this RFC is that no subject specific guideline supercedes GNG, specifically sport (include NBASE), and arguments must go further than bare "meets SNG" assertions. Ideally, articles such as these would simply be merged into lists, but those lists do not exist in many cases. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC has no such consensus. The headcount was about 18-17 in favor of the proposition (that no subject specific guideline supersedes the GNG, at least for sports), which is a tie, and the strength of argument was also such that an informed and disinterested person would have to aver that that's more or less a tie too. That can never be incontrovertibly proven of course, but it's certainly a reasonable conclusion. If somebody closed it as "proposition accepted" they made a mistake, or supervoted. That's OK; we're human here, with human failings. That doesn't mean we have to pay any attention to somebody's mistake (or supervote). Herostratus (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really? – "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline." Probably also worth remembering that consensus is not a headcount. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played nine matches at the highest domestic level. Besides, “nobody views this page” isn't a reason to delete, it's more a problem with how readers are directed to it from other pages. StickyWicket (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nine FC/ListA appearances is more than enough to justify a presumption of notability. Johnlp (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that one should not have been deleted, and made my view known there. Johnlp (talk) 10:20, 18 September 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 , defaulting to "keep". The outcome of this discussion hinges on the weight given to WP:NCRIC. There has been enough doubt cast on its utility that I am not comfortable unilaterally declaring it sufficient to overrule the concerns of those !voting "delete"; however, it is still a guideline, as things stand. A community-wide discussion about this SNG, and any others frequently seen to be too low a bar, would seem to be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non notable Pakistani Cricketer.Priyanjali singh (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you need to mention him being Pakistani? Does the fact that he is Pakistani make him non notable CreativeNorth (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CreativeNorth, I wouldn't take offense to it. Likely the mention that he's Pakistani is just descriptional filler. I'll do that to since it's hard to write a good detailed nomination rational sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played five domestic games, it is not a marginal case it easily satisfies WP:CRIN and here's your non directory/stats listing to satisfy WP:GNGCreativeNorth (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires "significant coverage" – match reports with passing mentions do not meet that criteria. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Only two FC and 3 LA matches played during one season, contributing very little in any of them. No substantial sources available beyond routine match reports and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message...
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "played matches" only proves existence, not notability; and this recent AfD confirms that even 15 matches is not enough for a reliable presumption of notability. Also, the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in five FC/ListA matches. Johnlp (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like the notability standards for athletes like this one are changing and for good reason IMO. Since Wikipedia isn't a directory. Which is all this article is. He clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines though and I think they are the important thing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played five FC/LA matches, meets notability in that respect. StickyWicket (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another WP:ATA. Please elaborate and provide proof of notability, i.e. reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite passing NCRIC there's no indication of notability. Nigej (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC, and the subject is only 27. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "played matches" only proves existence, not notability. Also, the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passed WP:CRIN, fairly recent FC career too, so likely sources in Pakistan exist for this player. StickyWicket (talk) 19:40, 14 September 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. Sports AFDs are spotty oftentimes, as is the case here. While a sports SNG doesn't supercede GNG, there is no agreement in this dicussion on notability and it seems that nobody has actually performed a thorough search for sourcing. Redirection to List of Lahore City Whites cricketers would likely be a viable outcome, but we cannot redirect to an article that doesn't exist. Potentially there is/will be a discussion about wider cricket notability, one that cannot take place here but might resolve the debate. Eddie891TalkWork 14:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus from this RFC is that no subject specific guideline supercedes GNG, specifically sport (including NCRIC), and arguments must go further than bare "meets SNG" assertions. Ideally, articles such as these would simply be merged into lists, but those lists do not exist in many cases. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Just two LA matches played, contributing very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool☎️ 09:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Borderline this one, but give his two matches were fairly drab afairs for him, I'd say redirect to List of Lahore City Whites cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 22:16, 14 September 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. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Genealogical association that fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG; deprodded by a SPA. There are three very similar articles in the same small local paper ([5], [6], [7]) and a few passing mentions in obituaries, but nothing else substantial. Note: I also recently started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Baird, about the head of this organization, but very different standards apply to each so it seems reasonable to keep them separate. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with deletion. The group is valid and is an important part of the Scottish Clan system. Jcmullinax (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) — Jcmullinax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment could this be redirected along with other Scottish Clan pages into one page talking about all of them? Balle010 (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Balle010: Possibly? But at least this article is about a genealogical society for the clan, not the clan itself—Clan Baird was deleted for copyvio in 2009—and I don't see RS discussing the clan in the article at present. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I'm good to go with DeleteBalle010 (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Albannach1 (talk ·contribs), whose only contribution thus far is the following, posted the message below on the talk page for this AfD. It is presumably a !vote to keep. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with nomination to delete. This organization is a genealogical society that has been around for 50 years and their published genealogical materials are available online publicly. They are attested to by public sources and as such this page should remain.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it to pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability for 3 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced article. Wikipedia cannot sustain having such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; even the actors 'starring' in this film don't seem to be notable Spiderone 14:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage found in the references. The ones with a paragraph or two are neither national papers nor reputed regional papers. Some of the articles are written by the subject himself. Dial911 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no qualification for Notable Author criteria or WP:GNG. These two sources you cited don't justify significant coverage on the person. And they might not be independent as well. Dial911 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Favonian (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, this is too soon Spiderone 15:07, 15 September 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.
Redirect to University of New Hampshire, where it is mentioned. Just not seeing enough coverage to meet WP:GNG/WP:ORG. Would say merge, but there's nothing other than official-sourced content here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:53, 9 September 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.
Durham calls it a locality named after the owner of a nearby wharf. Old maps show a railroad siding on the Northwestern Pacific RR, a wharf and a few structures. No evidence that it was ever a community. I don't find anything indicating notability. Glendoremus (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete The line of structures that show up in the topo, in aerial photos, appear to be boathouses; at any rate they are clearly not dwellings. Other than that, there's a single house. Clearly was never a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This album severely lacks any significant third-party coverage. There's even less (if any at all) on the remix version. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable albums. Couldn't find anything reliable about them. Is the band itself even notable? The sourcing in that article is terrible. I think I will nominate that to deletion as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - The band will probably soon be deleted from Wikipedia as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shining (British band)), and all the articles were created by Soul Crusher, who is apparently a collector of obscure industrial music and saw the need to create Wikipedia articles on everything in his collection. These two albums did not receive any more notice than the band. See also the incident investigation here. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:44, 12 September 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.
This article was created by the creator of the signs shown. It doesn't appear that this topic is sufficiently notable to merit it's own article per WP:GNG, with only some low-quality sources noting their creation in 2011 and an extremely niche source noting that they had changed colour in 2015. There are of course many alternatives pictorial push/pull signs, but they don't appear to have garnered any attention. SmartSE (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is way too niche for its own article (and I can't imagine anyone searching this term....) and the links seem promotional (there are links to patents that are likely owned by the article creator).Citing (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very interesting, although my interest is somewhat diminished by the fact that it looks like this is intended to be about specific signs which were designed by the creator of the article (as per the file description). The first external link makes me wonder if there's a bigger topic of "door pushing and pulling" or something... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just no. Article created by the inventor or the signs. If anything this might merit one sentence in an article that has to do with ADA signage... but probably not. Also, who GAF? End of deletion reasoning. Side note, while looking for sources I found this gem in a text: "For example, every day millions of people use the common push/pull door signs as they enter and exit stores, factories, and office buildings. Some doors need to be pushed, others pulled."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The topic is notable as the page contains plenty of sources and there are more to find such as this. The worst case would be merger into a more general article such as door or signage. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic for the encyclopedia, likely created to promote the designer. Netherzone (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there may be some merit in discussing the overall concept of these types of signs somewhere, this particular article was made only to cover/promote one specific, non-notable example of them. Thus, there is nothing to merge and, as stated, the term used as the title is unlikely to be a useful search term for any kind of redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- these are just a specific instance of Pictograms but, since the article is just a thinly disguised advertisement, there is nothing to merge there. ReykYO! 12:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above delete !votes, there's nothing worth keeping. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no content that needs to be preserved. Information sign, the most plausible generalization of this topic could use some work. To redirect Pictorial push pull signs for doors to Information sign makes no sense because Pictorial push pull signs for doors is a highly implausible search term. There's a lot to say about the intersection of human factors engineering and design, but this isn't the place for it. Vexations (talk) 20:18, 15 September 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is clearly not notable. She doesn't qualify WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. The first source from Lebanon states that she won Oscar for her invention. The only journal entry is an abstract of her seminar published by OMICS Publishing Group reconsigned as a predatory publisher which was became the first academic publisher to be sued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for deceptive practices. In some other news reports she doesn't have significant coverage. Roller26 (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp💬 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' There is some coverage but it is not sufficient to establish notability. I can't see how she can be notable. scope_creepTalk 19:00, 22 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draft Only 17 years old and no where near passing WP:GNG in that state. The article seems fluffy, don't really see much there to get excited about! I am not against this going to draft space to be built properly. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have the coverage required to pass GNG Spiderone 14:35, 14 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few GHits for this, and every one of them says it literally was/is a spring. I'm a bit puzzled that it doesn't show up in GNIS, but it doesn't, and I can't get much of a location for it either. So, definitely not a settlement, and not a notable landmark either. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not a community and no indications of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mass-produced junk. Reywas92Talk 18:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even GNIS says this is a community. As a result, it fails WP:GEOLAND. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:56, 10 September 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.
Only claim to notability seems to be recent fraud charges (to which he pled guilty). There is lots of high-quality coverage of that fraud, but it is still a single event. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really call seven delete votes in the last AfD unmistakable clarity. For that, you have to have something closer to unanimity.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving as the "Chief of Public Affairs" of a federal agency is not a notable position, and coverage about his arrest/conviction falls into WP:BLP1E. KidAdtalk 04:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who can't be bothered to read BLP1E shouldn't embarrass themselves by indiscriminately citing it. BLP1E requires that each of three conditions be met, and here none of them are. Reliable sources cover Courtney both in the context of his government work and his notorious fraud; with coverage by the NYTimes, Daily Beast, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, and WaPo, among many others, Courtney is not low-profile; and as the central figure in a fraud scheme, his role is both important and well-documented. The BLP1E-based argument for deletion is thoroughly frivolous. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a case of BLP1E. He was notable enough for a BLP by virtue of his job prior to gaining notoriety and tremendous coverage in reliable sources for his amazingly sophisticated crime. Sundayclose (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both for his previous work, and for the rather spectacular fraud, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question In the context of WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, which is relevant: the single judicial action from arrest through conviction and sentencing, or the long string of activities spread over years that amount to numerous events, each one meriting its own coverage, and that might have received it if Courtney had been more inept and red flags had gone up over the course of those years instead of not till this year? Largoplazo (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any alleged mastermind of a fraud involving the highest levels of US Defense and Intelligence is 'de facto' relevant.Gaussgauss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Greeno proper was a short-lived reservoir constructed to supply water to the area around Susanville; its dam was washed out at least once, and GNIS hasn't heard of it. I found a book on a Margaret Greeno which I can only read some short excepts of, but I can see that it mentions the 4th class post office as a place where people got mail, and it talks a bit about the reservoir. What I cannot find is anything much beyond that. Fairfield's history of the county mentions George Greeno very briefly, and says nothing about the reservoir; I get lots of hits about banking (which seem connected to Reno, not California) and a passing mention of a Lake Greeno Precinct. But nothing I get says it was a town. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only thing I can confirm is that there was a reservoir by that name. No evidence of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 20:51, 16 September 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.
Apart from some very brief mentions in RS: [10][11][12] I'm unable to find any coverage which demonstrates that WP:BIO is met. SmartSE (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed checking the revision history of this article, and consequently missed it was subject to POV-pushing informationectomies, followed by what looks like lapses from WP:COI.
Since I last worked on this article she racked up a significant publication record. Did your BEFORE extend to taking a good look at the google scholar search and google book search results?
Keep Hodgkinson was not merely another civil servant. She was a senior figure who went on record with significant controversial opinions -- as substantiated by RS. Geo Swan (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: - I had seen the early revisions, e.g. but the sources don't seem sufficient in that either. It was a long time ago - Hodgkinson is notable because she replaced Charles "Cully" Stimson following his controversial resignation obviously isn't much use. I hadn't though to check google scholar, but her most cited publication appears to be this with 26 citations, so meeting WP:ACADEMIC is unlikely. All I'm seeing on Google Books is brief mentions. Please specify which sources you think push her over the notability threshold and support your claim of "significant controverial opinions -- as substantiated by RS." SmartSE (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WRT Academic - we have GNG - the general notability guideline, supplemented by a handful of special purpose notability guidelines. Those special purpose notability guidelines, like ACADEMIC, supercede GNG, in the narrow conditions where they are fully applicable. WP:SOLDIER says anyone who reaches flag rank, or who is awarded their countries highest medal merits a standalone article, without regard to whether they did or didn't measure up to GNG. I suggest you make a huge mistake in how you are trying to apply ACADEMIC here.
No one is claiming that Hodgkinson measures up to ACADEMIC, and that her measuring up to ACADEMIC should supercede GNG.
Only a small fraction of BLP measure up to SOLDIER, ACADEMIC, etc. Your mistake is to then act like the scholarly references that support Hodgkinson measuring up to GNG should be totally discounted. For the 95 or 97 or 99 percent of BLP whose notability is established by measuring up to GNG, not by measuring up to a special purpose guideline, like ACADEMIC, the nominator, ie you, and everyone else weighing in, has an obligation to independently evaluate all the known and knowable notability criteria, and then doing a kind of notability calculation, where they add up all those notability factors.
The US Federal government is very large - employing millions. Does it employ tens of millions? How many people retire every year? 200,000? 300,000? When Hodgkinson retired she didn't immediately go to work as a lawyer, or for a large corporation. She accepted a fellowship, for a year or two. That is when she wrote those academic papers. Only the very smartest, most respected retiring Federal employees get invited to accept a fellowship. Some of those highly respected individuals who accept fellowships don't go on to write academic papers. They share what they learned, in government service, verbally, in seminars, or informal discussions. Those, like Hodgkinson, who do write papers, are more valuable that those who don't. Do these fellowships come with a stipend? Are they like a Post-doctoral fellowship? Can fellows who show they function like professors, by leading seminars, giving lectures, jump to being full-fledged academics? Good question. I dunno. Some fellowships may be part-time, with no stipend. Other may offer a stipend no higher than that offered to a grad student serving as a teaching assistant. And still others may pay comparably to actual professors. I suggest that, since only a tiny fraction of retiring Federal employees get one, even the largely honorary fellowship is highly prestigious, and confers considerable notability. Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: So which notability criterion is met? Publishing scholarly articles is not enough to meet GNG - we need there to be multiple sources about her or at least describing her impact. If her work was as important as you claim, someone should have written about it, rather than just mentioning her name as a result of her employment. Thousands of mentions aren't equivalent to in-depth coverage. SmartSE (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse your comment, above, seems to totally ignore the points I made about what I see as your misinterpretation of ACADEMIC. Geo Swan (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WRT your dismissal of "passing mentions" - this thesis, for instance, devotes two and a half pages to Hodgkinson, the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs with a background in human rights law. I dispute your characterization of it as a "passing mention". For the wikipedia to function smoothly everyone should take a leaf from Gerald Weinberg's advice for the "egoless programming team". We all have to be prepared to consider that that we might be wrong and that they other guy has made valid points. We should welcome when the other guy makes a valid point, because we didn't come here to win arguments. We should be coming here to build the best encyclopedia possible, not to fight every argument to the bitter end.
Sandy Hodgkinson, a lawyer who worked detention issues at the National Security Council, had been trying to get the job since its creation. She applied after Waxman left, but Under Secretary of Defence Henry did not want to work with her. After Stimson left, the slot was open for several months before Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice called the new SECDEF, Robert Gates, to recommend Hodgkinson for the job. She was also endorsed by Waxman and John Bellinger at the Special War Crimes Issues Office at the Department of State, the office tasked with the transfer and release of detainees from GTMO. Even after these endorsements, the DOD was still not going to hire her. When Stimson heard people were upset over the vacancy his resignation created, he also recommended Hodgkinson get the job; she was finally hired in July 2007.
This is just one example, from one paper.
Some deletionists try to insist that every BLP include the mundane milestones of individuals lives - like date of birth, hometown, dates of marriages, births of children, degrees earned. Okay, when documentable, some of this material should be included. But it is not what makes an individual notable, and its absence does not erode their notability. DGG said it best, a decade ago. Individuals are notable for what they did and what they wrote (paraphrasing from memory), not for their marriages, children, hometowns.
Articles don't have to be perfect, to avoid deletion - they merely should be on notable topics. Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but only if expanded. She is probably notable for what she has done, but the article at present just lists her positions. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 15 September 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.
This is an ancient autobiography and I do not think either WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC are met, since the only source is a single book and my own searches have not turned up anything else. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person, created by the subject himself back in 2005. He had no other edits besides his own and Robert Aickman's article (whom he keeps a website to) so the conflict of interest is obvious. It is a mystery to me how this article has managed to stay here for fifteen years. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the comments above. Even leaving aside the potential conflict of interest that has been flagged up, there is no sign of the level notability that would merit the subject having his own article. Dunarc (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has very strong policies against autobiographies. We need to actually enforce them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Company does not receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is some minor coverage of actions taken by the company but most sources I've been able to find are paid advertising, routine coverage, press releases, etc.
Delete I don’t see sustained coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 03:28, 16 September 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.
Never played an NFL/CFL/XFL/pro arena game, so he fails WP:NGRIDIRON. His college career does not rise to the level of WP:NCOLLATH. This source appears to be from the college he played for, so it isn't really independent. This piece mentions him, but only briefly. Gets three sentences here in a list of memorable plays from SEC championship games, but it's not a whole lot, and I'm not sure exactly how reliable that source is, it may be a bit sports-bloggy. There's some brief references in old game summaries like this one. He played on some good LSU teams, but that doesn't make him notable, and I'm not seeing a pass of either SNG or the WP:GNG here. Hog FarmBacon 15:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:IMPACT. He had a notable and impactful college football career. He was the starting left cornerback on LSU's 2006 Sugar Bowl championship team and its 2007 national championship team. He started 30 games with nine interceptions and 25 pass breakups and scored the game-winning touchdown on an interception return in the 2007 SEC Championship Game. I have expanded the article this morning with additional sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per the improvements from Cbl62. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 12:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sourcing and improvements to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG just from sources in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:02, 14 September 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 company State Drinks does not have sufficient notability to justify its own page. Per WP:ORGCRITE, an organization or company needs to have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. A search for State Drinks only shows the Wikipedia page and a LinkedIn page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on an energy drink brand, describing its origin and listing brand ambassadors, but without content indicating encyclopaedic notability. Such coverage as I can find mentions the drink firm in relation to famous investors, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:54, 17 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly fails WP:NSEASONS as they were playing in the second tier of a semi-pro league system (consensus is that even the top tier of Irish football fails NSEASONS). Also fails WP:GNG; the President of Ireland watching one of the matches, which seems to be the only thing remotely notable about this season. Spiderone 13:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am generally against deleting articles. There has always been a prejudice among certain Wiki football editors against League of Ireland football and the proposal to delete this article is just another example. The article needs improving but not deleting. Plus I also find the dismissive attitude towards the President of Ireland as totally inappropriate. DjlnDjln (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which Wikipedia policy does this article meet? The President of Ireland coming to watch one of the matches is the only thing even remotely notable about this season but then that's only one event and it could easily be summarised in the main Galway article. Please find me coverage that is more than just routine match reports, transfer news or squad lists. Spiderone 17:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every sports club season article is "just routine match reports, transfer news or squad lists". By that criteria you would be deleting hundreds of articles. DjlnDjln (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So that's why we have WP:NSEASONS which allows stats article for clubs so long as they are playing in a fully professional league. If the league is not fully professional, then WP:GNG must be met. Spiderone 08:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term "fully professional" is vague. A league is either professional or amateur. The league involved is a second level national league and it's players are paid. It easily meets notability standards. DjlnDjln (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:FPL where the League of Ireland is listed as 'not fully professional' Spiderone 22:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is similar to the logic used at WP:NFOOTY; players who have played solely in Ireland are deleted if they fail WP:GNG. Unless there is solid proof that this article passes the GNG test, it should be deleted. Spiderone 11:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I suggest that WP:FPL needs to be updated because there is no such thing as not 'not fully professional' when it comes to leagues. Leagues are either professional or amateur, there is no halfway status in between. Players in the LoI are paid so it therefore a professional league which makes it notable. Plus lots of amateur sport is eligible anyway, e.g. College sports in the United States and Gaelic Athletic Association sport in Ireland. DjlnDjln (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that we are talking about a second tier season here when consensus is strong that even the top tier fails NSEASONS as per these AfDs:
Looks to me like you are just deliberately targeting League of Ireland articles one at a time for deletion. Totally inappropriate in my opinion. These articles should have been grouped together in a single discussion. DjlnDjln (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I have tried to group articles where possible but this one should be in a separate AfD to the other Galway United articles (which I bundled) because, in 2014, they were playing at a lower level Spiderone 16:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense. They should have all been discusses as one bundle. DjlnDjln (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 19:17, 9 September 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.
No evidence this is a notable subject. A search for better sources reveals virtually nothing of value, those included in the article aren't in depth coverage and I can find nothing better. Praxidicae (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search finds very little. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually found the opposite. two books mention Sabe Lewellyn, CoCA 2011 Annual - Page 14books.google.co.uk › books Gary Hill - 2012 The State of Art - Installation & Site-Specific #1, Volume 1. with the other citations including international art shows and international papers he seems significant enough for wpJust4kids (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions aren't enough and certainly not in depth coverage. The claims aren't even supported by those sources. Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't simply mentions the first is an art exhibition catalogue which is an important source for art historians, and the second is a quarterly journal that argues the importance of the artists work in 2014.Just4kids (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
here is another book that includes this artist. This exhibition catalogue discuss work shown in Berlin in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just4kids (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These all sound like primary sources, rather than critics or reviewers taking note of the artist's work and writing about it. Primary sources can be used in articles, but they are not of much value in establishing notability. See WP:NARTIST. The Berlin catalog is of value for proving that the show happened. The text in it, which is his CV and artist's statement, is not useful for establishing notability as Lwwellyn wrote it himself. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
here is a review which is already cited as a source in the article [1]Just4kids (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ARTIST, work(s) not "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.". Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of the article does not meet notability criteria for WP:ARTIST. The sourcing is extremely weak: 1) artist's website 2) written by the artist 3) unverifiable 4) mention in a juried show catalog (I'm skeptical of juried shows because they are pay-to-play) 5) press release 6) mention in a book on many artists 7) written by the artist 8) press release 9) review of student group show (with 130 artists). Therefore does not meet WP:GNG either. Netherzone (talk) 14:35, 12 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 19:17, 9 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 19:16, 9 September 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.
spammy article about a non-notable musician, sourced almost entirely to rehashed press releases, puff pieces and interviews. Praxidicae (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly you moved the article to draft space, stating that the article does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources.
I have worked on the article and added more citations from reliable and independent sources. In Nigeria, every news agency on the article reference is as big as the New York Times in the US, and the Guardian in the UK.
(talk) 12:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, except they aren't identifying their opinion or paid pieces and don't have bylines. Praxidicae (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks all for your inputs, I quite don't agree on the part of the subject not being notable, media publications in various countries have their peculiarities, the subject is quite notable in his country Nigeria, I just added more reference sources to more recent publications made concerning the subject being recognized by three National youth organizations for his business achievements and youth development. These publications were made before the request for deletion. The subject's Music label has a verified page on Instagram and you and I know it's more easier to get a Wikipedia page than to be verified on Instagram. The article has nothing promotional other than just cited mentions of necessary contents that should make up a normal Wikipedia page. If there are areas anyone feel needs to be corrected, it can be pointed out for corrections rather than suggesting deletion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amah768 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a notable person in his home town — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amah768 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only claim to notability in the article is that this musician was featured in the Nigerian Apple Music Top 100 Chart. If that's all he's got going for him then he really isn't notable in our terms even if he's attracted a lot of attention. Mccapra (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only CCS is the Nigerian Apple top 100, which I do not believe gets it over the line. Sources might be considered valid but some are to Apple or Amazon also. Overall, NN. Eagleash (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person is notable in his hometown and Newsources state that he has Achieved quite alot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIL OSELF (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good luck to him as he gets started, but as is sickeningly common for articles on new Nigerian performers, this one is dependent on unreliable sites that look like legit music media but are actually friendly reprints of a manager's press releases. You can tell by repeated phrases like "rose to prominence" or "fast emerging" but with a lack of detail. His so-called "media" notice is unreliable and otherwise he is only present in the usual streaming and promo services where anyone can upload their own stuff. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because (if my memory is correct), I am the one who brought it up for speedy but was declined. So of course I think it should be deleted. 2601:983:827F:6B20:6CEA:B2C8:7FC3:9F09 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This Article is a Peacock and contain promotional Words that aren't True ,the songs of this subject has not been on any top charts, all the new source are paid Promotion and sponsored post which was stated therein, I believe it doesn't meet up notability, this article those not have a standard Biography, all listed reference are based on assumption and maybe his talent.. none was written based on achievements.. Two users here have been spotted as suckpet that states *Keep , this article is an autobiography and has gone so far to involve other users to keep the Article.
I believe it should be speedily deleted... Thanks Kwip1 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above (except the "Keep" voters). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 06:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV (all fancruft, passing mentions, etc). Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. There are no sources that discuss this as a group WP:LISTN that might justify making this into a list. // Timothy :: talk 11:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as all the others. It's just a containment article for unnecessary plot that fails to establish itself as an independent topic. TTN (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging anything that's salvagable per BOZ. Note: I don't think there is anything but PLOT there, so I don't think we need to wait long for anyone to merge. Save this fancruft now or it will be gone in a week. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking third party coverage to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 06:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, only holds various pretendy titles, did survive deletion discussion in 2013 but consensus could have changed since then. PatGallacher (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: despite some his titles and styles being defunct, he notability as a member of two prominent European families, both of which reigned over imperial great powers into the 20th century. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deposed monarchy cruft. The imperial house is part of was removed from power over 20 years before his birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , hoax article German royalty was abolished and so was Prussia. Entirely non notable person. Smeat75 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deposed or not, he's a prominent member of a formerly sovereign house. I second what dwc lr said- notable as a businessman and his marriage did seem to receive a lot of media attention. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per dwc lr, sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability.VocalIndia (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dwc lr and Willthacheerleader18's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:32, 14 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 10:51, 9 September 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.
I believe the article should be deleted because it cannot be shown to meet the WP:GNG. No reliable and independent sources are provided in the article and a Google search, while yielding many results, does not turn out any reliable third-part sources either. The article also does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:FOOTYN. According to these, a club is notable if 1) it has played at step 6 of the National League System or 2) in any of FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup or FA Vase. I've had a look at comparable clubs in the same league. Polytechnic F.C., for example, has a Wikipedia article, but they are clearly notable for having played in the FA Cup of 1884–5. If no such accomplishment can be shown for Winchmore Hill, it should not be included on Wikipedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, I made an honest mistake in assuming they had no FA Vase appearances. I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if all of you come around to keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per below, appears to be notable. Article needs moving to Winchmore Hill F.C. in-line with standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 21:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the generally accepted criteria for English clubs (played at step 6 or in the FA Cup/Trophy/Vase). Number57 12:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this seems to be part of a set of non-notable articles (Winchmore Hill Sports Club and Winchmore Hill Cricket Club) that should all be deleted. Number57 12:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FA Vase appearances (three in total). Thanks to Govvy for highlighting this (I took the nom's claim re no FA Vase appearances in good faith). Should also probably ping GiantSnowman and Spiderone for reconsideration. Number57 22:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet the notability requirements for a football clubSpiderone 14:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Due to Govvy now keepSpiderone 07:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of things, this is an FA registered club, registered to the Kent FA pyramid, [14], they have played in the FA Vase, [15], as far as I am aware they haven't made it above level 12 in the pyramid. On a side note, I've played against them and my cousin has played for them!! heh. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping P.S @Number 57: They have played FA Vase, you might want to check that part :) Govvy (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks notable to me reading FCHD. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 13 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 10:50, 9 September 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.
Stub that only focuses on a word in its LGBT sense and makes no mention to its usage in meme culture and in common slang as a shortened term for boy. Thanks, (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In general, people do not go around using this term as an alternative term for boy, and so it should not be presented that way as some general usage thing in the lead, especially in the lead sentence. To repeat what I stated before when reverting you the first time on the WP:Lead sentence, "The term is firmly established within the LGBT community. What sources state that heterosexuals commonly use this term?" You stated, "[C]ommon slang as a shortened term for boy." What reliable source supports that claim? How is the meme usage the primary usage of the term? Like YorkshireLad stated below, "based on a cursory Google, with less sourcing seemingly available discussing the word in the more general meme context." As you know, I reverted your dictionary-sourced definition again. You cited thisDictionary.com source. Well, this Dictionary.com source states, "informal [...] a lesbian who adopts a boyish appearance or manner." CollinsDictionary.comstates, "informal [...] a lesbian who adopts a boyish appearance or manner." Various other dictionary sources state the same. But regardless of what dictionary sources state, it's not uncommon for dictionaries to give plain and/or outdated definitions of terms. As we know, they commonly do...especially since they list different senses, including historical senses, of terms. This is a topic covered by academic sources, not just dictionaries. And per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a topic like this should mainly be relying on academic sources. Per WP:Not a dictionary, even articles about terms should go beyond a dictionary definition. We should be looking at what academic sources state about this topic. And I know what they state about it. They are focused on the LGBT community. And as for popular culture material? See WP:"In popular culture" content and WP:Trivia. No Wikipedia article is obligated to have an "In popular culture" section. And, in fact, Wikipedia articles are usually better off without such content. I'll alert WP:LGBT to this AfD. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a rationale for deletion here, and, as the sources already cited in the article demonstrate, the word seems to pass WP:GNG based on the LGBTQ+ context alone. The fact that the article didn't cover other uses of the word (the sense in which I've come across it most, though, based on a cursory Google, with less sourcing seemingly available discussing the word in the more general meme context) doesn't seem to be a reason to delete an article about the sense that is well-sourced—and, indeed, the nom has subsequently expanded the article to cover more senses. Merging to Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities doesn't really work because of the other senses, as now covered. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge elsewhere. It appears to me that LoganBlade nominated this article on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis. Also, he is for having the lead sentence simply define the term as an alternative spelling for boy, with no mention of the very WP:Due lesbian aspect or the LGBT community in general, and for unduly positioning the popular/meme content ahead of the actual topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion rationale provided, and the existing sourcing is more than adequate to establish wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons and sourcing identified above. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 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.
Delete: There has been a lot of edit warring on this page. This is the best place (for this page) for the time being. Content veers into various media this so-called asteroid has been in, but there is no verifiable notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magneto (Marvel Comics). The current article has no reliable, secondary sources, and aside from the single sentence at the beginning stating its creators, is nothing but plot summaries and a list of appearances. Searching for sources turns up the usual plot recaps/summaries in comic sites or brief mentions. It actually has a "Top Ten" listicle all of its own, here, but it consists entirely of just plot information. Its already covered in the lengthy plot information on Magneto's article, so a Redirect there would make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above as a valid alternative per WP:ATD-R. Doesn't need an article, but the fact that a few meager sources WP:NEXIST support that it is a valid search term. -2pou (talk) 16:31, 14 September 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.
Delete (possibly speedy): Draft:Yash Mehta, also authored by Studyash was rejected at AfC on August 28th, but has now been duplicated into main space, still unreferenced. Seeing no actual claim to notability, I have also tagged this CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 07:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim[edit]
Fails the minimum 25 international cut-off agreed by WP:CRIC for lists of individual international centuries. StickyWicket (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a blog that people write their names in front of the articles they writeAuthor Sanju (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete the main article (Mushfiqur Rahim) has no issues with size so this can easily be accommodated there without issues (also, no usefulness in keeping redirect after merger). wjematherplease leave a message... 09:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the minimum criteria of centuries list. Shankargb (talk) 03:28, 17 September 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. Mojo Hand(talk) 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am aware of a number of well known roads named after Mahatma Gandhi, and several have pages here on Wikipedia. (There is even a list ...) Alack for the chocolate lovers of Tel Aviv, a mere mention in Lonely Planet does not give this street notability. Out with the chocolate! --Whiteguru (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A chocolate enthousiast may have gone overboard with the accent on cacao products sold on this road, especially given the short nature of the article. A slight coverage imbalance is nowhere near a reason to delete. Only a reason to improve. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A veteran-well-known-crowded and most visited street in Israel's hub of touristic and economic center. Tzahy (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the major thoroughfares in Tel-Aviv, obvious notability.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. What a strange nomination! This is one of Tel Aviv's main arterials with some the city's best known buildings on this street. Location of many historical events, including the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. No lack of sources. gidonb (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD was the third edit (second was also procedural) of a "new" editor at Wikipedia and could be an act of vandalism, also given the fact that the subject so easily passes WP:GEOROAD. New editor disappeared the next (their second) day. Moderator attention and early closure will be appreciated. "Doesn't seem notable enough for an Article" does not imply that any WP:BEFORE was done. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 13 September 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.
In accordance with WP:LSC, don't believe that this list is encyclopedically useful, it is an incomplete, potentially enormous and rather subjective list that adds no value to the articles it lists Mztourist (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' this is not an article but is much justified list of POW's but it has no refrences Author Sanju (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination does not provide a reason to delete, being a list of arguments to avoid such as WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:NOTUSEFUL. The list topic easily passes WP:LISTN and a selection of substantial sources follows. Citations are only required for controversial cases and I've not noticed any. Addition of such citations is done by improvement per WP:ATD, not by deletion. Note also that we have an equivalent main article and category, which further demonstrate the validity of the topic.
Prisoners of War in Britain 1756 to 1815
Prisoners in War
Prisoners of War in the Hundred Years War
Prisoners of War at Dartmoor
American Ex-prisoners of War
Japanese Prisoners of War
Stark Decency: German Prisoners of War in a New England Village
Response this list would require that everyone in history who has ever been captured in war should be listed, what is the point of such a list? Of course we have an article for prisoners of war, we don't try to list all of them. I really don't understand the point of your 1-10 above.Mztourist (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man fallacy per slippery slope. There is no such requirement and the list currently contains a modest number of notable cases. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery slope is that every single person ever captured could be listed. Having a "modest number of notable cases" is as pointless as listing everyone. Mztourist (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such repetition is tiresome so it's time for a daring escape and rescue... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I checked LISTN today for another article. This claims it is a list of notable Prisoners of War, and, reading down the list, names were recognised and there were a few surprises I did not know of. This is indeed a notable list, and should be retained. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that thousands of people can be added to the list? Mztourist (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The OP doesn't seem realise that we have lists with hundreds of thousands of entries such as list of minor planets or list of species or list of sportsmen. Of course, if one page isn't ample then we just split and subdivide it into several pages. This is fine and not a problem per our policy, WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - any list has the potential for lots of cruft, but the fact that it's notable POW's limits who can appear on the list. However, anyone on the list without a WP article should be removed. The lack of references, as per WP:LISTN is not an issue, since the underlying concept, POW's, is clearly notable. LISTN also states, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."Onel5969TT me 12:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepWP:SKCRIT no policy based reason for nominating. This is clearly a list of notable POWs which is not indiscriminate and provides information for the readers per WP:LISTN. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, list is contained to notable examples, it would be nice if sourcing were included but that is not a requirement. The rest is regular clean-up. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP as informational and navigational list, complementary to Category:Prisoners of war per WP:CLN. The nom seems unfamiliar with the fact that we routinely limit lists of people (and other things) only to those entries that have articles. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigation list, all but four of the links are blue, and those are for articles that have been deleted. DreamFocus 18:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a list of notable entries, useful for navigation. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response this list isn't useful in any sense and certainly not for navigation. Given the comments above, this page should list every prisoner who has a wikipage from Vercingetorix to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I would also note the inherent bias of the existing list being largely Americans/Europeans. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The articles and subcategories in Category:Prisoners of war provide guidance as to how this could be developed further and subdivided by header, or split into sublists. Did you list this for deletion without looking at its corresponding category? postdlf (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. As there are already numerous subcategories of prisoners of war by conflict etc. it shows that this list is too broad to be useful in any way. Mztourist (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”The articles and subcategories in Category:Prisoners of war provide guidance as to how this could be developed further and subdivided by header, or split into sublists.” postdlf (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prisoners of war is a valid category, its not a valid list. As I have said above, a comprehensive list of prisoners of war would run to thousands of people who have pages and so would be of no value. We have lists of prisoners of war by conflict, country, nationality etc, which is acceptable and of value, but having a list of everyone who has ever been a prisoner of war is pointless. Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support for deletion: although this list is going to be kept, there's absolutely no way it could ever become encyclopedically useful, because it is far too indiscriminate by its very nature. For WP:LSC, on of the criteria is "If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?" In the vast majority of cases, the answer is "no". (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although this list should be strictly notable prisoners of war, i.e. those with Wikipedia articles. Anyone without an article should be removed. They should also all be sourced, although that is cleanup and not relevant for a deletion discussion. Rhino131 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This really ought to be a Lists of prisoners of war, containing sub-lists like List of American prisoners of war, List of British prisoners of war, etc. As Buidhe says, a single list is unlikely to ever be encyclopedically useful. – SD0001 (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that's what we have Categories for.Mztourist (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean we can't have lists too in addition. See WP:NOTDUPE. – SD0001 (talk) 06:18, 16 September 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. A very clear consensus to keep now. Tone 18:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sources to demonstrate that WP:BIO is met and with an h index of 10, it seems unlikely that WP:PROF is met either. SmartSE (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such a low coverage for his work does not lead to meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was awarded an OBE in 2011 for services for medicine so I would assume passes criteria 2 of notability of academics: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." He also founded the Medical Futures Innovation Awards, "Europe’s leading showcase of early-stage innovation in healthcare", eg see [16]https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2011/smd/queen-mary-research-team-wins-medical-futures-award-2011.htmlPiecesofuk (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: Actually, the OBE would be covered by WP:ANYBIO #1. However, we have generally held that an OBE is not enough to satisfy that criterion (although the next higher level, the CBE, would be). It is a major contributing factor to notability, but does not confer notability on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteundisclosed paid-for spam with no evidence of notability either under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Most of the current sources are passing mentions, name checks and thus don't confer notability. GSS💬 07:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 16:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets Notability under WP:PROF AND WP:BIO. He is a Professor at UCL [22][23]. He has published more than 70 publications with over 2400 citations [24]. He sits on national committees such as the UK National Joint Registry [25] and is Chief Investigator on a NIHR study receiving public funding of £1.5 million [26]. He has published several textbooks [27]. He was awarded an OBE for services to Medicine [28]. These are not passing mentions nor name checks as stated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Speccledct (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC) — Speccledct (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Speccledct: You have not explained why you think PROF or BIO are met. Being a professor and publishing articles and books is not sufficient. SmartSE (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmartSE: The first criteria for WP:PROF is that the person’s research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. I cannot find many orthopaedic surgeons anywhere in the world that were awarded £1,505,666.72 to be a chief investigator in a national research study [29]. He appears to have made a significant impact on researching ankle arthritis [30][31]. He was invited as a guest speaker at the Canadian American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society [32], the British Orthopaedic Association [33] and his research is nominated for the Roger Mann Award at the American Orthopaedic Society [34] which all seem to be reliable sources. With regards WP:BIO the first criteria is having received a well recognised and significant honour - He received an OBE [35]. I cannot see anywhere is WP:BIO it stating that an MBE or OBE is not a well recognised nor a significant honour. Adele received an MBE [36] and Victoria Beckham an OBE [37]. Incidentally on the WP:BIO page under the heading for Academics it states that “Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.”. His papers have been cited thousands of times by other researchers [38] and so are influential. SpeccledCT (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN spamcruft; also wholly endorse GSS's analysis. ——Serial 17:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this. Originally, my closure was keep since I have a feeling that WP:PROF has chances of getting through, but I'd prefer seeing some more input. Maybe the article should be WP:TNT
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several comments here are not objective and some unnecessarily offensive. He meets Notability under WP:PROF with very clear examples given that meet majority of criteria and agree with @Piecesofuk: seems to meet WP:BIO. SnowmedGT (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. You can't !vote twice. Favonian (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, thanks XOR'easter for listing this under the academics deletion discussion today. Kindly requesting more relists so that people that are active in this sorting list have time to check this out and cast their opinions. Walwal20talk ▾ contribs 23:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A distinguished author, professor, researcher, surgeon and scholar, right? When we routinely keep subjects such as this, for people who just kick a ball, the notability guidelines are clearly inconsistent and lack sense and so we should ignore them and follow policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew above makes an excellent point – we should delete more articles about people who merely kick a ball! Order of the British Empire does NOT bestow notability and such argument above should be disregarded: well over 200 UK people received it in 2011 alone, few of which are WP notable. Goldberg has an excellent resume but sources are basically all non-independent or passing mentions, failing GNG. Apparent undisclosed paid spam. Reywas92Talk 18:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for invite to comment. Kicks more than a ball. Meets WP:PROF. If criteria for WP:PROF needs changing then change but you cannot change interpretation. Paper in Nature [40] is impressive and lots of the references are independant eg receiving a public grant from the NHS [41] . MAF1966 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 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.
Delete This character is so minor and unlikely to be searched for that deletion seems the best option in this case. Rhino131 (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely minor DC villain. Aside from entries in wikis and fansites, there is very little information on the character in reliable, secondary sources. There are a very small handfuls of mentions, but nothing that could be used to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic fails to establish notability with reliable sources providing real world information. TTN (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With only a brief mention added to List of Green Lantern supporting characters. I was unable to find extensive coverage through a search, and as someone with a deep knowledge in DC Comics, I am doubtful that print sources would be anymore fruitful. Darkknight2149 17:05, 11 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated multiple times after move to draftspace and PROD. --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have they actually played any games User:WhiteFalcon1? When does the season begin? Looks like they signed at end of 2019 ... no games since then? Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely fails NFOOTY and can't see GNG being met either Spiderone 20:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He played games in Second Division I league Nfitz He was signed during January transfer window but he played for other teams in I-League 2nd Division. Because of covid league stopped suddenly. So he didn't got chance play for the team in I-League.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteFalcon1 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The notice needs to stay, User:WhiteFalcon1, until he AFD process is complete and someone closes this, on September 16, or later. But with three people supporting delete, and only you opposing it, it will surely be deleted. I-League 2nd Division is not listed as fully-professional at WP:FPL - is there any indication that it is (that is, that players are paid enough, that they don't have other employment)? Alternatively, is there any in-depth media coverage (in any language) about him, that is more than just he was transferred? I'm surprised he didn't appear to play anywhere in 2020, given that football didn't stop until late in March 2020. Nfitz (talk) 15:26, 13 September 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.
I can't even believe we are having this discussion in 2020. There is nothing notable about the murderer outside of the fact he was a murderer yet we are left with a written biography detailing his entire life while his victims are either objectified by a "murder of" article are left to be a black word list on the Wikipedia biography of their murderer. It's sickening and disturbing.Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to point out that Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles is an essay and not Wikipedia policy therefore, while it is perfectly fine to include it in discussion it should not be considered anything more than an essay. It is not a guideline, policy or requirement when creating an article. This is just further evidence of systemic bias against women and a notable young innocent who became the face of, as my friend SusunW so eloquently points out, "everywoman" after her murder.Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am adamantly opposed to the deletion of this article as I believe she meets the requirements for notability.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Tsistunagiska, !vote “keep” or “delete” to make life easier for whomever determines consensus... 😉Montanabw(talk) 17:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she was the victim whose murder broke the case. As such, she was unique and not merely a face in the crowd. I would reluctantly live with moving to a “murder of” title, but I hate the objectification inherent in those titling conventions. So 1. keep as named, or 2, keep,with a different title. Montanabw(talk) 17:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) I came here after reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Jayne_MacDonald_and_wider_women's_issues where there is a very good discussion going on. I would say a few things myself here, though. First of all, the nom is citing an essay as if it's policy. In addition, this is not a one event situation and the victim does have notability. The murder of this young person led to a change in society. If that's not notable, I can't imagine what is. It's a horrible way for that to happen, but the fact is that because of this victim, many changes occurred among the police, in journalism and was taken up in a feminist response. I think that what Tsistunagiska brings up about the way we handle murderers vs victims is a problem, but until we change Wikipedia policy, we have to go with what we have. I support a change in the way we write about murderers and victims, especially in the sense that there is evidence that some people enact violence in order to become immortalized in history. The lack of attention to victims is a problem that should be addressed. As for this article in particular, I believe that the subject of the article passes GNG for coverage over time and also for the legacy that she left behind. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's about as notable as Sutcliffe's other victims. Jayne's mother being the first to successfully sue a murderer for committing murder doesn't make Jayne notable either. Dougal18 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 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.
Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG, no independent reliable sources, article editors appear to have COI GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unreferenced article on a child. This is failing so many notability guidelines that it stands as proof that we need to go to making every single article be created through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 16:55, 9 September 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.
CommentWikipedia:"Murder of" articles is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. We don’t require that murder victims be notable before being murdered. Mccapra (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Discovery of the body in 1961 and the subsequent inquest provided grist for the mill in terms of books, articles, media coverage, thus satisfying the requirements given like so: The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. So Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage of a major news event in its time. “Murder of” guideline is misunderstood—and not even a guideline, it’s an opinion essay. Montanabw(talk) 17:07, 11 September 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 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. BD2412T 00:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources:[2][3] She has played supporting roles in two films and lead in two films, but not much sources exist about her. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing significant coverage. The two roles in the listed movies were non-significant supporting roles so, doesn't pass WP:ENT. - hako9 (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Spiderone 18:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 07:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable yet. This source mentions his name[1] and this one talks about him.[2] More sources are needed. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:BASIC nor WP:ANYBIO due to lack of strong secondary references. Not just yet, needs to build a stronger filmography. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:26, 9 September 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.
Keep Kathir News portal actually checks the facts of the news coverage and it is a well-known news portal in Tamil Nadu… even our Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaram praised his work… It is working to bring fake and true news to the reader's attention. There is significant amount of information and all are well referenced. Why delete? A wiki is a tool for acquiring knowledge and conducting research.Susheelgiri (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLooplips, normally a user is expected to conduct WP:BEFORE nominating a article for AfD and then provide a concise rationale based on policy, guidelines, sources and their own research as to why the article needs to be deleted. I recommend that you follow these steps and then reconsider this nomination or provide a reason for the nomination. Roller26 (talk) 10:58, 10 September 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.
Non notable film that fails WP:NFILM and was once deleted through PROD, a WP:BEFORE search does not bring up anything that should show notability for this film. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep There is significant amount of info and all well referenced. Why delete?Susheelgiri (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - contrary to the above vote I can't see any reliable coverage at all Spiderone 10:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM. All citations currently in the article are just film database sites, and nothing better found during a search. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:49, 9 September 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.
Of the seven cited sources, four are brief mentions, and two are not independent (press release and company website). From the remaining source I can squeeze one encyclopedia-worthy sentence, "In 2010, Aftab Foods spent US$2.4 million to launch ground spices operations."[43]
Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest found little else about this Aftab Group (there are unrelated ones in Pakistan and the UAE-Iran). At most, I could add "In 2011, Aftab Jute Mills planned to commence spinning 15 tonnes of yarn a day."[44] (Nine years later, the parent website still says "Aftab Jute Mills ltd is going to be added to Aftab Group to march its venture within a short span of time with a large variety of jute products in and innovative manner. It is to be situated at Rupshi in Narayangonj," so it doesn't look like their plans ever came to fruition). And "As of 2019, Aftab Milk is one of 14 milk pasteurizers in the country and splits a 20% share of the market with ten other companies."[45]
There would be more than three sentences to say about a 60-year-old private company if it were notable. WP:NCORP calls for WP:SIGCOV - coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. That doesn't exist for Aftab Group. Worldbruce (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the thorough nom and WP:NCORP. I searched ProQuest and came up with some hits in Al Bawaba for an apparently unrelated company (which I don't think would establish notability even if they were about the same company). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:09, 16 September 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith(talk) 01:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:32, 9 September 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.
Non notable film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to satisfy WP:NFILM requirements. Tagged for notability for 2 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith(talk) 01:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching found directory type listings in various books on films, no in-depth reviews or other significant coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 02:30, 9 September 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.
Genealogical record. WP:NOTGENEALOGY Does not pass GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. BEFORE showed genealogy records, no SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 01:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Balle010 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only notable thing about him is that he's the father of Gonville Bromhead (really, they couldn't have been a bit more original in naming him?). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think being a Major in the British army and fighting in the Battle of Waterloo constitutes being a notable person.
Delete Being a major is no where near the level of notability, that is conferred only by being at least the level of Brigadier. Fighting at a historic battle like Waterloo does not give every participant, even every participant of the rank of major, notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem notable, searching Wikipedia doesn't find other articles mentioning it, Google returns nothing but its own pages and a couple of directory entries, issues haven't been attended to since templates posted in 2014. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Doesn't pass notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Not notable enough. TruthLover123 (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Topic is significant in global context, and Christian evangelicals are working diligently in this outreach area. I think that the topic of this ministry should be seen on its own terms, not MERELY in terms of how Wikipedians have discussed notability for celebrities or politicians or commercial products. MaynardClark (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an exception to our notability guidelines should be carved out for areas of outreach that Christian evangelicals are working diligently in, this is hardly the place for that discussion. More to the point, if it is "significant in global context", reliable sources around the world are clearly dropping the ball here. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, as best I can tell. With a name like "run ministries" it's difficult to get good results on an internet search. However, I would have expected the article's author (who commented here on this AfD) to have put more citations in the article demonstrating notability. The article has been hatnote-tagged for its entire 6 year history, has been severely over-tagged with categories, stub-templates, see-also links, and 13 wikiprojects!... and yet the article barely explains the organization. Normal Op (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have not seen many Wikipedia articles. Do you realize how many are sourced only to an organization or individuals webpage? How many are sourced only to IMDb? How many have existed for over a decade with no sources at all? OK, we should expect better, but the reality is there are some categories where we have huge numbers of articles on minor entities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Yes I have. Yes. Yes. Too many. I'm aware of that and have myself AfD'd articles about tiny non-notable organizations sourced only to themselves for decades. What was your point? Reminder: NOTFORUM. Normal Op (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get the same 2-3 'critics' who manage to show up whenever I weigh in on an article, even if without strong opinions - as if one is being stalked. Many organized groups are doing 'work' in the area professed by RUN ministries, so I doubt that they are sufficiently unique to warrant a distinct article. But ought their name to be included in another article? Honestly, I don't know. I looked around in several ways and found (a) persons younger than I had expected and (b) very little that helped me build a deeper, wider, higher, better, more robust picture of RUN ministries. I doubt that anyone NEEDS to seek journalistic comments when trying to rescue sexual slaves from bondage, but what's wrong with my expressing a sense that our priorities may not lead to the best effort on producing this organization's article. This online encyclopedia may not be the mechanism for publishing a coherent picture of what RUN ministries is and has been (and maybe that's OK). RUN is an acronym for Reaching Unreached Nations (a missionary idea). I tried to search on each of the variations of the founder's name and on the names of the key persons listed in the financial documents (which I thought would be good to include in part for that reason). I agree with 'Summer' (and others) that 'primary sources' are not what Wikipedia 'wants' (but then, again, it's not Britannica). MaynardClark (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to be based on secondary sources, not primary ones. That means we should not be sourcing to filed tax documents for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not have strong secondary references. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is notable enough to remain, though it does need to be restructured and further developed. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Directory entries, the organization's own site and a political blog do not combine to form notability. Insufficient coverage provided to meet WP:GNG and nothing meaningful found. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This appears to be about a missionary organisation, probably one trying to spread its work too thinly with too many mission fields and objectives. Rescuing and releasing slaves is a worthy cause, but this is not an article about slavery or anti-slavery. Apart from that there is far too little on what the organisation actually does. It is just an ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Driessen & Cole from the page are two references towards GNG, a third one is here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is Cole a source for this article? I see no mention of the subject organization (let alone meaningful coverage). It's cited as a source for Kay Hiramine being the director. While the article does mention him, its as a spy heading a Pentagon-front group called "Humanitarian International Services Group", not mentioned here.
As for Driessen, I'm seeing no indication it is an independent source. Along with heavily partisan language and cheerleading throughout, it ends with "There are few better ways to step forward … and begin your 2015 giving … than by helping now."
The new source you've provided is similarly heavily partisan and a cheerleader for the organization, again ending with an appeal for money for the organization: "We need to help RUN Ministries get as many blankets as possible, as quickly as possible, to ISIS survivors in their 'Community of Hope' refugee camps and safe homes. Eric and his teams are praSubstanying for and expecting a financial miracle this Thanksgiving."
Yes, there is "substantial coverage" in two of those, but it's not from "independent reliable sources". - SummerPhDv2.0 01:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Their work with rescuing women and children from ISIS is quite newsworthy notable. It's been around for 30 years and has plenty of news mentions. Batmanthe8th (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"News mentions" (which I don't see here in any case) are not helpful. For the organization to be "notable" we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, which we do not have. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be a very worthy organisation, but it just doesn't appear to have the coverage in secondary sources required for wp notability. I think that it would be fine to put a paragraph about it in the Slavery in the 21st century article (perhaps with a redirect), but not a whole article at this point. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:12, 16 September 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.