Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 18 August 20 August >

Purge server cache

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Cavallo

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Novak

Gabriel Novak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy any of the six criteria of

WP:COMPOSER is not satisfied at the moment. A prod was declined by the article's creator. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Reasonably strong consensus to Keep, but Keeep was also a possibility. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Long Johnson (album)

Oh Long Johnson (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, just like the article on

Oh Long Johnson. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Not in the slightest. -The Gnome (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. czar 13:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Karakoram Motors

Karakoram Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company is mostly sourced with primary sources, fails

WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since the claim that it's [one of] the oldest car assemblers in Pakistan seems to be true, that's certainly a good claim to notability. I note also that however poorly the article is currently sourced, that's mainly an editing matter not for AfD; and it's fine to use primary sources for basic facts about the firm. I see from the google news search that the firm was substantial enough to venture into Air Indus, so it certainly sounds notable. Perhaps we should ask an Urdu speaker to locate suitable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Old enough' is not a criteria and WP criteria is strict for-profit entities, see
WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing in-depth in any reliable source about them in recent times. Störm (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 17:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've searched for any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability under the current name and the older name and all I can find are mentions-in-passing or directory listings. Topic fails GNG and
    HighKing++ 12:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. czar 13:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atwood Oceanics

Atwood Oceanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing about this company from notable sources except for the fact that it was bought out. Most of the article is self-cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor600 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This account has received a checkuser block, so I've struck the vote Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • - it's not media coverage and the
    WP:ORGCRITE guideline says, "there must be multiple of such qualifying sources" - a stock report merely confirms that the company exists, it does not establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, 1 !vote struck for a checkuser block
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vannar

List of Vannar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is supposed to be "a list of people bearing the surname Vannar" but it has three entries which are not about people with this surname. In fact, I can't find a single Wikipedia article about such people so I propose to delete the list. The article was previously

Proded but the tag was removed by an IP without explanation. (Note that if kept, the article should be renamed to Vannar (surname) or something like that.) Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said that the sources would need to be checked. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the one who prodded it, it is a list which contains not a single entry about what the list is supposed to contain. There is a caste called Vannar, but I can't find a single WP article about an individual with the name Vannar.Onel5969 TT me 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices using Mediatek SoCs

List of devices using Mediatek SoCs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list of "products using another product" is just marketing material. There's no encyclopedic value to such a cross reference, and this serves as only promotion. Fails at least

WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lip Service (2006 TV series)

Lip Service (2006 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage per

WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DynaScan

DynaScan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A digital sign manufacturer that fails

WP:NCORP
. The references in the article are all promotional; searching for new references turned up nothing significant, independent, and reliable.

Article was apparently created as advertising; note the older versions. It is jealously guarded by several

talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If somebody wants to recreate this as a

WP:DAB page, that's cool. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Josser

Josser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A word definition only, with no sources and not even listed in this glossary or any of the others I checked. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good People in Love

Good People in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a web series, completely unsourced to any indication whatsoever of notability per

reliable source coverage in real media independent of its own self-published web presence, but this article has been completely unsourced for seven years and even its self-published website is now a dead link. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenStego

OpenStego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources do not show notability a before search in News Scholar and Books only show passing mentions in lists of similar products nothing in-depth. Fails

WP:NSOFT Dom from Paris (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merve Sarı

Merve Sarı (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any WP:RS that demonstrates that 1) this person exists and 2) they won Miss Turkey 2012. Our own Miss Turkey article suggests that a "Merve Sarıbaş" was crowned the Miss Earth delegate in 2011, but all of my google-fu turns up either copy-pastes of this article, complete with grammatical errors, or a very tenuous YouTube rehost that suggests she was a top-ten runner-up in 2012...

Perhaps someone else will be more successful than me in establishing this person's notability, or even their existence, but I will not hold my breath! -- a consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- a consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- a consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. -- a consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Citing (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-police sentiment

Anti-police sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails

WP:GNG. Contains multiple inaccuracies and hoaxes. The subject of the article is not notable as it is a mismatch of multiple different subjects mixed together, and reads more like a propaganda or attack page then an informative or an encyclopedic article Mysticair667537 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 17:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 17:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about widows or widowers

List of songs about widows or widowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is just a listicle that is best suited for BuzzFeed or another site and not Wikipedia. I think the songs listed could be listed in a category and not like this article that hasn't been edited since December 2016. Pahiy (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for that. I redirected the edit because there was a strange URL added to my comment, and I must have missed that it would undo your comment. Thank you for putting it back up. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Focke Wulf Fw 860

Focke Wulf Fw 860 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary article on an obscure project that wasn't even slated for a prototype, let alone production. A better outlet would be a generic article covering ALL the 1950s and 60s German V/STOL projects Petebutt (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"That doesn't make it invalid. There are many other articles about concept aircraft includng the Focke-Wulf Triebflügel. Wikipedia is aimed to contain all known information and this is a part that interests some people. Some people would like to learn about it." PiggleMcDiggle (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Additional: "I have seen broken Wikilinks referencing the Fw 860 in other articles such as Tail-Sitter and Focke-Wulf. Surely we should be adding articles for them so that other users can select them and learn about the individual aircraft. As a counter to what was said by Petebutt, why should it be included within a generic article? A larger article may also omit much information of the precious little we know about the aircraft." PiggleMcDiggle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read
WP:GNG incorporate this article in a generic article as it does not warrant a stand-alone article.--Petebutt (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -- but the two book citations aren't actually in reference to the article in question. They refer the higher efficiency of another type of plane. I can't find the books online, but that is what I can infer from their context. I'll ask the creator of the article for clarification. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any subject can be notable if it is covered in significant detail by reliable sources, even if it was an idea for a project that didn't go anywhere. Not being able to read the books I don't feel able to comment on whether their content would establish notability per
    WP:GNG, but Nimbus227's offer is helpful. Would draftifying this until that Nimbus and PiggleMcDiggle have worked up a more mainspace-ready article satisfy everyone? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 23:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per the evidence of notability raised late during the course of the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Peary

Danny Peary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based on my searching, doesn't meet either

WP:AUTO
.

Article is sole-source to an encyclopedia.com article. Encyclopedia.com claims to be a reliable source, but I can't find anything that convinces me they have the editorial review processes required to be called that. In any case, it's a

WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 15:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 15:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 15:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. Carey Smith

AfDs for this article:
J. Carey Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not appear to be notable.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Many of the sources aren't independent, reliable or are actually about the company with Smith only appearing for quotes. However, the Forbes article is good, as it's written by an actual staff member which RSN is in favour of, as opposed to a contributor which are not permitted. Lexington Herald Leader also contains a good amount about him, even after filtering out some of the content as direct/indirect quotes. Given he's just meeting GNG, I think he might just edge it, even if another decent source can't be found. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman. 2 sources, one not really all that in depth, are just not enough to justify articles on businessmen. We need more extensive sourcing than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erol User

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

Not notable businessman. The article is written in a self-promotion style with many (exagerated and unverifiable) statements. I already deleted few of them: Tens of awards without any proof, MBA denied by Harvard Business School (I contacted the registrar service), Membership in thinktanks and clubs ( club of Rome and Budapest without being listed in the official websites). All articles and references seem to be from his own biography website. R3lo sd (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 15:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 15:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Lucarini

Lucia Lucarini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Doesn't meet either

WP:NATHLETE. Onel5969 TT me 03:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 03:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of Universiade's downgrading from a global competition of University students to a youth level meet. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where that discussion has been held. Trackinfo (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. University level competitions are not senior meets.Onel5969 TT me 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You apparently do not have a decision to base that on. Trackinfo (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete If the Universiade is a major senior event why does the FIE give no rating points for it? How is a university competition considered "the highest level", which is what
    WP:NSPORT requires? Not seeing significant coverage to meet the GNG and a world ranking of #143[27] does not show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete or Redirect to
    WP:BLP1E applies since all claimed notability stems from the one Universiade. I think Sandals1 makes good points. Having said all that, I am willing to accept a redirect to the aforementioned article. I just don't think an individual article is warranted at this time. Papaursa (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michela Battiston

Michela Battiston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Doesn't meet either

WP:NATHLETE. Onel5969 TT me 03:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of Universiade's downgrading from a global competition of University students to a youth level meet. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where that discussion has been held. Trackinfo (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. University level competitions are not senior meets.Onel5969 TT me 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You apparently do not have a decision to base that on. Trackinfo (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No significant non-routine coverage to meet the GNG. As mentioned previously, the universiade is not the highest level of competition for fencers. The FIE doesn't consider it a major event and a world ranking of 50 is not usually considered enough to show notability. Even boxers, in a more widely known sport, need to be in the top 15 and top 10 judoka have been put up for deletion. I mention these because they are fellow combat sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandals1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to
    WP:BLP1E applies since all claimed notability stems from the one Universiade games. Having said all that, I am willing to propose a redirect to the aforementioned article. I just don't think an individual article is warranted at this time. Papaursa (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodeus (Marvel Comics)

Asmodeus (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Straightforward failure of

WP:GNG. No reliable secondary sources exist for any of these very minor characters. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Journal of Architecture

Cornell Journal of Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indexed nowhere, fails

b} 13:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
b} 13:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 14:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Fries

Jan Fries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable BodaciousTattvas (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 14:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 15:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ahmed Khaled Tawfik. Tone 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safari (novel)

Safari (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NBOOK Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Euphiction

Euphiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable orphaned article full of

WP:SYNTH Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 14:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Place Waikiki Beach

Hyatt Place Waikiki Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hotel that fails

WP:GNG Supreme Sports Statistician (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no other contributors

(non-admin closure) Hugsyrup 12:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Burak Dakak

Burak Dakak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost completely unsourced BLP article. One source was added after its initial BLPPROD, but this is far too short for it to be a plausible source for most of the content. A quick Google translate of that source confirms his existence, that he's an actor, date of birth, and lists his films to 2018, but not his brother, pet dog, and all the rest of this detailed content etc. PamD 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terhi Holster

Terhi Holster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want the article to be deleted. Toivohopehaap (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

WP:POVFORK and the content may thus not be suitable for wholesale copying/merging. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Placebo studies

Placebo studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK of placebo written from the point of view that the placebo effect is a thing, when the main article establishes the opposite. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothign to emrge, this is already in placebo, it's just that one editor doesn't like the way it's presented. Classic POVFORK, in fact. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/delete – Nothing in this article is specific to "placebo studies" over "placebo effect" except for the first sentence. I'm seeing no evidence that this Kaptchuk (who by the way owns "an herbal and acupuncture clinic") was a pioneer of the study of the placebo effect, their program wasn't founded until 2011. A few of the recent meta-studies could be merged into the main article. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Kaptchuk has spent decades trying to establish that the placebo effect is a thing, becuse he admits that acupuncture is a placebo, and he's an acupuncturist. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Amberdeep Singh. czar 13:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi (Punjabi film)

Jodi (Punjabi film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There're no authentic reference or news. Sajid 06:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sajid 06:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The page was moved from
π, ν) 15:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Henry Hall

Richard Henry Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayor of a small city without further assertion of notability, does not appear to pass

WP:NPOL Reywas92Talk 07:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 07:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 14:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. czar 13:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hannelore Knuts

Hannelore Knuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough reliable sources to establish notability by the standards. Purely appearances. Trillfendi (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barnard (executioner)

Chris Barnard (executioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the existing sources, only one short article focuses on him, so

WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Mysterious

Breaking Mysterious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing is a long ways away from meeting

WP:GNG. Despite having been aired in several different regions, the only available sources are entries on affiliated websites, TV databases, and press releases. I couldn't find anything in several different internet searches, although it was admittedly complicated by a lot of false positives from news reports that include the phrase "breaking mysterious". signed, Rosguill talk 04:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a History Channel series that has been broadcast in the United States and in many countries around the world. It deals with important, non-fiction subject matter, such as NSA mass surveillance programs (interview with former NSA employee
MKULTRA), the JFK assassination (interview with former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, who protected JFK), etc. There is surprisingly little information on this series available beside this Wikipedia article, so it would be a shame to delete it. I have not been able to find any news articles or reviews of this series, but it is not a major network program aimed at a mass audience. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Thomas Drake is a real person and NSA mass data collection was real: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-surveillance-subverting-constitution MKULTRA was a real CIA program: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7920010/cia-mkultra-mind-control-drugs-hypnosis-electric-documents/ The JFK "Chicago Plot" was a real, historical event: https://abc7chicago.com/archive/9315215/ These are not "Tinfoil Hat" conspiracy theories, although some people would like to paint them that way.
Yes, and we have what I hope is a decent article about
MKULTRA and all these other events. But just making a tv show about an important event does not make the tv show itself important or notable. That having been said, what's important in this discussion is the sourcing, not the subject matter. Find me three multi-paragraph reviews (or other significant coverage) of Breaking Mysterious in reliable, independent sources, and I will be more than happy to vote keep. Though you may want to avoid looking for coverage in The Sun (RSP entry) signed, Rosguill talk 07:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
To address the concern about this being a show about imaginary topics, I've added references to the article for most of the topics featured in the program. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are now three or more citations by media websites in the article. According to
WP:GNG, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Ghostofnemo (talk
)
Other languages are fine, but the sources you've added are not significant independent coverage, they're either 1) TV guide style listings or 2) unrelated articles about the subjects of the TV show that do not mention Breaking Mysterious. Please look for actual reviews of the subject by professional critics, as they are generally the easiest kind of significant coverage to find for a tv show. signed, Rosguill talk 17:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These look more like reviews than TV listings to me.

  • Investigate some of the greatest mysteries with HISTORY TV18’s ‘Breaking Mysterious’!, Media Infoline https://www.mediainfoline.com/entertainment/history-tv18s-breaking-mysterious
  • Breaking Mysterious, TV Time https://www.tvtime.com/es/show/343890 Google translation: "Radio announcer Jimmy Church and a dedicated group of collaborators investigate the greatest mysteries and controversies of our strange world. Is the CIA behind a popular mobile game? Did the US Government create an army of mentally controlled murderers? Other issues they will deal with are: a possible plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy weeks before the tragic events in Dallas, a search for the missing Confederate gold, a new and unsuspected lair of Bigfoot, a novel travel theory in time, and some nuclear weapons missing in the US. We seek revelation, the answers, the truth. We seek to understand what is not explained."
  • Otkrivanje tajanstvenog, Moj TV https://mojtv.net/emisije/98596/otkrivanje-tajanstvenog.aspx Google translation: "Is a popular virtual smartphone game part of a CIA surveillance plot? A look at the frightening future of armed microdrons and the search for the first National Security Agency alert to inspire Edward Snowden. These are just some of the mysteries this series reveals to us. Radio presenter Jim Church (Blackout, Coast to CoastAM) and a dedicated group of truth-seekers embark on a journey to explore the greatest mysteries, controversies, and conspiracies of our strange world: a possible secret UFO underwater base off the coast of California; a popular virtual smartphone game that may be part of a CIA operation; the alleged plot to assassinate J.F.K. just weeks before the tragic event in Dallas; the search for the lost gold of the Confederacy; the appearance of Bigfoot in an unexpected area. All this, with a new theory about time travel and atomic weapons lost off the coast of Georgia. To get the answer you have to unravel in a mysterious way." Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the references look like TV listings
    WP:CONTN, "Article content does not determine notability" - Epinoia (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le mariage

Le mariage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable company, page created by COI editor – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete as it is a non-notable company. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Tajbakhsh

Reza Tajbakhsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability appears to rest on one Financial Tribune article, which appears to be a re-worked press release; the rest are passing mentions, and one nomination (I can't even find evidence of the claimed win) for a music website's award for arrangement. Possibly there are further, better sources in Persian - non-detectable by me. As it stands, fails

WP:NARTIST. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The award mentioned in the article ("Best pop music arranger, Tehran, 2013") should be listed in fact as "the best instrument player" (along with 19 other instrument players), according to this ref. (Musicema.com is the creator of this award).
For sources in Persian:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Farhikht (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. I know that I have commented in this discussion, but the nominator had already made a botched attempt to withdraw that I hadn't noticed and it's pretty much snow keep anyway. SpinningSpark 19:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Taunton, Massachusetts

List of mayors of Taunton, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list does not have many reliable sources, and most of these people do not qualify by the notability criteria. Interstellarity (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We do not have any rule that every mayor of a town or city always has to already be bluelinked before we're allowed to create or maintain a list of their names; open-ended lists that are vulnerable to the addition of self-promotional wannabe spam, like a generic list of writers or musicians, can have an "article must already exist" restriction placed on them, but closed-ended lists with tightly defined inclusion criteria, like a list of past and present holders of a specific political office, are not barred from containing redlinked or unlinked names — as long as the person's membership in that defined topic is verifiable, they're allowed to be named in the list whether they have an article or not. Spotchecking some of the articles that do exist, I can see that their actual notability may sometimes be debatable — Taunton isn't large enough to guarantee every mayor an instant free pass over
    WP:NPOL #2 just because he exists, but not all of the articles I randomly spotchecked are referenced well enough to get the subject over the bar — but deleting the list now is putting the cart before the horse. If you have questions about the notability of some or all of the mayors in this list who have articles, then tackle getting those non-notable mayors deleted first, and then we can revisit whether the list is worth keeping anymore on the basis of however many articles are left once the problematic ones have been canned. But as things stand right now, enough of the mayors in this list do have articles whether they should or not, and there's no rule that they all have to have articles before a list of them is allowed to exist. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Procedural keep there are dozens of such articles, nominator should have considered that before nominating.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 03:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep some articles like theses don't even have blue-linked mayors. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator has made the classic mistake at AFD of confusing absence of sources in the aricle with non-existence of sources. As a check, I searched for the first unsourced entry, "Onias S. Paige", and found a source which also verifies several other entries. Please read
    WP:CSC criteria #2 and #3. SpinningSpark 14:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I withdraw the nomination. Interstellarity (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seems like the later added sources have convinced people that this is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Emerson Bashen

AfDs for this article:
Janet Emerson Bashen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Except for one patent, she fails to establish what she is notable for. Lacks

WP:GNG, clearly promotional piece, needs deletion. Meeanaya (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Previous AFD by DGG was weak, else it would have been deleted 5 years back. Meeanaya (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 13:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Beatenbough

Doyle Beatenbough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to establish why he is notable, he has president of trucking companies but fails to establish notability outside of these companies. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 13:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bednar

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Bednar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable outside of his company, lack

WP:GNG, clearly corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 13:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Belkind

Myron Belkind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable outside of his company, lack

WP:GNG, clearly corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless we view the award or position as inherently notable, then nom is correct that he makes the coverage, he doesn't get it. (A recurring issue for both reporters and the actual news organisations). He's clearly an impressive journalist, but I don't believe he meets
    WP:BASIC. No single redirect target Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neither award seems substantial or prestigious enough to overcome the fundamental lack of notability and decent independent sources covering the individual in any depth. Hugsyrup 13:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - though as creator of the page I'm a bit biased, I've checked sources etc. again and agree with all above (except that it isn't corporate spam ;)). At the time I was still new (as I still feel compared to most of you) to Wiki and felt like the award, his presidency at the
    general notability. Hurts me to see a "deletion" in my account history, but that's life I guess :D Thank you all for weighing in!--RuhriJörg 13:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I went back to the first article I wrote (way back in 2012), which was both a COI and a failure of what we'd now call NORG, and didn't last past NPP. Mine was definitely clearer cut than this one! Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
read / remember this (although I'm not a complete newbie anymore, I hope ;)). Thanks again! --RuhriJörg 14:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 13:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark P. Vergnano

Mark P. Vergnano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cant see any signs of notability. Not independently notable outside of his role at company, No indepth news coverage, lacks

WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Free Church of England. It's not clear how much should be merged but that can be addressed in a separate discussion. There is a strong consensus against keeping this page with merge being the preferred option. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England

AfDs for this article:
Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. No independent refs at all and searches find nothing better. It appears to be another small sect intent on maintaining its differences. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Evangelical Connexion is a small church it doesn't need deletion it needs editors do their job right. So yes destroy one small church getting one bit of recognition. You have served your master well. Keep it with amendments not destroy everything in your path because you are so sad only thing you have done is be an editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C489:A100:14B3:7779:A019:3B32 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. It looks like someone is cite-spamming. I see 2 books in the cite list, but one of them looks like the sect's constitution (it is used as a ref in explaining the organization of the sect). The other is fairly malformed, but it looks like vanity press. Rockphed (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification The 2nd AfD was speedily deleted by an admin part way through its normal process. A refund was requested and granted, so this version is substantially the same as that deleted at the second AfD.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. Deleted by administrator

blocked user (Justi Rino) in violation of ban or block . Nsk92 (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Martino Lupini

Martino Lupini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a bit too early for passing WP:PROF. Four years past PhD, h-index of 11, only student level awards. I am not seeing anything else in the article to indicate passing

WP:PROF. Probably soon but not yet. PROD declined by the article's creator, therefore I am listing it for an AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16) Top Ten finalists

So You Think You Can Dance (American season 16) Top Ten finalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced content fork of dubious necessity; it is not at all clear that this needs to be a separate article from the main

reliable or notability-making sources about the show. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form, obviously. It was deleted twice from the main article where I had put it some this seemed like the best place to house it. Obviously adding to each bio will take time. As each will be getting media coverage as a top ten finalist the article will grow. If there is a better place to house these bios I’m open. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the contestants are not yet notable enough for their own standalone BLPs (which they're not, so don't take this as a license to try), then why do we need to create or maintain extended minibios of them, in either the season article or a standalone minibio compilation like this, at all? Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking to start a few of the bios, Eddie Hoyt’s for one, but I was having Internet connectivity issues and also working on Rainbow Honor Walk, so put it off for the moment. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People are not automatically eligible for BLPs just for being competitors in a reality show. The person who wins the season in the finale is the only one who gets an article because of SYTYCD itself; anybody else who competed but didn't win still has to build their notability the same way a dancer who was never on the show at all has to, namely by continuing to work as a dancer and/or choreographer and achieving something that would get them over our notability standards for dancers or choreographers. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going by
WP:GNG. This was the step to see which would have their own articles. The show itself feeds out biographical content every show in its aired video packages. Just like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, etc. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The show is not an independent source for the purposes of establishing the standalone notability of its contestants; it is a directly affiliated source. Just like American Idol, America's Got Talent, etc.: their non-winning competitors don't automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning competitors on a reality show either, but also have to establish their notability the regular way by achieving something more notable in their continued careers after the show. Brian Justin Crum got an article because he had an actual charting hit that got him over NMUSIC, not because he was on AGT; D.J. Demers got an article when he scored a Juno Award nomination for a comedy album, not because he was on AGT in and of itself; Jennifer Hudson got an article when she was in Dreamgirls and became a major movie and music star who now cleared NACTOR and NMUSIC, not because she was on AI. They don't have articles because they were on reality shows and lost; they have articles because they kept working, and went on to achieve something more notable, after their non-winning runs on reality shows ended. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure why you’re talking past me? I never suggested these finalists were notable because they were a finalist. I started compiling these to see if any did meet
WP:GNG before creating their articles. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
In the remarkably rare event that a non-winning competitor in a reality show somehow already clears GNG on coverage already received before they were even on the show, that'll be immediately apparent without needing an article like this to exist as a premature placeholder — in fact, if a person is actually in that situation, then there's already a significant probability that their article already exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was created in the main article where I think it belongs. Only after an anon deleted it, and I saw at least five other identical articles did I chose this option. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Keep votes merely stating "meets nfooty" do not even begin to answer the challenge that the player fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nenad Vekić

Nenad Vekić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG. -- Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tropicanan (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be applied to all articles. This one doesn't meet the criteria, please don't hesitate to find the sources that are needed. Just because it wasn't applied to other articles doesn't mean it shouldn't here as per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_August_19&oldid=1142224472"