Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Velarde

Felix Velarde (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 has gone through various stages of editing and there seem to have been several requests for

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Only now did I find the previous deletion discussion (2017). Don't know why / how I missed that in the first place. Reading through the discussion I'm still torn, though. If previous consensus is deciding, though, please feel free to withdraw this nomination (not entirely sure how to do that and don't want to mess something up). Let me know what you think. --RuhriJörg 16:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's your decision to withdraw or not, based upon what you think about the sources. Decide what your own opinion is on how deletion policy should apply. I am happy to do the gnoming for you if you decide to withdraw, as I am sure would be several non-administrator closers. See also Project:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Felix Velarde. Uncle G (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since another editor is "leaning delete", it is probably best to keep the discussion open, now. Uncle G (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the previous one only stayed because of lack of actual opinionation. "Plenty of references" on that one seems to have meant "plenty of bad references" - David Gerard (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete - I am quite unconvinced of notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's Fences&Windows' list, excluding the ones by the subject rather than about the subject. Which sources are bad and why?
  1. Davies, Jessica (February 16, 2015). "Underwired co-founder Felix Velarde departs following Gratterpalm integration". The Drum.
  2. Burn-Callander, Rebecca (May 21, 2013). "Entrepreneur Q&A: Felix Velarde, Underwired". Management Today.
  3. "10 websites that changed the world". www.managementtoday.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-08-06.
  4. "My Media World: Felix Velarde". Campaign. March 7, 2012.
  5. "Getting to know you: Felix Velarde". Business Matters. September 5, 2011.
  6. "Velarde exits after Underwired deal". Decision Marketing. February 17, 2015.
  7. "Underwired chiefs secure buyout". Decision Marketing. March 28, 2012.
  8. "Mellor hits back over exodus". Design Week. April 4, 1997.
  9. Hayter, Stovin (January 1, 1999). "100 UK new-media players. (2 of 2)". Campaign.
  10. MacMillan, Gordon (June 25, 1999). "Campaign Interactive: Profile - Felix Velarde". Campaign.
  11. Williamson, Dan (August 8, 2001). "Head NM founder joins Underwired". Campaign.
  12. Owen, John (June 1, 1998). "The ad column - Creative haven or grim sweatshop? Vive la difference!". Campaign.
• Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparent comment from subject FelixVelarde: [13] "I have never paid anyone to do anything here. Some updates were done a few years ago by an ex-colleague after we stopped working together and (I thought) had lost contact. I'd rather you took down the page than had anything up that suggests in any way I'm unethical, thanks." - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I was eventually convinced by the last Afd after trying to delete it. He had a web design agency in 1994. It wasn't called that then of course, really a guy who knew html, but it was very early, really early. I was reading Computing every week and there was very very few folk or groups that you could point at. Lots of talk and hype but not much else. That is the reason the BBC decided to do a skit on him and only him. That is the definition of notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those churnalism references which at the time I thought were rank, on a time period they range from 1998 to 2015. A long time to be visible as a public actor. Notable as well. scope_creep^Talk 18:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:SIGCOV - he's done stuff, but there's no sources to confirm who he is. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC) This is the closest we have. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 22 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.

Dūda

Dūda (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 a misleading redirect, because dūda is a string instrument, whereas dūdas is a wind instrument. The thesaurus does say dūdas can also be plural for the name of the string instrument, but not that dūda can be the singular for the name of the wind instrument, because the name of the wind instrument is a plurale tantum. See also a a Latvian-English dictionary. Turaids (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 16:17, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lannie Battistini

Lannie Battistini (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 musician continues to be non-notable for all the reasons supplied during the previous deletion discussion, which ended in the article's deletion. There are no further indications of notability since the previous discussion. Google returns 53 hits for "Lannie Battistini", all of them affiliated, social media, music download, ticket sales and/or database-driven websites, or routine, local current events listings. The few sources supplied with the article don't come close to establishing notability. The Olga Tañón credit, for which I find no independent coverage, adds no more to notability than it did the last time we talked about it. I recommend deletion and salting. Largoplazo (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not quite sure why this article was submitted as an AfD. The subject has received multiple American and Latin Grammy awards and nominations. A quick Google search turned up wide third-party coverage. Passes
  WP:NMUSIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Neutral and on the fence. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "Not sure why" is an odd thing to write directly underneath the reasons that I provided! They, in turn, reference reasons given in the previous deletion discussion. Also, as he is not Olga Tañón, he has not "received" a Grammy. I see no evidence that any Grammy has been awarded bearing his name or the name of a band he belonged to at the time. I've removed the misleading "Grammy-winning" from the article, as anyone reading that would infer, mistakenly, that the award host stood on stage and called out his name, or the name of a band in which he was a member, and that he had gone up to accept it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My statement, "Not sure why," is not "odd," as you put it. It is based on an assessment after looking online and finding multiple reliable sources that show notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There's an article about him in a P.R. newspaper and if you google there is wide third-party coverage.https://www.primerahora.com/entretenimiento/musica/nota/lanniebattistinipresentasunuevaproduccion-539345/ Delete - upon further review it seems he's just a local Florida and PR favorite with a recording studio... Thanks.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That exact Primera Hora article was already cited by you in the last deletion discussion. You might reasonably expect that if you're looking for a Keep outcome this time, it will take more than a repetition of the arguments that failed to avoid a Delete outcome last time. Largoplazo (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is very little coverage and seems to have very few fans on Youtube, and few plays on Spotify. In fact I can barely find anything on him, which would an assert on
  WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk

Delete I wasn't going to mention Soundcloud, but I see there is a reference to it. An examination finds 17 followers on 40 tracks. Not enough for article. scope_creep^Talk 13:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability. Mercy11 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sadly. This is a worthy, well-rounded person who had a significant job in industry as well being an accomplished musician. However, try as I might, I can't convince myself (let alone anyone else!) that he meets
  WP:BIO; the substantial coverage simply is not there. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 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 16:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bjorg Hakeen

Bjorg Hakeen (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. StaticVapor message me! 15:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BEFORE search brought up nothing. Not notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, May be later but he is not notable now . Alex-h (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title seems to be a misspelling of Bjorg Haaken which yields a lot more hits, including on him teaming up with

Tom La Ruffa. Otherwise no comment, I don't understand much about sports notability. Haukur (talk) 15:03, 31 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 16:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnea & Co.

Barnea & Co. (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)

It is somewhat surprising that consensus was to keep two years ago. None of the sources are strong support for

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per

talk) 21:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Delete. (seems I !voted keep two years ago - however I've been lured to the deletionist dark side over the years, though I'm still fighting back and am at present at a 56% delete !vote rate[14], I will also note
  WP:HEY and save this - but maybe not. I will note that on the Hebrew Wikipedia this has been deleted for a few years - Hebrew wiki talk page. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 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 speedy keep, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ditch, (magazine) as bad-faith nomination with no non-sockpuppet delete opinions. DMacks (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GrOnk (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)

Subject of the article fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

- talk 14:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

- talk 14:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - this was a well-known literary magazine of its time, and the links in the article include several literary archives which demonstrate this. I've just added one more, the MacOdrum Library at Carleton University, which maintains an archive on the magazine. Given the time that has passed and the fact that grOnk was pre-Web, this sort of Web coverage is good and the most that could be expected. The archive is introduced by a substantial essay on grOnk and its sister publication Ganglia, and it is cited to further sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am the article creator so I will not !Vote Keep (I have been advised that it is acceptable for me to !vote) - grOnk is of historical importance in the history of Canadian literature, especially avant-garde literature - the magazine is archived at the MacOdrum Library at Carleton University and they provide a history of the magazine here. The MacOdrum Library writeup cites "Geoff Hancock, The Form of the Thing: An Interview with bpNichol on Ganglia and grOnk." Rampike, 12.1 (Fall 2001), 33 as a source (not available online - Rampike is published by the University of Windsor) - grOnk has passing mentions in Avant Canada: Poets, Prophets, Revolutionaries, edited by Gregory Betts & Christian Bök (eds), note 21, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2019; Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in English by Eugene Benson & L.W. Conolly (eds) Routledge, 2005, p. 1100 and Poetic Community: Avant-Garde activism and Cold War Culture by Stephen Voyce, np., University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2013. The fact that grOnk is still gaining mention in books are recent as 2019 shows that the magazine has "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time" (
  Governor General's Award, Canada's highest literary award - notability cannot be inherited from association with bpNichol, but I bring it up to show that grOnk wasn't just a bunch of guys in the basement with a mimeograph machine, but involved major Canadian literary figures - sorry to go on at such length, but I truly believe this is an important article for anyone interested in the history of Canadian literature (and not just because I am the creator!) - thanks for listening - Epinoia (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Sources here and already in the article establish notability.
  talk) 21:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete for now The coverage references (external links) does not seems sufficient to justify this article passing
  Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 06:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Striking comment of CU-blocked sock of nominator DMacks (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment this is clearly a retaliation nomination for having !voted delete for 3 articles created by
  WP:SOCKING. The article creator has already had an SPI thrown out in which he accused myself and another delete !voter of being socks. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I would ask Epinoia not to !vote on the deletion discussion that concerns the article created to avoid any accusations of
    WP:CANVASSING. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, likely bad-faith nomination (for more detail, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ailsa Land) with no non-sockpuppet delete opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditch, (magazine)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

- talk 14:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

- talk 14:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - easily passes
  Transgressive poetry and other notable sub-genres by poets from Canada, USA, Europe, Bangladesh, Iceland and other places. It is a significant experimental poetry magazine. (note: I am the article creator) - Epinoia (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per Epinoia, notability seems clear enough, and while the article would benefit from more inline citations (so that every claim is visibly supported), there is plenty of evidence in its favour. Since the nominator has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, this AfD should be closed speedily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SAUCER

SAUCER (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 currently sources to the company's website, a few social media posts, and some random websites/news sites that happen to have a picture showing someone wearing one of their products - nothing that approaches

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, it's been a chore to keep the blatant product marketing out of this, and with that removed there's not much left for an article. I can find nothing substantial about the company online in
  WP:RS, just photos on social media of a few people wearing their logo. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi Tracy, I have included another source to establish credibility. SAUCER was mentioned in the OC Weekly paper this month so I added that in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMG2019 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD

.

Thanks. The OC Weekly is a reliable source but what's needed is something more than a passing mention of them in an article about

WP:NCORP

..

May I ask: what's your connection with the company? Because your edits to the article have all had a promotional tone. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if my edits sound promotional as this is my first article and I am just getting accustomed to the language. I do appreciate your constant revisions as I have learned a great deal from your edits. I feel as though the company is doing great things and is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. I do not feel that the page should be deleted as I am sure that more reliable sources are soon to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMG2019 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But do you work for the company, or are you professionally connected with them? Because if you have a WP:Conflict of interest then please don't edit the article. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  WP:COI, as Tracy Von Doom has explained. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - as a non-notable company that fails to meet
  WP:NCORP. The article currently cites a number of unreliable, user-generated sources (which do not confer notability) such as Google and Instagram. More reliable sources are cited, but this coverage seems to be trivial or in-passing in nature, and issue given NCORP is clear such limited coverage does not work towards establishing notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:51, 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. Tone 16:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Long Chu

Andrea Long Chu (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)

Subject doesn't meet notability standards set out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria Has written some blog posts which have been commented on by other blog writers but no evidence of substantial independent coverage; plus, most of the material in this article is from an interview the subject gave to an oral history project therefore not an independent source. MurielMary (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delet not enough secondary coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of academic publications that Chu has authored evidences notability under the criteria for Academics. I have added a number of their academic publications to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurf anemone (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which additions are you claiming show notability? To show notability, the sources need to be about a subject, not by them... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose reading the section on 'Academics' I interpret the 'a widely recognized contribution' part of the notability criteria as being fulfilled by the peer reviewed academic contributions to the field. Also there is a forthcoming publication from Verso books, that has a review by Professor Lauren Berlant, a significant figure in the field. See https://www.versobooks.com/books/3061-females — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurf anemone (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: The Blanchard piece in Vice calling her “the cult writer who is changing gender theory”; the Thom piece in Slate; the Srinivasan piece in the London Review of Books all establish notability. And let’s be clear, this note posted by Muriel Mary when she proposed this AfD is blatantly false: “Has written some blog posts which have been commented on by other blog writers but no evidence of substantial independent coverage.” It’s not a good look to start off a deletion discussion with falsehoods, and it makes one question whether the nominator for deletion has an unspoken agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeRossitt (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Sources below par, for example Vice is questionable RS (the claim of notability is based on this) and NYT is opinion piece. Agricola44 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Vice is seen as more reliable for arts and entertainment topics, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Chu's writing is also discussed in Columbia Journalism Review and London Review of Books. Rab V (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject passes
  Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Profiled at length in a source that is reliable for the purpose; selected for a substantial interview (indicating that the "world at large" found her worth interviewing, which counts toward wiki-notability even though her statements about herself are primary sources). The multiple rounds of responses to her essays have been far more substantial than your typical social-media dust-up.
  talk) 21:12, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 14:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Wish: The Conqueror

Queen's Wish: The Conqueror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable per

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, covered in decent detail in RSes and appears to be notable. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 14:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Per Bryn. While it might not quite be passing SUSTAINED, I think it would be rather pointless to delete it, only to recreate it shortly after when it releases and gets reviews._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'm sorry if I created the impression I work for Spiderweb. I'm just a big fan. If you want to delete it because it doesn't have enough press, that's fine. I'm sure someone will recreate the page when the game is out in a few weeks and reviews start coming in. 21:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herazade (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Haukur (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Human Development Index (1998)

List of countries by Human Development Index (1998) (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 page is a half-baked attempt to create a new article by copy-pasting another page and then updating. I think the text copied was from List of countries by Human Development Index (2009). The article was then heavily edited by IPs over the next couple of weeks, adding data, much of which definitely has not come from the 1998 report and some of the country names are from the 1980s, no longer existing. This has previously been declined for speedy deletion, and I declined it for prod in 2016, but now wish I hadn't. I removed some of the more glaring disinformation but lost enthusiasm and the page has remained riddled with errors for years. It is also a magnet for IPs who try to update it to the current HDI for their country, or even just try to make their country look better. The current consensus seems to be have a table for each previous years' HDI in the Human Development Index article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by Human Development Index, 2005 came to a similar conclusion. Merging to the HDI article is not a good idea as the data on the page is completely untrustworthy. Anyone wishing to include the 1998 HDI would be much better off taking the information directly from the UN report itself. SpinningSpark 11:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We do not need to have separate data tables for every year, we are not an archive of historical data but it could be merged with the main list as a comparison if necessary. Reywas92^Talk 17:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I know the accuracy of article content is not usually a case for deletion, but if this article is indeed a constantly-corrupted dataset that readers will assume is accurate, we do them a disservice by keeping it. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 31 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 04:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naissance Capital

Naissance Capital (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet
  WP:ORGCRIT: has not been "the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - of the three references in the article, two are to the Naissance Capital website and the third is a dead link - no significant coverage; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete It is spammy, fails
  HighKing⁺⁺ 11:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nomination. Article is indeed spammy.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 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.

Aliya Deri

Aliya Deri (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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the championship he won is not the sort of thing that makes one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing stands out in terms of achievements.Knox490 (talk) 20:12, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WestWards

WestWards (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 political party, has one elected member on one local board in Auckland - that person themselves doesn't pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely fails
  WP:NPOL. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Response: This is the one of two main political parties for Auckland Council in Waitakere and the information is important to voters. There are numerous articles that have been referenced from New Zealand's major newspapers. The other main party for Waitakere has put its information up now, and now is trolling to have this entry about their competitors taken down. The North Shore area parties for Council (Shore Action) also has a facebook page. The format for the Shore Action page is the one followed for consistency. If local political parties can not have an entry then all must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeijoaSalsa (talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user (

conflict of interest with its subject. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 03:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Creating a post doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest with a post. I have no conflict of interest. And the post shows no bias. If you have a specific point to make about the post itself or a concern you should raise it rather than ad hominem attacks. The entry is factual about a local party who is running for local office created in the same style as other local parties in Auckland's election . I note that the competing party has put up a wikipedia entry at the same time that the request for the deletion of this page occured. This seems to be a political act to deny the public the right to public information about the local candidates and their parties. It's unclear what the deleters conflicts are. Again their must be consistency on Wikipedia. If this entry is deleted then no local body political parties should have their entries allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeijoaSalsa (talk • contribs) 04:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how things work. Political parties need to demonstrate they meet the notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Notability requirements for political parties talk page seems to have not reached a final conclusion. However, WestWards does meet the criteria being discussed. Have campaigned for 2 years. Has an elected member who has numerous articles in New Zealand's national papers which have been included. Is the leading opposition party. To not include smaller parties or independent parties would be anti democratic and deprives voters of a fair choice. So it is a significant party consistent with the other local parties have put entries up for Wikipedia. Targeting this party seems to be a political act.FeijoaSalsa (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable local political group. All the references given are about their chair, and some don't even mention the group.-gadfium 03:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, It's disturbing that the Policies section has not a single source, and the Elections section has an unsourced list of candidates and claim of no conflict of interest. I've looked in vain for sources, and suggest a compromise – remove these sections, leaving the remainder until after the election (less than two months away), then resubmit this AfD if the party achieved no further notability. Akld guy (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails Passes
  WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment,
    WP:NPOL is irrelevant. It's only for articles about people. This AfD is about a political party. Akld guy (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comments. Do those in favour of deletion think that Future West and Rodney First (both have tags questioning their notability) are notable and should be kept? The correct guideline for political parties is Notability (organizations and companies), not Notability (people)#Politicians and judges (WP:NPOL). Nurg (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not voting on those other parties here, and I might not vote if they came up for AfD, but both have multiple people elected to local bodies at regular elections, whereas WestWards has a single person elected in a by-election, which had a much lower turn-out of electors. I don't think they are therefore comparable.-gadfium 02:19, 31 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. Consensus to delete since most of the article is a plot summary which can be found in the articles about the two movies. If anyone is interested in future merges, let me know so that I can provide the content. Tone 15:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kill Bill characters

List of Kill Bill characters (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)

Violates 

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong Keep per all the reasoning from the 2017 deletion attempt (does it have to be repeated? To the Closer, please read the 2017 attempt, or if the nominator prefers I could cut and paste my comments here - [Edit to boldface as this hasn't been done as far as I know, 25 August:] by the way, Popcornduff, please notify all of the participants of that discussion). At over 800 views a day this page is one of the most popular pages concerning one of the classic 21st century films, and of course the characters are notable (Tarantino and Thurman are now talking seriously of filming the long-awaited third film). This is one of those "here we go again" nominations, and hopefully will be the failed second attempt to Kill it. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above, very notable film and this can be considered a split from the parent article that would make that page too long if it was merged back, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge There is no real secondary coverage of these characters. The previous AFD's keeps pointed out that this could be trimmed and beefed up with sources- that has not happened. The article extensively duplicates the films' plot, which is not appropriate. Outside of the standalone article for the bride, the few secondary details can be added to the Cast list on the film page or in the casting pages. ---Masem (t) 20:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Although it can't be used as a source, this page on Wikipedia is one of, if not the, principal pages on the internet for the topic. There are so many prominent characters in the films that references would be mostly the same references for the reputably sourced film reviews. The page has 800-plus readers a day, even after being loaded down at the top with giant templates. It is a good overview of the topic. Merging is always possible, but that move most of the already existing text and images and would mean making the Kill Bill pages much longer. Keeping this page seems the logical way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an arguement. You're free to "rescue" this information over to, say, Fandom.com/Wikia. For fictional works/etc. our goal is to summarize real-world importance, not their in-universe importance. And I'll re-iterate: most of the details on these characters are regurgitations of the plots of the two films, which is unnecessary duplication. Take out the plot-related elements and you have almost nothing at all left. --Masem (t) 22:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You're citing an essay to remove an 800-viewer a day article, so yes, it is an argument. Any page on any fictional character will be either a rehash or an extension of the plot of a book, film, etc. Merging this page will just make those plots much longer and would necessitate a large amount of new text in 1 and 2. Keeping that text and easily-found character list on this long-term popular page isn't only common sense (which is all that should be needed to Keep this page), it is certainly useful, interesting, and WP:ILIKEIT. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am pointing out your argument is based on that essay. I am arguing there's no secondary sourcing thus this fails the GNG. Yes, articles on characters will repeat some of the plot of a film, but we absolutely do not need full a full extent of the character's role in the film. And no, if you consider the plot already on the movie pages, then you don't need ANY of the plot given by these entries, they all are duplicating info. Character articles are not a cheat to get around
  WP:NOT#PLOT. --Masem (t) 03:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Correct, you're saying my points have no validity because there is an essay. I'm saying they do because, it's an essay. The plots in the film pages are very limited and both pages point to this characters page as the main page for characters. That's why the page should of course be kept. Do delete fans here think that this is a B movie that is forgotten in a couple of years? This is one of the major films of the 21st century, and the characters page reflects that in detail and interesting insights. I hope that the closer is not a head counter but someone who appreciates the work and interest this page generates (remember, kind closer, over 800 views a day, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't keep pages because of popularity, so 800, 8000, or 8 million page views a day means squat. We are looking for secondary sources on this character, per
  WP:WAF. The Bride has it, so she has a separate article but this one does not. If this is such an important film, it should be easy to show secondary sourcing that talks only of the characters. Without sources, it fails several policies, and we're not going to keep just because its a popular page and/or a unique page on the Internet. --Masem (t) 00:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Kill Bill's list. It appears to be just a plot regurgitation, with the occasional unsourced claim thrown in. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Silly rabbit. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:JUSTPLOT. The article is just a list of character summaries that does not support sourced commentary. There is nothing of any encyclopedic value here. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Has anyone notified the two film pages? Or the 2017 discussion participants as I requested? Editors who have an interest in this list and that discussion would be reading those pages which, if read, have very slight summaries of characters in the plot or character lines and refer people to this character list as the main page for characters. So the mentions that the plots covers the page contents is incorrect. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• p.s.
  Popcornduff, there is a good faith suggestion on the deletion criteria to alert principal editors, the creator, and others of this nomination per "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Is this generally followed by deletion noms? Any of them? If not, the entire structure of the deletion section of Wikipedia should maybe be taken down for reconstruction. The page's creator, Kicking222, and the main editors who worked on it, may enjoy knowing that their work is being debated here. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete 95% of the article is just plot, and the tiny amount of content related to character development / reception references that could be merged into the film articles, if considered due. Scribolt (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I voted keep during the first AfD, but I agree with the above deletion votes. Also, upon further reflection, a majority of the sources provided in the first AfD deal more so with the film rather than the characters themselves so I am less certain about how the list meets WP:GNG. I could possibly see some characters (like O-Ren Ishii) spun off into independent articles, but that is a completely different conversation.
  Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Hello
  Aoba47. As a commentator in the last AfD did you get a notice about this discussion? I'd asked the nominator a couple of times to send one to those participants. Thanks. As for other articles, it would be nice to see those. But in the meantime this page is a valuable addition to the film page, harms nothing, and gives 800 people a day information they seek. I'll never understand the concept of deleting a popular page such as this. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I did not get a notification, but I look through fictional elements-related AfDs somewhat regularly. Page views are not a good argument for keeping an article or a list. The focus should be on WP:GNG (i.e. whether or not there is significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources).
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - There seem to be plenty of sources to support the notability of this topic per
  WP:GNG; many sources have in-depth analysis of individual characters. I don't see any reason to delete this relatively well-written article that has been around for 11 years. Sure, it could use a bit of cleanup, but that's not a reason to delete. I'll simply re-post some of the sources provided by User:Jclemens
  at the last AfD, since they haven't changed:
  • "Mommy Is a Bride With a Hanzo Sword: quentin tarantino's destabilization of Gendered Identity in Kill Bill"
  • Mindful violence: the visibility of power and inner life in Kill Bill
  • Themes of Whiteness in Bulletproof Monk, Kill Bill, and The Last Samurai
  • Revenge and the Family Romance in Tarantino’s Kill Bill

‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 19:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are essays about the films, and don't focus on the individual characters discussed in the article. If you stuck to those sources you'd have almost nothing to write about. Try it.

talk) 19:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I just opened the first link, turned to a random page, and found this passage:

"Though O-Ren consciously embodies and draws power from her multiple identities, she does not anticipate Beatrix's ability to do the same. When Beatrix challenges her, Thurman's Anglo features have been overlaid with Asian markers in inter- and intra-textual cues: she speaks Japanese, carries a Hanzo sword, and wears a yellow jumpsuit that cites Bruce Lee's film Game of Death (1978). O-Ren, though, only reads Beatrix as the American tourist she initially pretends to be with Hanzo, remarking, 'Silly Caucasian girl likes to play with samurai swords.' She sees only Beatrix's ethnicity, and discounts the history, training, and discipline that transformed Beatrix Kiddo into Black Mamba. O-Ren realizes her racialized naivete too late. After Beatrix wounds her in their duel, she apologizes in Japanese 'for ridiculing you earlier.' She is soon thereafter scalped, recalling the decapitated mob boss she punished for a similar underestimation."

"Though Vernita's death is staged first in the film, it is significant that Beatrix defeats her after battling O-Ren - as O-Ren is a version of Beatrix's present quest, Vernita is a glimpse of what Arlene Plympton's future would have looked like. Vernita, now living as 'Jeannie Bell,' a 'Pasadena homemaker,' has completely jettisoned her live as DiVA 'Copperhead.' She has married a doctor, lives in a well-appointed middleclass neighborhood, and even has a four-year-old daughter, as Arelene would have had the massacre not taken place."

I could continue much longer, but I don't want to get into copyvio territory. These sources are filled with these kinds of detailed analyses of individual characters in the film. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 20:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An excerpt from the second link:

"This exchange is meant to be funny, but it also dramatizes two important character traits of Kiddo. She is not only a highly trained martial artist bent on revenge, but she also has deep maternal qualities that extend even to the child of her enemy. Likewise, the fact that Kiddo can quickly 'turn off' her immediate desire for revenge speaks to the professional nature of her martial ability. That is, although her quest for revenge is deeply personal, here we see it conducted in an almost detached manner. In this way, although the script uses her ability to do violence as a definitive character trait, so too it emphasizes her ability to choose not to do so. This subtle distinction later contrasts with the actions of other characters who have difficulty not being violent. In particular, Elle Driver / Darryl Hanna later expresses great dissatisfaction with not being allowed to kill the comatose Kiddo. And, most definitively defining a character, almost everything that we discover about Bill / Carradine in both films suggests that he is thoroughly given over to violent actions. In fact, he even describes himself as 'a murdering bastard.'"

‑Scottywong| [babble] || 20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first passage you quote from describes the characters in terms of the protagonist; in other words, they are not the focus of the essay. You'd be hard-pressed to stretch that sort of thing to an entire article about all of these characters.

The second quote is about the protagonist,

talk) 20:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

No one is suggesting that we write an entire article about Vernita. However, I would argue that there is more than enough material in these sources to justify a paragraph on the character in this article. However, to add this much detail on each individual character into the main article on the film would cause that article to become too long. Therefore, this article is the most appropriate place for this information. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 20:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think, if you actually examine these sources, it's difficult to mine them for enough specific discussion of all the characters in the Kill Bill films sufficient to justify this page. They aren't the focus of the papers.

talk) 20:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. These are not just "essays about the films", which "don't focus on the individual characters discussed in the article". The characters only exist in the films, so naturally the articles will need to discuss what happens in the films and how that shapes the characters. As shown above, there are sources that focus heavily on the characters, their relationship to each other, as well as the meaning and symbolism behind the characters and their actions in the films. ‑Scottywong| [soliloquize] || 21:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking these over, to put this information to try to justify keeping characters before using it to establish a Themes section of KB seems to be an extremely poor use of these sources. It's pulling the needles out of the haystack and missing that the haystack has more appropriate value to us. It would be better to devlope some type of themes for the KB to thus then establish where characters would fit in those themes. --Masem (t) 04:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The lack of appropriate commentary leaves it as a bloated in-universe article suited more to Wikia. TTN (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nearly the entirety of the entries here are nothing more than unsourced plot summaries, and there have been no sources shown that would allow the vast majority of the entries on this list to ever be anything more than that. The few characters that do have some scant coverage that goes beyond plot summaries, and don't already have their own articles, can be easily covered in the either Kill Bill: Volume 1 or Kill Bill: Volume 2. Rorshacma (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you read Scotty Wongs keep defense above? Hard to refute. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I did, hence why I said "The few characters that do have some scant coverage that goes beyond plot summaries, and don't already have their own articles, can be easily covered in the either Kill Bill: Volume 1 or Kill Bill: Volume 2". The vast majority of the characters in this bloated mess of a page are either not even mentioned in any of those sources, or are described only in terms of pure plot summary. And I wouldn't say that his defense is "hard to refute" at all, given that Popcornduff did an excellent job doing so. Rorshacma (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Difference of opinion. I think Scottywong's well thought out and researched statement should be enough to save this popular page from deletion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not because I don't believe that there could be a list, but because there needs to be enough content from secondary sources for multiple characters to be split off from both film articles. List of Smallville characters is a Good Article that shows this possibility. While this is only two films, a lot can be (and has been) written about Tarantino's films. Back in 2011, I compiled references to use at Talk:Kill Bill/references, and it seems extremely likely that there could be at least a healthy paragraph or two for each character across both films. However, this needs to be established by an editor. If there can't be much more than in-universe detail here, then the scope should necessarily collapse back to the individual films' articles. (Though I would not be unopposed to an article whose scope covers both films, including listing characters that appear in one or the other or both, accompanied by brief descriptions.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is largely original research
  WP:CSC says that "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia" - only one of these characters, The Bride (Kill Bill), has it's own article - list does not meet notability guidelines, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Scotty Wong - I think there should be just about enough out-of-universe coverage to establish a decent article here, even if this one is nearly entirely in-universe cruft. Daß Wölf 03:42, 31 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.

Adebayo Temitope Adeleke

Adebayo Temitope Adeleke (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 seeing anything more then trivial mentions. Cannot see how they pass either academic or solder. Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Good morning Slatersteven, thanks for keeping the Wikipedia space on the line of purpose - to enlist every form of notable and credible knowledge.

  Kindly review the reference again: the school's website, Congress.gov, Dallas News. That someone is not popular to us or sung of daily on radio does not mean he or she doesn't exist especially when they are not in our niche, field or country.

  He is a retired US Army major and an academic at Sam Houston State University.

  Thank you.

  Danidamiobi (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Existence is not the problem being asserted in-depth documentation by multiple people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy of this person's life and/or works is. The News devotes half of one sentence to this person. Where are this person's life and/or works documented in depth, so that a biography can be created that is in accord with our content policies? Wikipedia:Deletion policy says that we do not keep biographies that cannot be written in depth in accord with content policy. Wikipedia is not a directory of people. Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too little here to indicate notability per either
  WP:PROF. The references are either brief mentions or directory listings, nothing providing specific and detailed coverage. One of the references [25] lists him as a recipient of an immigrant award, but the award appears to be local and not sufficiently significant to confer notability by itself. I am not seeing anything else here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete No credible claim of notability. Does not meet
  WP:PROF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable as either a soldier or an academic. Not even close on either count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Non-notable source. Barca (talk) 18:13, 27 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. Lacks independent, significant coverage as an individual, rather than connected sources or passing mentions. RL0919 (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Barnea

Micky Barnea (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)

Failing GNG and BIO. A lawyer doing his job. Sources are a mixture of lawyer directory profiles, some self-authored articles or blog pieces by the subject or (as far as I can tell) press releases which are primary sources. There is some editorial coverage, however this is primarily about the cases where the law firm and/or the subject are mentioned passing. This is insufficient to establish required notability of the subject. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a classic example of someone who has intersected with notable entities but does not have independent notability in themselves.
  talk) 12:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. Wm335td (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. He does run a large law firm and is regularly given blurbs in media. However, the current article is promotional and I'm unable to find in-depth coverage in my BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Tomczyk

Karol Tomczyk (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)

Karol Tomczyk only played one game in the 2013-14 season which wouldn't really be enough to be classified for

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep the number of games played and
  WP:NFOOTY purposes, and while I have trouble with Polish I do have a lot of mentions come up and he did have a fairly long minor league career: [26] SportingFlyer T·C 07:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per User:SportingFlyer. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL following 1 appearance 6 years ago. GiantSnowman 11:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Article about footballer who made one appearance (which was ill-received, per the widzewtomy.pl post included in the article) in the Polish fully-pro top division. He also made 3 substitute's appearances in the second division, which is included at
  WP:FPL. That said, the online coverage is almost entirely routine databases, match reports and signing announcements. The coverage that is not routine isn't from reliable sources independent of the subject (such as the widzewtomy.pl post). Doesn't meet the spirit of NFOOTBALL as I can't locate sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Soccer trivia, fails GNG. Coverage limited to a single event in his life and only in niche/local portals. We need to kill more fancruft stuff like this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails GNG – Levivich 05:25, 29 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 04:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Anarchy Heavyweight Championship

NWA Anarchy Heavyweight Championship (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 also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. This is a

NWA Anarchy Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NWA Anarchy Young Lions Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NWA Anarchy Television Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following titles are for a promotion that does not have a Wikipedia article. They all fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. StaticVapor message me! 00:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Championships do not appear notable, and per
  WP:PWCHAMP its highly unlikely that a non-notable promotion will have a notable championship. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NWA Anarchy these should have been deleted previously, but I think the closing admin missed it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Proceedural delete - If the promotion is non-notable, a championship would need to do a lot to prove notability, this one (and others) aren't close. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 27 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. The consensus of the discussion is that none of these have adequate sources to establish their individual notability. Whether they might be appropriate entries in some list is a separate matter. RL0919 (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S. Barua

S. Barua (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)

Another cricketer who fails to meet

SN Kunzru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GN Kunjru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

R. Puri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

N. Sengupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A. Sarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DS Bhatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TN Deo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HA Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

R. Vaidya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

S. N. Sanyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

RD Mathur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VG Jadhav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee03 05:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dee03 05:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee03 05:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dee03 05:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - How many more of these are there? Not bitter - just a question. Bobo. 07:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under 100, I guess. Dee03 08:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a list of them somewhere - or are you taking them directly from my sandbox? Sorry - don't mean to sound like I'm badgering, just asking. Bobo. 08:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. They are listed here. Dee03 08:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that list of Ranji Trophy cricketers has been directly cribbed from my old sandbox and/or list of created articles..? I like how the only definition of "dubious" is "doesn't have a first name listed". On a serious point, hopefully one day future research will uncover these... Bobo. 08:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list was compiled in 2017 by going through Category:Indian cricketers and Category:Sri Lankan cricketers. The English list was added recently by Harrias. Dee03 09:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. My old userpage may have some left after you've gone through those lists. Bobo. 09:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As I've pointed out before, this whole thing should be a lesson more in making sure established articles are cited, etc. If CA and CI are "inappropriate" references in and of themselves, shouldn't we be fixing the established articles? Let alone those lists I provided of Test cricketers without any sources... Bobo. 07:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. But I did not say that CA and CI sources are "inappropriate"; they come in handy while expanding pages on notable cricketers. But they are inadequate to show that the cricketer would pass GNG, especially when they do not reveal any information beyond stats taken from a scorecard. Additionally,

WP:PAGEDECIDE can be applied for these single-appearance cricketers. Dee03 08:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

And again, sadly, this comes back to the inconsistency in application of GNG. The only thing that still angers me is that you are expecting "more information" than is present - as any further information in the article would be superfluous. If the criterion you're working to is "must have a first name present", then this is a horrid application of the rule.... Bobo. 08:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never stated that absence of first name is the reason for sending these articles to AfD. Having a full name does at least give us the chance of finding more sources. Unfortunately, the CA profiles of these "first name missing" cricketers seem to be filler links for scorecards, leading to verifiability concerns. Dee03 08:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete All. Per norm - Fails

• Delete - an an ideal world I would prefer to redirect to suitable lists, but there aren't lists for Indian players in the same way there are for most British ones. In each case we have no details which provide me with any hope that it's realistic to find suitable, in depth sources about these chaps. In almost every case we only know of one cricket match each man played in - the exception is Kunzru where we have one other miscellaneous match that we know he played in. This reinforces my view that we're never going to be able to source anything very much on them. If details do show up, the articles can be re-created easily. This appears to be consistent with recent AfD results. It is unfortunate the lists don't exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for the late response. I would create them myself, but... *shrug* At some point I did have them all on my sandbox, but I would have to go back to a very old version of it... For stats' sake, of the 11 players who played in the only first-class game of Gwalior Cricket Club, they made the following number of first-class appearances (in total): 1, 2, 1, 65 (Janardan Navle, a Test cricketer), 9, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. Bobo. 05:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If, as I always wished could happen, we could make lists of people who played for first-class teams, then I would want a fully inclusive - team-by-team - approach. At least if every team with a "category" had a list of first-class players, this could serve as a header sentence for that category where players' names had been deleted.

Let me tick off the easiest example: these are cricketers who played for Gwalior Cricket Club.

• RD Mathur
• Balbhadra Singh
• Roop Singh
• Janardan Navle
• DK Yarde
• SN Kunzru
• Daya Shankar
• Ram Singh
• CN Haksar
• Khanwilkar
• Afzal Ahmed

(Yes, I chose the easiest example, a team which only played a single first-class match. Jack and I both agreed - at the time - that any Indian team which had played first-class cricket should have a "List of"... article - of course these days opinions are probably different..! And given the palaver we've gone through lately with "List of X cricketers" list, at least with a team who have played just one first-class match, an eleven-player list would be fully complete..!) Bobo. 06:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all It is discouraging how many articles we have that are really just glorified directory listings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all- as with previous AfDs in this series, all these articles are match scoresheets masquerading as the biographies of people whose names we don't even properly know. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Dee, Reyk, BST how would you feel about obscure Ranji Trophy team players' articles entitled List of X players - especially for the defunct Ranji Trophy teams? I would bash through some stats into it, but I'm working on other things right now... We would still delete the players' articles themselves, but at least we'd maintain the basic content. Bobo. 09:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okey. BST has convinced me it would be a bad idea. No biggie. Bobo. 09:14, 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British Bangladesh Chamber of Women Entrepreneurs

British Bangladesh Chamber of Women Entrepreneurs (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 very niche organization that does not present any specific claim to notability. I have found nothing, in terms of sourcing, that shows the organization is notable or passes WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Organisation not crossing
  memorial of defunct organisations. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per above. Very little RS coverage of this organisation, even in passing. --
  talk) 22:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non notable organization, isn't passed
  (T) 08:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fail passes
  WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 16:21, 27 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.

Matthew Mazzotta

Matthew Mazzotta (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. This is

Note: This discussion has been included in the

want to talk? 04:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

want to talk? 04:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy Keep a simple google search indicates this is a well known contemporary artist and reveals more than enough sources to make a page. For instance this feature piece [27], I have added a few sources to the article. Changed to speedy keep based on discovered sources now in article.
  Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy keep, a very strange nomination. The
  WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Guggenheim fellow.
  talk) 13:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep Sources were already present, albeit as external links, in the version that was nominated for deletion. Definitely not suitable for deletion for failing the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP, (in which case
  WP:BLPPROD would have been an option). Vexations (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]