Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 5 August	7 August >

Guide to deletion

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Neale

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

Being a co-writer of a song is not addressed in

WP:GNG. We have a non-notable songwriter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For lack of RS coverage. What is a provided is a school newspaper and the Dove Award's website's own list of winners. I'm not sure how significant worship song of the year is, but it is different from song of the year, which possibly makes the difference between the achievement being notable or not. But it still doesn't compensate for lack of coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In a way, Neale looks less notable than the Dove Award winning song he co-wrote. The references are about the song, not the author and don't provide in-depth info on Neale. (And it's not like the song is über-notable either. The Dove Awards are not the Grammys.) Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 13 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Texas's 4th congressional district special election

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

Not sure what to do with this but my instinct here is to delete. This is an article about an election that might have taken place had John Ratcliffe gotten the job as Director of National Intelligence. He did not and his name was only floated for a few days before Trump changed his mind so I suspect that nobody actually spent much time in preparation of this non-existent election. (Note that Ratcliffe never resigned his congress seat) Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abbott never called for the election because the congressperson had to resign and become DNI before it was declared. It's a hypothetical that never hypothesized; @
chatter) 23:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There's no need for this, the election isn't happening. Squeeps 10 00:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The election is no longer being held, there is no need for this. I highly regret creating this, it was a big mistake. Dbwarrak (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Completely inappropriate creation even before the withdrawal, ridiculously premature. Reywas92^Talk 06:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have seen a valid article for an election that didn't happen, but it needs to be something that generated coverage, where there are reliable sources to write something about it, not just that it didn't happen. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThere is no election, it didn't happen. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The election was not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't mean to say this to pile on, Dbwarrak, but I have to point out some problems here. The first edit, and the version of the page as it stabilized after its first few edits, stated "Incumbent Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe resigned when he was appointed" to the position of DNI. There's two major inaccuracies there. First, Ratcliffe never resigned. There would be no reason for him to resign, unless he was confirmed to the position, which was never close to happening. Second, he was never appointed. Nobody can be "appointed" to a cabinet-level position. Trump announced his intention to nominate Ratcliffe, but had never submitted a formal nomination to the Senate. The current version of this page still includes this "appointed" inaccuracy. Less significant, but also an inaccuracy, is that the article implies Coats has resigned already, when he's still in office today. He submitted his resignation, effective August 15.

My only intention in highlighting these issues on a

WP:CRYSTALBALLing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.29.11 (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per
WP:WHATCOULDHAVEBEEN . The election is not happening and thus there is no reason for an article on it. Josalm64rc (talk) 01:35, 11 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) 22:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keston Lewis

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

Cannot find any sources to satisfy

WP:NFOOTBALL. – Levivich 21:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 21:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 21:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 21:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 21:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see the point of any article that doesn't meet the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a sentence or two, usually transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable football player. Barca (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 9 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Chauhan

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

Article doesn't not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 10:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 10:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy Keep passes
WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep per
~~WP:SKCRIT #1 - nominator has failed to advance any argument for deletion. Hug^syrup 13:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)~~ 'Rationale' now provided. I'll assess the article when I have more time and see if I still want to !vote. Hug^syrup 07:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The nominator has since added a reason. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's rationale was in fact there all along. Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete The person article doesn’t meet the notability guidelines. Used local sources for notability. The article must be deleted. Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses sources from The Times of India [1] which is not a local source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article looks more like a promotion of person. Violates
want to talk? 03:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Harshil169: It fails GNG how? That looks like a lot of reliable sources to me, but since I'm not an expert on Indian media, would you be so kind as to provide an analysis as to why you think it fails GNG? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to gain better consensus. Note to admin that nominator is one of the delete !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on google books and news yields several notable sources and mentions. Sources present on the article such as "The Times of India" are not local and cover mass area. Receiving an award from the United Nations passes
WP:ANYBIO as well. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep current sources seem sufficient to pass
WP:GNG. Many are not local publications but I don't know why I bother to say that since local sources providing solid information are absolutely ok. Pichpich (talk) 22:58, 13 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coretrust Capital Partners

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

non-notable, run of the mill business with nothing more than funding announcements and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems culturally relevant as this company's work has been studied and used as a model as evidenced by the Case Study https://www.haworth.com/research/customer-stories/case-studies/coretrust

Coretrust's ownership of major urban properties makes it significant because the company controls them and therefore has a hand in shaping the built environment and public realm

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the nom. None of the sources convey notability. I do also have concerns that the SPA author might have very significant COI. The case study quoted above is not independent - see this quote "..Coretrust approached design firm Gensler, Haworth, and our dealer partner Peoplespace " from a Haworth web-site. Looks like a marketing job with somebody scratching around for good sources. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not believe this company meets
WP:CORPDEPTH as I can't find substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Do not delete - Notable: Coretrust owns 4 million square feet of trophy office space including one of the 4 most prominent trophy towers in Philadelphia, 2 Liberty Place — Rmaggie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

*Do not delete - Notable: Coretrust has the first indoor-outdoor terrace in an office high-rise without stationary doors. This was done in a 40-year old building and featured in many news sources and discussions.

Delete - does not appear to be notable; none of the sources cited (or that could be cited, as seen with a
WP:NOTADVERTISING. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as likely
paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 15:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Per nom. I don't see any sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:53, 10 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, without prejudice to creating a redirect to Marblemedia if that article is kept. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution 360

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

Non-notable company. Previous version read like a press release, which it even included several links to. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge/Redirect to Marblemedia. It feels right that it should, as a subsidy, at least remain a redirect but I’m not sure if it warrants any content on the page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would agree about a redirect, but I also have my doubts about Marblemedia and if that company is notable. Figured I'd start with this one, though. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 03:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the notability tag, but in case that article can be salvaged I’d support a redirect. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:29, 29 July 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)} 19:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marblemedia. --Spacepine (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I have also AfD'ed
HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Marblemedia.I believe it can remain. Alex-h (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails
WP:NCORP and insufficiently notable even for a redirect. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 11 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 19:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Tepper

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

Subject fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Has only played 134 DEL games and at least 200 is needed to pass #2. No preeminent honours in the 2nd Bundesliga or DEL2 to pass #3 and never played internationallly at senior level so fails #6. Tay87 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after checking the German wiki page for extra sources. It's far longer than the English article, but mostly just translates the statistics into prose. --Spacepine (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notabel hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The subject fails
WP:GNG . Alex-h (talk) 08:46, 10 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) 18:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global Art Show

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

Failing

WP:GNG. Little, if any, media coverage. Promotional element for something that now seems defunct. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Global Art Show has no any lasting significance, and no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. Vexations (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Vexations. The article was created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and was just an advertisement for the now defunct radio programme. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:38, 7 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:RFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Eubiotics

)

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

Orphaned, Dictionary-Like and immensly overlapping with

Probiotics Lpd-Lbr (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lpd-Lbr (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a few of the google scholar hits and the term seems to be ill-defined and either being synonymous to

Probiotics or meaning, loosely speaking, things that are eaten. One of the articles sources ^[1], while not stating it in a straightforward manner, gives a list of things that are eubiotic: "a) Probiotics, b) Direct Acting Gut Flora Modulators, and c) Prebiotics". Other, more recent sources, use the term rather as things promoting eubiosis ^[2] or "Products that affect microbiota balance in the gastrointestinal tract" ^[3] (i.e., are eaten). --Lpd-Lbr (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

^ Leary, Partridge; popular alternatives to antibiotic feed additives in monogastric production systems; Zootecnica, June, 2008, p. 28 - 31
^ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.01.009
^ https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2019-0030

It used to mean the same as hygiene. Uncle G (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
Probiotics. Likely what readers are searching for when they type it in. While it may have meant hygiene in the past, I really doubt that's how readers today are using it. Wug·a·po·des 02:13, 10 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaan Solar

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

Failed demonstration of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources per

WP:ORGCRIT. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per
WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

created the page once earlier when it was deleted, next time i created the page again with much better additions as per wiki rules, it has been reviewed twice and verified since. so there is no point to nominate it for deletion again. User talk: Joydeep Ghosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joydeep ghosh (talk • contribs) 04:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 8 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 17:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Marchant

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

Non-notable politician. Mayor of a small city in Texas, the state's 26th-most populous based on

WP:NOTINHERITED. A redirect could be left to his father's article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely not notable per
WP:NPOL, city is nowhere near large enough to qualify him as a mayor Nosebagbear (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Carrollton is certainly a large enough city that a
primary source profile on the city government's own self-published website) would be enough to make him notable. The notability of a mayor is demonstrated by the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political career, not by the ability to locate the names of his wife and kids. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete any city over 100,000 at least with a strong mayor the mayor has a clear potential to be notable. However we need strong sourcing, which is lacking in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 9 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. This article does not stand the proverbial snowball's chance. Whilst the discussion here was going on, the article subject was editing it via multiple accounts, now checkuser confirmed, with promotional content and falsified sources. (I checked several of them out. No such articles had been published, let alone mentioned this subject.) Autobiography, blatant self-promotion, falsification of content. It's only not copyright violation as well, the content coming word-for-word from the subject's self-promotional blurb elsewhere, because clearly the copyright owner was providing xyr own autobiography. This was well over the line. Uncle G (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gardner (Actor)

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

Fails NACTOR and GNG. As far as I can tell the "multiple Feature Films" he "rose to prominence for" are as background actors. —teb728 t c 17:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —teb728 t c 17:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 and G11 for
WP:AUTOBIOG. I'm not sure why we didn't just go that route? Praxidicae (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete - This is a pretty clear case of someone writing an article about themselves, with absolutely no indication of notability. It looks like the article was tagged for Speedy Deletion, but that was accidentally removed when it was also nominated for an AFD right about the same time. This AFD is really not necessary, at this point, and it should just be closed and Speedied. Rorshacma (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I am the article who CSD this. It is promotional and created by Gardner. His career is tiddly squat too. A7 fits in my opinion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete--I renominated it. Teb728, I wonder if you removed that tag accidentally. It's a perfect fit. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Twinkle removed it. It asked if I wanted to take down my BLPPROD or cancel my AFD, so I said yes. The speedy wasn't there when I started the AFD. I chose to nominate it for AFD rather than A7 because it made a claim of prominence for multiple feature films; I though it easier to explain that that claim was not credible in an AFD. —teb728 t c 18:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I just asked at your talk wondering why. Didn't mean to give an impression that I was being critical....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined the A7 because there arguably was an assertion of significance. However, the only source is his page on
problem solving 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Reply @ONUnicorn: This page could be speedy deleted per G11 as promotional. In draft versions of the article were twice deleted for just that reason. Not also this editor keeps adding his name here. Gardner is here to promote himself....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - problem solving 20:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  - I agree with everything that ONUnicorn said and would add, "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify" for G11. With the exception of the claim that he "rose to prominence" the article was written from a neutral point of view (and was frankly boring). Removing that claim does not require a fundamental rewrite. —teb728 t c 20:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete While I understand
talk) 01:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is a horribly written article. "background actor" is not the normally used term. Are these bit parts, or was he an extra? Either way he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his four roles have been
notable actor would include his family, birth, education, early success in theater, touring or television ads, SGA-AFTA activities, breakout supporting roles, charitable work, a Tony or Oscar nomination, and personal life, none of which is here. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 7 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Engineering Limited

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

No reliable sourcing, fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is entirely unsourced but I have failed to find any significant coverage of this company online. I think the company fails
the basic notability criterion. Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 13 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 17:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Falconer

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

Non-notable politician. Mayor of a small city in Texas, the state's 26th-most populous based on

WP:GNG does not seem to exist. There are news sources that mention his name, but they do not cover him in depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage appears to be routine, and I am unable to find any additional sources to satisfy
WP:NPOL. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Carrollton is certainly a large enough city that a
routine reportage of the municipal election results. The notability test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political career, not the ability to provide the names of his wife and kids. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete with Carrollton having 120,000 people or more its mayor could be notable (which I would not say for Metcuchen, New Jerrsey, another place the article on the mayor is up for deletion), however we need better sourcing to demonstrated that Falconer is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 9 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 18:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ILounge

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

Non-notable website. A handful of other outlets have picked up on rumors posted by the site but there is no actual in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this here in Wired is the best reference from the article, but more is needed for

WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep iLounge appeared to have been listed on the Time magazine^[1] and The Telegraph^[2] under its most useful websites.

Big news websites such as BBC News, Engadget^[3], TechCrunch^[4], Ars Technica^[5], CNET appears to have followed up with iLounge for iPhone/iPad/iPod related news and updates for many years. - Hakhan201 17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

ISSN 0040-781X
. Retrieved 2019-07-11.

ISSN 0307-1235
. Retrieved 2019-07-11.

^ "Secret source gives iLounge some Apple tablet rumor love". Engadget. Retrieved 2019-07-11.

^ "iLounge's 2008 iPod+iPhone Buyer's Guide takes me back, still looks good". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2019-07-11.

^ Kennedy, Erik (2007-06-10). "iLounge updates "everything iPod" guide, now with Apple TV and iPhone". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2019-08-06.

Being on a list of 50 "interesting links we think you should click" is not in depth coverage. It's a two sentence blurb with 50 others, despite it being from TIME. Same goes for this. The rest are not independent, reliable or in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Praxidicae is correct. This fails software notability criteria by a mile. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even though many references are provided, the fact that only brief or trivial mentions of iLounge are made is insufficient to demonstrate notability.
WP:INHERITWEB in establishing notability because it is not significant or devoted coverage, regardless of the credibility of these publishers. ComplexRational (talk) 14:06, 12 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, with no delete proposals
(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sibéal Ní Chasaide

Sibéal Ní Chasaide (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)

Unlikely to meet
WP:GNG Laun chba ller 16:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Based on? The Banner talk 16:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has just achieved a top 10 album on the Irish Albums Chart [2]. Ss112 14:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In which case she would meet
WP:MUSICBIO#C2 and I will withdraw.--Laun chba ller 14:52, 9 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 17:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Jamieson

Christine Jamieson (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)

Semi-advertorialized
conflict of interest can reference her much better than this — but her notability claim is not so "inherently" notable as to exempt her from having to be referenced any better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Notability is not established as per the requirements in
WP:BIO1E. Jamieson may become notable in the future, but doesn't currently meet our criteria. As noted by Bearcat, substantial citation problems, too. --Yamla (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 9 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 17:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Stuttgart

Energy Stuttgart (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)

Nothing shows this is a notable radio station. From what I can gather from the links there is no difference in the programming between NRJ Deutschland and the Stuttgart station. There is no reason to create a
WP:SPINOUT before creating the main article. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local radio stations, especially from smaller cities, are not automatically notable. I see
nothing special about this one. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 6 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 17:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Parsons (entrepreneur)

Jack Parsons (entrepreneur) (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)

After Curdles significant edits, I wish to raise a discussion around deleting this page. Notability, source material and verifiable evidence. There are 100s of people in UK business with awards doing good work and very few create their own page. Just up for discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billiebluebelle (talk • contribs) 09:43, August 6, 2019 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above user--text is copied from their edit summary when applying the tag, and seemed like adequate rationale. I have not yet formed an opinion on the matter. @
WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 15:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteApologies a bit new to this, but I will remember to sign off correctly and try to adhere to convention. This article was originally created by a PR company and in my opinion, based on the entries made, it has been used primarily as a PR vehicle for some time. It has been repeatedly been subjected to additions from anonymous contributors which have placed uncited references ranging from the subjects net worth to recent activities, mostly with the same grammar and syntax. That is not, however, the main reason to consider deletion. A previous contributor raised the question of notability and reliable sources. I am sure the subject is a decent, worthy and pleasant individual with very postive objectives, however, this is not a "notable topic which has gained significant attention by the world at large". It would be fair to suggest that many people in UK business are CEOS, many have won awards at the hundreds of award ceremonies in the UK, and they do not appear within Wikipedia. The other key players within the subjects organisation do not have Wikipedia pages, and yet they seem to contribute just as much to the organisation's aims.

"Wikipedia is not a promotional medium" and from the outset with this article created by a public relations company, I would suggest that this article has taken the form of a promotional article. It has had no sourcing, or mainly poor sourcing, with little if any reliable secondary sourcing. To summarise current 11 sources of reference, three are aligned to companies house information, one from youtube, one from UK newspaper The Telegraph, and the rest appear to be online comments. Whilst the subject has some worthy aims in the broader context of UK business, digital business and young people entering the workplace, I would suggest it is not notable and a re-read of the current article and the now-deleted additions, it has the distinct tone of either self-promotion and/or publicity, without real notability. Billiebluebelle (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is a personal attack which been going on for months. A number of reason why this account should stay. Just google the impact that this young lad is having on the world for young people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:5005:b400:24eb:66c:9ba:1669 (talk • contribs) 17:22, August 7, 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable busibnessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable- I did a bit of work removing promotional stuff, and trying to improve it last week, but was hard up finding anything it can be improved with. There are a few passing mentions around, but nothing really in depth. Most of the refs aren't very good- of the present 11 sources, two are articles written by the subject themselves, 3 are primary sources from Companies house and a notice of liquidation; the two "awards" arent really notable, and are sourced only to the companies giving the awards (subject appears to also be a judge on the panel for one now?) Most seem to be just recruitment PR fluff, and I suspect not independent either, except for the Telegraph piece. Curdle (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article perhaps? Hardly do I ever vote for delete but this individual is non-notable and there is no significant coverage of him or his companies...if this article stays then how about one about the band me and my friends formed as teenagers? Happy birthday to me! Happy birthday to me! Happy birthday, happy biirthdaaayy, happy birthdaaay tooo meeee!
) 04:37, 13 August, 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 17:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Marie Adams

Ann-Marie Adams (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 cleaned up the article, and went through the list of non-inline sources, moving them to inline. Once that was done, though, there just isn't very much here. No evidence of notability. The only RS I can find is her name as one of multiple writers on a story when she was at the Hartford Courant. Can't find evidence of her work for most of the media outlets named in the story. Most of the achievements and awards source back to bios she's submitted for conferences and the like. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted. There were changes made about her notability as a historian and a scholar. And there were citations for her work via the internet. The original Wikipedia page as of August 5, 2019 should be restored.

Here are the citations for the Washington Post,(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/paul-ryan-and-the-scary-future-of-public-education-in-america/2012/08/30/a981ae0c-f2ad-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_blog.html)

Ebony.com,(https://www.ebony.com/news/chappelle-incident-shatters-silence-443/

The Root.com (https://www.theroot.com/why-blacks-should-support-immigration-reform-1790897408)

People magazine (https://people.com/archive/an-american-original-vol-60-no-2/)

It should also be noted that she was the first to have founded a nonpartisan, nonprofit hyper-local news publication in 2004: The Hartford Guardian.

The television news outlets do not have citations of work history. The best way to verify whether she worked for CT News12, NBC4 New York and FOX News is to call the stations' HR department and verify the work history.

She is also a historian. She is the first, in 2010, to publish work based on serious scholarship on the social history that covers the entire arc of blacks in Connecticut from the colonial period to the twentieth century. She is also the first Hartford-based scholar to cover the full arch of black education in Connecticut, which focuses on Sheff v. O'Neill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:185:302:850:412b:5b08:a111:11a7 (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Wikipedia needs reliable sources about the subject of an article, not by her (more info here ->
WP:RS). Additionally, calling TV outlets is original research, which is not allowed. --Spacepine (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per nom. --Spacepine (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing in this article that discusses her or shows enough notability to overcome the threshold for inclusion that is
WP:GNG, her work at various outlets does nothing to help her achieve notability either. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for journalists or academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources insufficient, unconvincing claim to notability (founding of The Hartford Guardian), SPA-created and nurtured by a whole bunch of anon IPs that geolocate back to the subject's city, ORPHAN, mostly OR (tons of citation needed tags), the WP article for Hartford Guardian is currently under PROD, etc. Not a controversial case. Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just wanted to note that I undid a double vote by this IP that also removed everyone else's comments and the nomination. Praxidicae (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:44, 10 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 17:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falkie Atoll

Falkie Atoll (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)

According to ru:Википедия:К_удалению/6_августа_2019#Фолки, this article may be a hoax. ParticipantOfTheEncyclopedia (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per nom. ~~Are we sure? It's mentioned in Infos Solomon Islands, for instance, but that's not a great source.~~ Can't find it in the gazetteer section of my atlas. And the history may well be made up. The link to EB (the only source in the article) finds nothing relevant. The Russian Wiki linked above says: Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[translation from Russian] "Big problems with Wikipedia:Verifiability: RS is not and are not searched for by any of the names in English and Russian, so that none of the facts listed in the article can be confirmed. According to the coordinates indicated in our article, there is the Ontong-Java Atoll. In an English article, the coordinates from the very beginning point to the Deep Blue Sea, and the positional map added by the anonymous author points to the area of the Vanuatu Islands. Collectively, it looks like a fake .-- Yellow Horror (obs.) 13:07, August 6, 2019 (UTC)"

[translation from Russian] "Yes, it looks like they created a fake on en-wiki, but they transferred it to us. About the discoverer of this atoll, too, no information is sought. Igor Borisenko (obs.) 13:19, August 6, 2019 (UTC)"

It's not a source at all. It's a copy of Wikipedia's Solomon Islands article. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found nothing about this. No plausible map reference error. No documentation at all. Given that the creator of the article predicted the future with
Vaghena Island, the editor's other creation, is not the common spelling and has an incorrect map reference. Wagina Island does not appear to have a Kenli Bay, either. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: premiers, it could be they're elected on a 3 year term. Admittedly, none of the names produce any hits on search engines. Daß Wölf 06:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true, it would be a prediction of the future that the person claimed would last the full term. In fact Special:Diff/410502410 undid this vandalism when someone from Guam finally noticed and Jackson Kiloe was not replaced by someone else in 2006 as the creator of this article had claimed. All of the contributions of Dakrommel (talk · contribs) are turning out to be subtle vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only finding open sea at the claimed coordinates. [3] If it can be proven this is an actual land mass or even an atoll, I'll re-examine. Oakshade (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you will find at the coördinates if you look more thoroughly, is the lagoon in the middle of the Ontong Java Atoll, as the Russian editors pointed out. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete - This is most of the Britannica paywalled article which is the article's sole reference. From what can be read there it's unlikely Falkie/Van Ren Atoll is mentioned in the 26 words that are still unavailable. This bigger text about Shortland Islands again doesn't mention anything called Falkie or Van Ren. Additionally, the Japanese name ("Keinain-shima") doesn't sound very plausible to me. Added to the above comments I think it's enough to say that ATM we don't have sufficient evidence that this place exists. Input from someone local to the area would be very beneficial, though. Daß Wölf 06:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also did not come up in a search of a 1944 U.S. Hydrographic Office gazetteer of the Solomon Islands et al., which was another thing that I checked. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may open the full version of "Britannica online" article here, then use the "See Article History" link to make sure the article has never mentioned the atoll in question.--Yellow Horror (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. That sounds convincing enough to remove the "weak" part. Daß Wölf 01:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Daß Wölf 06:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Daß Wölf 06:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coordinates in the article body are different from those on top, and return empty ocean. All sources I could find that mention this place are Wikipedia mirrors or not reliable and probably got their information from here. The alternate name "Van Ren Atoll" returns only mirrors, as does the supposed explorer "Jale Van Ren". Nice find!
talk) 17:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Obvious hoax. Given all the details described in the history section it's inconceivable that no online sources exist.----Pontificalibus 06:37, 10 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. SNOW Keep that the film itself is notable, and that FRINGE either doesn't apply, or the reviews would satisfy the requirements if so
(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Annie's Coming Out

Annie's Coming Out (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 movie is about a user of the pseudoscientific technique of
WP:NFRINGE is not satisfied. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia (2nd nomination) for a similar example. The movie is non-fiction. Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I have posted a notification of this discussion to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a notification of this discussion to facilitated communication. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no valid reason for deletion given; we don't run "the events in this work of fiction didn't actually happen" disclaimers on every article about a fictional piece, and even if we did have such a policy that would be a reason to add an explanation to the article, not to delete it. Do you want to go AfD Iridescent 15:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The work is non-fiction. Therefor it is subject to fringe guidelines. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the link to
Iridescent 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Its claim is that it is supposedly based on a true story. That does not mean that the movie is presenting itself as "non-fiction".
WP:FRINGE strikes me as being very disingenuous.Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

1) Assume good faith. 2) This source states that "The film told the true story of a girl, whose bright intelligence was masked by the severity of cerebral palsy which deprived her of speech and control of her body." It is clearly being presented as non-fiction. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the film battle of the bulge is based on a true story, its still fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This source also calls the film non-fiction. And if someone made a "based off a true story" film about history, and the main point of that film was to push a revisionist version of history, the film would fall under fringe guidelines. Ghost stories entertain. Pseudoscience is fringe pushing. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try the great escape, there were not yanks there, or U-571.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a minor detail, not the main point of the film. This film's entire plot revolves around pushing pseudoscience as real. Reviewers of the film make it clear that they can't tell the difference. The book that it is based off of is also non-fiction. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ever seen close encounters of the third kind?Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't. But 1) That movie is clearly labeled as fiction. 2) Any sources that viewed it as a true story in the sense that aliens are real could not be used to establish notability. Such coverage would not be considered "serious and reliable" per
WP:NFRINGE. If all sources mistook the fringe for fact, I would nominate the article for deletion. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I don't think the nominator has a clear understanding of films which purport to depict historical events. This film is not a documentary. The people in it were played by actors. I find some editors' determination to delete everything that has anything to do with facilitated communication, whether or not it is notable, beyond belief. Is Wikipedia an encyclopaedia, or is it not? RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As stated, the nomination does not give a valid argument for deletion. This is a fictionalized version of a supposed true story, and thus does not fall under the guidelines set under
WP:FRINGE. In addition, the argument that the article "gives no hint that the subject's communication is not legitimate" is not a valid argument for deletion, as that, if it is a problem, could be very easily solved via normal editing. Regardless, searching brings up plenty of sources discussing the film, so it is clearly notable. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notability means it has been noted, that that it is true. Any issues over fringe should be addressed by rewriting.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award-winning film, notability is supported by sources. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per
WP:SK#1, no valid deletion rationale has been given, and no one other than the nominator has recommended deletion. NFRINGE does not say that notability of fringe subjects must be established with sources skeptical of the fringe view. It merely says that fringe subjects are held to the same notability standard as everything else: they must be referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. It does say that references that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, but in no way does it say that they are the only sources that count. Therefore as long as the movie has received sufficient coverage (of any kind) in reliable sources, which the nominator does not argue against, the article should be kept. The sources currently in the article perhaps aren't the greatest, but those plus TV Guide, NY Times, LA Times plus many others are more than sufficient. CThomas³ (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
From
notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Unskeptical sources are not "serious and reliable" and the sourcing here is not "extensive". --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NEXIST. Further, NFRINGE makes no statement of any kind that "unskeptical sources are not serious and reliable." in fact, it states practically the opposite: "references that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate" (emphasis mine). This most clearly implies that non-disparaging sources can also be adequate, thus fulfilling the extensive, serious, and reliable coverage requirement.
I appreciate your passion in ridding Wikipedia in all things fringe theory, but this is a movie, created for entertainment purposes. That is how each of the sources I listed reviewed it. They did not critique the fringe theory because they did not consider it a serious attempt at promulgating it. CThomas³ (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:FRINGE: "References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." This seems to indicate that a fringe topic has to achieve notability primarily through skeptical sources. The next sentence reads: "References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." So unskeptical sources can contribute, but should be given less weight. Here we have no skeptical sources, which I think is too few. Furthermore, my reading of the sources led me to believe that they did not critique the fringe theory because they believed in it. I think the reviews would have looked very different had the truth come out. Not that it matters much, though. It looks like I'm going to lose this one. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikiman2718, I know we're getting down in the weeds here and I apologize for that. My reading of as they establish the notability of the theory outside its group of adherents is merely the reasoning as to why debunking/disparaging sources are acceptable, not some kind of statement that only these sources can be used. It's saying that disparaging sources are acceptable because they are independent of the group of adherents. But it doesn't exclude all other independent sources just because they aren't disparaging. I agree with the next sentence that "references that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." But that says nothing of independent (i.e., specifically not related) reliable sources (like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and TV Guide) that don't actively criticize the subject. Now if you were able to show that these were favorable reviews written by someone with a tie to the theory, then you'd have something. But as long as they are independent of the subject and published in a peer-reviewed publication with a strong reputation for fact-checking, they are good to go even by NFRINGE. CThomas³ (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cthomas3: It seems that reasonable people can interpret this guideline in different or even opposite ways. That means the guideline is ambiguous. After this AFD is closed I intend to start a discussion about how to revise the guideline to remove ambiguity. I'll ping you if you're interested. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiman2718, I would appreciate the ping. Thank you. CThomas³ (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:NMOVIE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, the alleged authorship of this film is absolutely
WP:FRINGE, and the views it advocates are too, but that doesn't kill the notability of the film itself, it just means that we have to be careful describing it. ApLundell (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Article is about the movie, not about a false allegation of FC
talk) 22:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep That the article as is promotes FC uncritically might very well be a violation of
NPOV, but such concerns have no bearing on the film's notability. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I am becoming concerned about a pattern of deletion of articles based on a premise that publishers are not conducting due diligence and that we as Wikipedia editors know better. This is starting to present a narrow view of specific topics and essentially erasing a number of advocates.Random Acts of Language (talk) 10:28, 7 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 17:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Family Court, Rayagada

Family Court, Rayagada (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)

Local court, very poorly sourced, redirect was reverted without rationale or improvement. No standalone notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local courthouses, especially as run of the mill one as this, are indeed non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - individual courts of local, original jurisdiction are
too common to be notable. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - not a notable institution. We may be functioning as a gazetteer, but that doesn't extend to this kind of municipal infrastructure. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider: Family Court is a judicial infrastructure presided over by a District Judge and one of its kind in a district. It is guided by a special enactment of Indian legislature i.e. Family Courts Act. It would not be prudent to doubt its notability when district level Court are already on the wikipedia.Hpsatapathy (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We dont have individual district courts on Wikipedia. Please show where they are if you find them. Also please state why this particular family court is different from 400+ others. Also please state why any individual family court is notable at all? Even if Family Court does not exists in any particular district, that jurisdiction is anyways handled by other district level courts. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not notable. Barca (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not passing GNG. Stand-alone district-level courts are not notable. And same is the case with Judgeship of Rayagada which am AFDing now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:01, 8 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 17:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Music & Video

Ivory Music & Video (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 company, unsourced, created by editor with COI. Likely copyvio as well. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 15:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 15:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 15:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:NCORP, potentially A7 material. Ajf773 (talk) 18:13, 6 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 Looe Island. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trelawny Island

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 geographical feature. This Google Maps satellite image gives an idea of how small this is. 'Navigation' section unsourced and contrary to
WP:NOTHOWTO. Chartlet likely to be deleted from commons as a copyright violation. Little prospect of expansion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existence of a small rock in the river is not notability. Not finding sources to verify or establish notability of contents. Reywas92^Talk 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to List of islands of Cornwall, River Tamar, or Calstock~~ since even the OS doesn't name it (although does show an island in this location), there is very little online and a search in quotes only returns about 815 Google hits (and some of those appear to be from a places called "Trelawny" in Jamaica) and I don't see any evidence of coming close to meeting GNG, otherwise ~~delete~~ since its debatable if it should even be mentioned in another article. Only online source doesn't mention the island and doesn't seem to be an RS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the content with linked sources is about something else, and the content about this subject has no sources, or was sourced to a WWW page advertising an app for a mobile telephone. This seems to be an unnamed and undocumented place. Wikipedia's map links unhelpfully put Wikipedia's name as a marker on the maps. So I tried the U.K. Ordnance Survey. There's no name for this place there. I read some sources that document the things to be found along the length of the river, and they do not even mention this, by a name or otherwise. There's just nothing to write about this subject that accords with our content policies, and nothing supporting even a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Looe Island, as the small island to the south-east of Looe island is called Trelawny Island, a fact that is mentioend in that article. Looking at old OS maps, the island in the Tamar is never named, whereas the island by Looe Island is consistently a named feature (albeit its name has changed).----Pontificalibus 11:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that, indeed it is mentioned there with a source and although it doesn't appear on 19th or 20th century OS maps I think the source is OK. With the current article, although we know that there is indeed a tiny island at the described location and thus its not a hoax, we don't have any sources to say that the island is called "Trelawny Island" thus
WP:V isn't satisfied. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I couldn't find that name on a map, either, but this article supports this name for that place, and that seems like a good redirect target to me, too. Uncle G (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As nom, I'd support that redirect. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:56, 12 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. duplication — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Once Upon a Time guest characters

List of Once Upon a Time guest 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)

Nomination on behalf of IP User:175.143.227.185.
Reson: Duplication. All info present at
ping me) 13:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 13:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 13:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 13:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 13:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete obvious duplication from the main article, would a redirect be useful? I doubt it would. Seasider91 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ping me) 15:58, 6 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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTV National Debate

BTV National Debate (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; no independent references in article and none found (in English).
π, ν) 17:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
π, ν) 17:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
π, ν) 17:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment There are many university debates in Bangladesh. Does anyone know what, precisely, the common name of the event is, or if it has varied over the years? Is the 1989 "National Debate"[4] on BTV the same as the 2007 "National Television Debate Championship" [5] and the 2008 "National Television School Debate Competition", [6] both organized by BTV? --Worldbruce (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Bangladesh TV hosts a number of debates, such as national debate, English language debate, university debate, every year. The debates are popular and many of the participants have gone on to achieve successful careers including the current Minister of Education, Dipu Moni. Keep and expand and improve. Some sources:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:21, 7 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) 15:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Fitzgerald (television writer)

Mary Fitzgerald (television writer) (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)

Unsourced except to
WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the shows mentioned on the page, she is only mentioned on the page for Lucky Louie, where she is credited as co-writer of a a single episode. Making searching difficult is the fact that there are an astonishing number of Marys Fitzgerald in the world. I tried a few keywords, "television" "lucky louie" "producer" . nada. IMDB does show producer credits and writer credits not on the page - if someone tracks them down and sources notability, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parents who hope their children will become famous should give them distinctive searchable names. Narky Blert (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are 0 reliable sources for the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per EMG and JPL. A common-named BLP needs solid, unambiguous RS. Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i didn't find any
(T) 09:28, 8 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. Rough consensus that there is sufficient coverage of the song itself in suitable sources to show notability to permit a Keep. A merge discussion as mooted for (though not specifically !voted for by any participant) can be started in the usual fashion
(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song)

Articles for deletion/Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) (2nd nomination)

Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) (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 does not meet
WP:NSONG. The content can be incorporated into The College Dropout article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
1) "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." → one mention by SPIN is not multiples, the others are in the context of reviews of the album.
2) "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." → I don't see how can anyone expand this article.
3) "Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." → Once more this is not the case.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep aside from Spin, there's some decent coverage outside of album reviews at HotNewHipHop, which was generally deemed a credible source here. I certainly would prefer more non-album reviews, but it's enough to warrant a separate page (even if just barely). On another note, awards (or lack thereof) don't affect song notability; WP:NSONGS says it's a factor that potentially could "suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." That's not the same thing as a guarantee. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources is not the same as multplies. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is multiple sources outside of album reviews and artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary. "Multiple" isn't restricted to any specific number, only means higher than just one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SNUGGUMS. And even if there are not enough reviews, the deletion rationale would support a merge, not deletion, so keeping would permit the merge discussion to occur. Rlendog (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I said "The content can be incorporated into The College Dropout article." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm really a total outsider to this conversation - I know nor care nothing about Kanye's music - but I am a regular editor of song/album pages and thought I'd offer up my opinion in this discussion. I stumbled here through the disambiguation page for "Never Let Me Down". While I agree that this song doesn't meet some of the criteria (it didn't chart, for example), I think that the accolades section is probably enough to save it - no less than 3 specific articles singling out this song among Kanya's best. The notability requirements only say that there have to be "multiple" articles, and that's ignoring the other ~25 sources used to source this otherwise well-written, reasonably neutral and informative article. My vote is to keep it. 87Fan (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charts and awards actually ARE NOT part of the notability criteria. This is a common misconception. If anything, those are just potential signs there MIGHT be sufficient coverage (which excludes album reviews) to warrant a page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage on the song itself; most of the content is part of articles either reporting about or reviewing the parent album. I don't see any problem in deleting the page and incorporate the key elements in the album's Wiki page. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If these pieces (neither of which are album reviews) aren't enough, then what would be? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with SNUGGUMS about the song having enough coverage outside of album reviews. I have some doubts about some of the sources currently used in the article, such as the Prezi one, but there appears to be enough coverage to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the non trivial coverage. Nice work SNUGGUMS. Lightburst (talk) 21:24, 12 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. Speedily deleted per A7 and G11 criteria. Nick (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwa

Sarwa (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)

Apparently non-notable company in the UAE, apparently not the Egyptian financial services company of the same name. There's some minimal coverage of its routine business, but I don't see any of the sort of solid independent in-depth coverage we'd need to satisfy
WP:NCORP
.
This has every appearance of
undisclosed paid editing; I tried moving it to draft space so that it would go through the AfC process, but that was immediately undone. It's also clearly copied from somewhere else, but I've not been able to determine where. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is purely promotional, speedy deletion preferred.VViking_TalkEdits 14:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam and probably non-notable but I also submitted evidence off-wiki about this being
WP:UPE. Praxidicae (talk) 14:21, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kanan Kaushal

Kanan Kaushal (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:NACTOR Collaboratio (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to my surprise, she actually did meet NACTOR - she had significant roles both in in Jai Santoshi Maa and Pardesi. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets NACTOR - I've added a filmography table although titles would need to be wikilinked. –Davey2010^Talk 13:55, 11 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 no consensus. I see there are two distinct AfDs for this page and Fiona Hamilton-Fairley, the CEO of this institution (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona Hamilton-Fairley). However, the coverage is clearly overlapping, and arguments for standalone notability become weaker when there is a closely related subject with overlapping coverage. Arguments are being made at both discussions to redirect or merge, but these depend on the fate of the other page. So, I recommend both these articles be considered together, so that the totality of the coverage may be considered in a single context, and all the possible outcomes (from zero pages to two) may be examined. Therefore, this is a no consensus with no prejudice against immediate renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Kids' Cookery School

The Kids' Cookery School (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)

Delete No indications of notability. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty - most articles (such as this one from Christian Science Monitor are
HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that a SPA [7] created this page and one on this school's founder Fiona Hamilton-Fairley in 2007, then left the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per
~~WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)~~ note: E.M.Gregory was indefinitely blocked as a sock on August 8, 2019. Lightburst (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC) [reply
]

Merge/Redirect into the Hamilton-Fairley's WP page. Corn cheese (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I have added
WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Easily meets
WP:Before
was ignored.

WP:Preserve would dictate a merger, if some errant editor thinks that deletion is warranted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

This article was created in 2007. 12 years of existence suggests that the "SPA" creation argument is a Red herring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to the two Keep !votes above. This article is about the business, not about the founder - please read
HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:14, 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 delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XNap

XNap (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 Collaboratio (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; software abandoned since 2004 that appears to have never been the subject of significant coverage.
π, ν) 15:09, 9 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 no consensus. I see there are two distinct AfDs for this page and
The Kids' Cookery School, the institution of which this individual is the CEO (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kids' Cookery School). However, the coverage is clearly overlapping, and arguments for standalone notability become weaker when there is a closely related subject with overlapping coverage. Arguments are being made at both discussions to redirect or merge, but these depend on the fate of the other page. So, I recommend both these articles be considered together, so that the totality of the coverage may be considered in a single context, and all the possible outcomes (from zero pages to two) may be examined. Therefore, this is a no consensus with no prejudice against immediate renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Fiona Hamilton-Fairley

Fiona Hamilton-Fairley (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)

Delete Does not appear to meet the criteria for notability. Has written three books but does not meet the criteria of
HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that a SPA [8] created this page and one on her
~~The Kids' Cookery School in 2007, then left the project.E.M.Gregory (talk~~
~~) 22:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Delete per
~~WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)~~This user was indefinitely blocked as a sock August 8, 2019. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC) [reply
]

Delete a non-notable chef.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:
WP:NEXIST like this one in The Telegraph and this one in the Belfast Telegraph from 2016 Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

This article was created in 2007. 12 years of existence suggests that the "SPA" creation argument is a Red herring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off, this editor is following me around pages I'm involved in because I highlighted worrying !voting conduct here.

NOTCLEANUP is irrelevant to this discussion - nobody is suggesting the article needs to be cleaned up.

She has indeed authored four books but one is self-published.

No, she does not qualify for ANYBIO. The OBE (or MBE) does not confer inherent notability.

No, not a single source meets the criteria for establishing notability. For example, the Telegraph has no independent content and relies entirely on quotations and information received directly from Hamilton-Fairley and is a classic example of churnalism. Similarly the Belfast Telegraph article has no independent content and simply publishes quotations from Hamilton-Fairley.

Please don't add every reference that mentions Hamilton-Fairley. We know she exists. Only provide links to ones that contain independent content and are *about* her for the purposes of ascertaining notability.
HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

User:HighKing
Please consdider withdrawing the nomination per WP:ANYBIO as she meets two of the criteria: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. There is no shame in admitting that you missed these things. Being honored/awarded by the Queen and her contributions in her field easily pass WP:ANYBIO. And then there is the matter of her books.
WP:HEY - this is not the same article you nominated. Lightburst (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Response I've already pointed out above that an OBE does not confer inherent notability (it helps but isn't enough). You say that the person has made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Do you have any sources on that? In fact - can you produce any sources whatsoever that meet the criteria for establishing notability? Can you provide any sources where somebody has generated independent content on her?
HighKing⁺⁺ 14:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It is vexatious that you claim that the Queen of England awarding the subject - Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (2019) award does not meet the standard of WP:ANYBIO. The award was given to exactly 276 people in 2019 out of 64.8 million (CIA Fact Book UK). Please reexamine: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vexatious? Please search the archives of the Talk page for
HighKing⁺⁺ 21:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

That is a fallacious claim. I only found no such consensus or ruling anywhere. You cannot point to random editors making passing mention of an OBE as some sort of consensus. Editors who run out of reasons often claim that there is a consensus for their belief somewhere out there in the Wiki. If there was such a consensus you would point me to the RFC. I will leave the AfD now as we are al loggerheads. Lightburst (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response It is rare that editors will question obvious things like "consensus" although recently I've even seen a cabal of editors harass and bully other editors who disagree with them on the meaning of "consensus" - I recently saw one editor harass an admin over their (entirely correct) interpretation of
HighKing⁺⁺ 11:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not rare to question consensus. Consensus can change based on just a few editors showing up: individual editors who come to AfDs often vote against policy or guidelines. I see it everyday on
WP:ANYBIO. Lightburst (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There are lots of additional sources at
WP:Before
was ignored.

WP:Preserve would dictate a merger, if some errant editor thinks that deletion is warranted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment First off, this editor is following me around pages I'm involved in because I highlighted worrying !voting conduct here. Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that
HighKing⁺⁺ 14:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The proof of the violations are in the article. Your incessant defensive personalization of
WP:AFD discussions does not help the project. I will not research and publish your edit history. Nor call you out for being a deletionist provacateur. You do not own the AFD process; so don't flatter yourself. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have just clarified which award she received - it was an
WP:BASIC - I will check in newspaper databases etc for coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@RebeccaGreen: Thanks for your diligence. I saw this notice in the The London Gazette that calls her award an OBE in the headline, and I missed the small print MBE. Lightburst (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge
WP:BASIC. @RebeccaGreen: (talk) 11:17, 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 redirect to Martyrs of Japan. Redirecting to a possible target, if there will be a better list, feel free to move. Tone 17:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Naisen

Monica Naisen (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 Collaboratio (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have always considered people beatified by the Catholic Church to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is so poorly written that it may confuse more readers than it helps. That said, beatified martyrs are notable. This book may help straighten the story out [9] this one [10] is even more helpful. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You’re not going to find enough information that can add up to encyclopedic content and they won’t come from reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The relevant part of
Congregation for the Causes of Saints for over 300 years. There simply has not been enough published about them to support an article. Narky Blert (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Her name was added to the Roman Martyrology along with Matthew Araki and his companions. All were added in 1867 with a feast day of 12 July. They share the same story. So rename but keep the redirect to Matthew Araki and his companions or Matthias Araki and his companions. Note that there is also a
single page for Perpetua and Felicitas. Genium .
15:38, Aug 8, 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy with redirects to a single article for all of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also would be happy with a merge and redirect. (That was why I searched Zola and John, wondering if the three could be kept as a group.) A wider-ranging article explaining the context would be much more useful to readers than the current two-liner. Narky Blert (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every individual who has been granted sainthood by the Catholic Church is default notable. Just consider that in some cases it is not clear anyone even knowns the names of all people covered by a grant of sainthood. This article with its failure to date at all the life of Naisen is a disservice to anyone who finds it and should not be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sainthood in Catholicism isn't a grant, it's an acknowledgment. There are countless saints who haven't been awarded the title. Narky Blert (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either 205 Martyrs of Japan or Martyrs of Japan (since I can't seem to find a list of the former to confirm her being one of them); the fact that almost no one on that list is a blue link completely throws out the window the claim made by the one "keep" !vote so far that beatified people (essentially just names on lists) are inherently notable enough for standalone articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you do know that Wikipedia is a work in progress? Lack of articles so far does not equal lack of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican apparently beatifies (or in 1867 beatified) virtually every single "Christian martyr" in 16th and 17th century Japan regardless of whether anything could be written about them. (I put "Christian martyr" in scare-quotes because from the point of view of the Tokugawa government, still technically in power in 1867, this woman and others like her were guilty of treason for harbouring Spanish and Portuguese spies. I doubt any modern sources that take this view -- I remember reading about the treaties of Tordesillas and Saragossa in an Irish state-sponsored middle school history textbook, so the view that the Catholic church at that time was supporting Spanish and Portuguese imperialism is certainly mainstream, and certainly the somewhat-polemical writer still often cited as a scholar Lafcadio Hearn felt the same [his chapter "The Jesuit Peril" available here leaps to mind] -- even mention this person, which presents a POV problem.) According to our article on beatification (not an expert myself) Since the reforms of 1983, one miracle must be believed to have taken place through the intercession of the person to be beatified, the implication being that before that point anyone could be beatified without there even being legends that they had performed such-and-such miracle. The assumption that beatified individuals are noteworthy is based on the assumption that beatified individuals have received a lot of coverage in reliable secondary sources, and while this may not be thoroughly disproved by the fact we have lists of Japanese martyrs from the early Edo period, almost none of whom merit articles because almost all of them are just names about whom we know almost nothing, the burden is still on the party wishing to maintain a standalone article to demonstrate that such-and-such an individual is notable enough for an article despite being just a name about whom we know almost nothing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
talk) 11:21, 13 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eachy

Eachy (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)

Seems to be a hoax created in good faith based on
citogenesis,or at least non-notable. Cannot find the book "Folklore of Northern Britain" cited. Cannot find pre-article mentions of the creature. Cannot even find the putative iker in Skeat.[11] The Bassenthwaite event of 1973 is not credited with being any particular beast, and appears to be a loch-ness type rather than a humanoid. Moreover I am not the first to spot this: https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/the-eachy-of-bassenthwaite.64674/ All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC).[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 11:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Fishing Gazette reports in 1963 that the lake was visited by some skin-divers from Sellafield and that there's likely a ″monster pike″ there, some person takes a picture of something that xe states xe was not able to identify from a distance, and no-one supports this notion at all. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Likely mashup/hoax.--Auric talk 14:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This strike me as someone's attempt to create a "Nessie" for a Lake in the Lake District: FRINGE. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This website implies there are images from Victorian times. https://www.keswick.org/template/geteventdetails?eventID=344 and it seems to be mentioned on lots of websites. Tullimonstrum (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep https://www.lakedistrictwildlifepark.co.uk/news/beast-resurfaces/ mentions it, and how long its been around. People were drawing pictures of it over a century ago. The fact that a news search doesn't show any recent news about it, doesn't matter, it is a notable cryptid. People once believed in these things. Dream Focus 20:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2017, do you mean? The Lake District Wildlife Park's article about a school project quotes as pretty much its only source of information the source that we already had here (Jacobsen 1973) which does not say anything about an "Eachy" at all. As I pointed out above, Jacobsen states xe was "never been able to find out what it was". Xe is not actually documenting anything, indeed not even putting forward a hypothesis, apart from the fact that xe took a photograph and never found out what xe had photographed. We've basically got only the Fishing Gazette (with the skin-divers from Sellafield) and Jacobsen here, and people who regurgitate them. The latter puts forward no hypothesis, and the former says that there's likely a "monster pike" in the lake. We don't actually have the original sources even claiming this notion. This is not a documented part of human knowledge, because the documentation does not actually say this in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

***"Bassenthwaite Eachy’, including copies of Victorian images and photographs & newspaper reports of this Beast of Bassenthwaite Lake from the past 50 years,". Their official Facebook page shows they use the creature as a tourist attraction. [12] The National Cryptid Society [13] calls it the "The Beast of Bassenthwaite Lake." This creature has been reported since 1873. Just hard to find all the coverage it got back then. Dream Focus 00:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the same as Each-uisge so just redirect there. Dream Focus 00:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reach the conclusion that the two appear to be the same? Phonetics? We need more than that, surely? - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same nation, same language, both monsters in the water. Someone saw something and said it was an each-uisge, and they called it eachy. Seems obvious enough. Dream Focus 14:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you dabbled in the Indian caste area you would know that this type of thinking is pure original research: there are many names which the speculative person might assume to be synonymous but which in fact are not, and equally there are some names for castes which are identical but refer to distinct, very different groups of people. I don't think your rationale is sufficient unless you have a source that makes such a connection. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is from one language, in the same time period. Names of things might change over time, but this is clearly just an abbreviation. Dream Focus 18:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you again to the topic of Indian castes. And are you sure that it is from one language in the same time period etc anyway? - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 9 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
- talk 17:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Alano Español

Alano Español (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)

Issues with
WP:GNG ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 11:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I was able to locate a number of references which can be used to cite the article's content. Most of these articles are in Spanish, but there are there, and I even added one. It's clear this a real breed with notability. PhobosIkaros ✉ 15:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The breed is well known enough to have been
kennel clubs of English speaking countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal Op (talk • contribs) 23:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The nomination talks
vaguely of "issues" without explaining what they are. The article has existed for 14 years and has no cleanup tags or relevant discussion on its talk page. Sources seem easy to find. Not seeing the problem. Andrew D. (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep As above: sources clearly exist. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: dog breed is notable. Aquatastetalk 11:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - This dog breed has articles on 23 language versions of Wikipedia, they can't all be wrong! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 7 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) 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeyarah

Zeeyarah (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)

Recently deleted for unambiguous advertising. Per
WP:ORG. Most likely created by the founder who created the previously deleted article. I feel like they are only creating this article for promotion of their company. Willbb234 (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

See User talk:Mohammed Gaus Shaikh for previous user. Willbb234 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 11:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete insufficient sources to meet
WP:NCORP. Incidentally, though not a reason to delete, the creator Zee2019 has confirmed at their talk page that they work for the parent company of Zeeyarah. Hug^syrup 11:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Hugsyrup: i have given the reliable sources on reference, the intention is to provide the information of company not to advertise or to promote. Thank You.

Delete Fails
talk) 11:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per reasons already stated. Possible Speedy Delete VViking_TalkEdits 14:03, 6 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
WP:DEL-REASON#6 as a deletion reason. And the merge camp has raised legitimate arguments that sources using the term "environmental job" does not necessarily establish that it is a coherent topic and distinct enough from Green job
to merit its own article.
On balance, it seems like the consensus is that the topic here is not coherent enough and not distinct enough from Green job to have its own article, so a merge is warranted, with careful consideration of which content can be merged over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental job

Environmental job (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)

An unneeded fork of Green job with no evidence that the term "Environmental job" is in any way notable. The listings are arbitrary and the sources do not link the careers described back to the term Environmental job. Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 09:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 09:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The topic is certainly notable as entire books are written about it. Whether it's exactly the same as
WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep In my opinion an Environmental job is different to a green job. A green job suggests the job is in a sector dealing with sustainable energy. An environmental job however does incorporate fossil fuel industries such as Fracking. Seasider91 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely true, though, based on our own article on Green Jobs, which cites several organizations' definitions of green jobs, which include a wide range of jobs that have to do with other industries that are unrelated to sustainable energy. Most sources I've found, including the one or two non-job posting sources in this article, use the term "green job" to refer to many non-energy related fields. Rorshacma (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment may I also add that part of my reasoning for nominating this is that I was unable to find a RS for the title "Environmental job" except in a most informal use, as in banner headlines in the popular press. For this to be notable, the subject needs to be notable in itself, and there needs to be notability about what is included in such a list. So we also need RSs saying "such and such a job is an Environmental job". Without this, the inclusion of any job title is a matter of opinion. This is clearly already evident from the current state of the article. So........I accept that the term is used, especially informally but to satisfy Wikipedia'a notability criteris I could not find RSs for either the title or the contents. Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 10:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:SYNTH. As the nom stated, very few of the sources actually refer to the jobs as "environmental jobs" outside of reference number 4, and the creator just took sources on a bunch of individual jobs and tried to combine them into one concept that those sources do not actually support. That said, it does appear that "environmental job" is used as a synonym for "green job" occasionally, so redirecting this to the better article as a plausible search term makes sense. Rorshacma (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/redirect I don't think simple descriptions of various occupations makes for a very good encyclopedia article; green job could certainly cover some of this since it could use more context of examples of green jobs. Otherwise this is largely synthesis. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with possible some material merged. This is not a defined topic by itself. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The topic is notable. For example there have been books devoted to the topic The Complete Guide to Environmental Careers in the 21st Century, The ECO Guide to Careers that Make a Difference, Green Careers: Choosing Work for a Sustainable Future. Also in reports such as those produced by Universities The Guide To Environmental Careers In Australia and Research Organisations Careers In The Environment the concepts of environmental jobs and environmental job titles are cited.

Reliable Sources (RS) were originally used in the form of Australia Government Websites Australian Government Job Outlook, US Government websites The Bureau of Labor Statistics. Also, well-respected print and news organisations such as National Geographic and CNBC and reports such as those produced by Universities The Guide To Environmental Careers In Australia To further address the point raised about RS more sources have been (and will continue to be added by COB on 16 August 2019) added in the form of descriptions of job titles from Universities, for example, The University of Queensland and The University of Melbourne

To address the point that a list is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article almost half of the example job titles do contain extra information about these environmental jobs and as per the promise to provide more RS information I will furnish the rest of these 'common environmental job titles' (quoting GCA listed above) with additional information

To address the point raised of the sources not being reliable sources because they are traced to jobs. No actual job listings have been used, but some job website's definitions of different accepted environmental job titles (as defined by the RS's listed above). This has been done because of their function, these organisations understand exactly what environmental function these individuals perform (or will perform) in these organisations and therefore, even though their organisations are commercial in nature they do undertake invaluable research into these areas. An example of such research is this generic salary guide Australia Salary Guide 2019

To address the point raised wrt 'it is not defined topic' - this isn't referred to in Wikipedia's deletion policy and therefore I can try to surmise that it refers to notability which I have addressed above

Regarding the point raised that 'very few of the sources refer to actual environmental jobs' one of the sources used Environmental Sustainability Jobs does provide the reader with numerous examples of environmental job titles so they can answer the question 'what kind of environmental jobs are there' This information itself refers back to numerous environmental job titles. More RS have been added to the article on 8 August 2019 RMIT research and GCA research ((cited above))

Regarding the point 'simple descriptions of various occupations doesn't make for a very good encyclopedia article' this system is also used in the superb Green Job (an Article which I have recently added to for the benefit of the Wikipedia readers). In this article, for example, different countries environmental economies are summarised and different US administration policies are summarised. Detailing out what different common job titles would mean day-to-day for the reader if they chose that occupation (or for someone wanting to learn more about what differing occupations do) is in the same vein and providing invaluable knowledge on a topic which is notable and has reliable sources and information.

I apologise it will take me a week to provide extra information, I am an environmentalist and I spend the majority of my time doing volunteer work. Next week is a busy one for weed volunteer work, hence the delay in providing more information in order to ensure this meets the wishes of the well-respected editors.

Thank you for your assistance. Cheeka19 (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Thank you Velella and everyone else for helping me with this article. I have now added 20+ RS in the form of

news articles,

journals and

books to complement the already included reliable sources from

government publications,

government websites and

university publications which are listed on career information websites.

Regarding the merge suggestions

I chose to do a separate article in this area rather than edit the Green job article page (as I have already done on the Green job page with some more recent statistics) for a number of reasons:

The Green job page has a reliable source for the definition of a 'green job'. However, a definition for the term 'environmental job' does not exist from a RS as required by Wikipedia policy

The Green job page focuses more on 'macro' aspects of the green / environmental job market in terms of what different countries have strengths in and a description of current and historical policy in the United States

I felt an article more focused on some of the more common / fastest growing environmental jobs throughout the world would be really useful to those considering a career in the environmental industry and would enable people considering what environmental jobs are possible to undertake some invaluable learning in this area

Internal linking is recommended in Wikipedia and I felt things would be clearer not combining a 'micro' based career article regarding what different environmental professionals do day-to-day witn a macro based article focused on countries and policy as a whole.

Thanks again to everyone for your assistance

I sincerely hope you choose to Keep this article as there isn't currently anything on Wikipedia with this particular information, on this notable topic, with the requested reliable sources, that will enable readers to learn about what different environmental jobs exist.

Cheeka19

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KGee

KGee (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 musician. I searched and did not find any reliable third party sources, fails
WP:NMUSIC. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the references provided the person is notable. I presume there was not enough press on him when he started his career. He qualifies the basis of notability as outlined by Wikipedia. The only third party we can fall on is oral, a major problem Africans face.

Keep, from the sources provided in the references column, the article meets Wikipedia’s notability policy. Keep it for future — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.160.18.241 (talk) 11:33, 11 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.
WP:IAR to close this discussion as "not deleted". —usernamekiran(talk) 17:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Bill,_2019
)

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

1)The event is very recent so its obvious that it is covered by many news portal. 2)But this is a bill for Kashmir conflict. 3) So this bill can come under Kashmir conflict page. 4)This bill scraps article 370, then why are we not putting this in the Article 370 wiki page. Why are we making a whole page just for a bill. The purpose of bill is controversial and it's related to Kashmir conflict. And the bill scraps Article 370. The bill itself is bot important in any way. What bill does is important and we already got wiki pages for these. The bill itself may seem a big issue today but in the matter of few week all that left important is what bill does. Then what is the need to make it a whole new page on it. User:Edward Zigma User talk:Edward Zigma 08:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 08:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Topic with extensive national and international coverage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cant just make a wikipedia page out of every topic. This should go under the Kashmir conflict page.Edward Zigma (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - This article clearly qualifies for
Article 370 page and this page should merge with them. There is no need to make a saperate page on it.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Significant impact to India/Kashmir/India and Pakistan relations. Many have been trying to get a direct link to this discussion and hence extremely relevant as seen from news coverage. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why it should not merged with Kashmir conflict. Its just a bill. Are we going to make wikipedia pages on every bill getting passed now?Edward Zigma (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you can't keep voting every time you respond to someone. Second, I have already given my reasons above, it is significant in its own way and hence deserves a page.Sherenk1 (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So does was Brexit bills. They are kept under the Brexit pages. This is a bill. The matter related to the bill is important, not the bill. The matter is already there as Kashmir conflict. I understand it is a majot bill and all the tantrums. But this is still a bill. We already got a wikipedia page in hand for that. Obviously the bill is associated with Kashmir conflict. Bill itself has no existence. So it's better to remove this page.Edward Zigma (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:RAPID a very major news which is developing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

But its still a bill for
Overcategorisation. No need to keep such pageEdward Zigma (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is a significant development in its own right that is attracting extensive reporting. Ergo a separate article from
WP:OVERCATEGORISATION has any relevance. Bondegezou (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Nope. The article has no clear importance in itself. The article should be merge with
Article 370
.

The bill is related to the topics, the bill itself is not a topic. Clearly a case of
WP:OVERCATEGORISATION.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow keep as the nomination was made before the article allowed to get developed within few hours. Maybe
WP:TROUT the nominator for wasting time of editors. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Coz bills are related to matters like conflicts, rape, or social problems. So if a bill getting passed is categorised in that related article. Should we start making wikipedia pages on every bill getting passed. Brexit bills were passed too but there was a consensus that bills should be categorised in the particular matter related to a topic. A clear case of
WP:OVERCATEGORISATION.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Who the hell said bills are related to only conflicts, rapes or social problems? Every law is a bill at first. You might want to argue on why this particular bill is failing any of the notability criteria. Or else you can leave the debate; we have heard you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This particular bill is important related to
WP:OVERCATEGORISATION.Edward Zigma (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I cannot see @
AnUnnamedUser: making an edit in this page and this edit shows @Edward Zigma: making the edit on his behalf.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah! Am also trying to figure whats happening here. Are they
WP:SOCKs? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
No. AnUnnamedUser had nothing to do with it. Edward Zigma just copied the signature and deletion rationale from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_rankings_of_India, which is why the first revision of this AFD looks so weird. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What a bad reason to nominate for deletion.
talk) 10:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you tell me a single reason why not to keep this article in
Article 370. Are we going to make wiki pages on bills getting proposed now. Really what a bad arguement you have.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 11:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment:- Reasons why this bill qualify for
WP:OVERCATEGORISATION

1)The event is very recent so its obvious that it has been covered by many news portal. 2)But this is a bill for Kashmir conflict. 3) So this bill can come under Kashmir conflict page. 4)This bill scraps article 370, then why are we not putting this in the Article 370 wiki page. Why are we making a whole page just for a bill. The purpose of bill is controversial and it's related to Kashmir conflict. And the bill scraps Article 370. The bill itself is not important in any way.Ultimately the bill is just related to
Article 370
. This bill can be clubbed under those without any issue.

What bill does is important and we already got wiki pages for these. The bill itself may seem a big issue today but in the matter of few week all that left important is what bill does. Then what is the need to make it a whole new page on it.Edward Zigma (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Usually I would prefer to have an article on the resultant act, but in this case the bill is sufficiently notable to have its own article, if it gets passed, it should be moved to the appropriate "... Act" title. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
11:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Strong Keep I am creator of page. What a bad and unrelated reason to nominate? The page no where mentions the statistics and person nominated here by saying this is list of statistics. This bill will decide the future of Indian Jammu and Kashmir which is historical in itself. Bill received enough coverage in
want to talk? 11:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Zigma, the over-categorization provision at
WP:DP applies to categories, not articles. It cannot be logically applied to an article. I think you're suggesting this should be merged into the larger article as it is a sub-event of the larger conflict. However, it is ordinary to create articles for components of a larger subject, such as battles within a war or even charges within a battle, provided there is sufficient verifiable information to support a stand-alone article. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep: This bill is very significant, Even in the stage of bill it has it's own political and diplomatic impact. With all due respect, Nominator's comments stating "The bill itself may seem a big issue today but in the matter of few week all that left important is what bill does." is just an assumption. Bill was introduced amidst large mobilization of army, house arrest of former chief ministers of the state, making Non-Jammu & Kasmir residents leave the state, and lot of such pre-match. It stirred a lot of reactions both positive and negative from international & diplomatic sections. Pakistan parliament had an emergency session to condemn introduction of this bill. I hope fellow Wikimedians understand this is not one of the other bills and this is a major event/milestone in this geo-political region. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bill has enough significant coverage and material to warrant a separate article. The nominator has not made a single valid argument in any of the dozen comments they have posted so far. Snow close to avoid further wastage of community time. Dee 03 12:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and propose close. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination is based on fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. This law splits J&K into the two territories of J&K and Ladakh, and this article should be similar to like
created a talk section for that. 체셔🐈 (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep Notable major event in a critical and controversial area, with significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is appropriate to capture the event and developments related to it. I expect there to be great interest in this bill and a separate article that is able to explore the details and ramifications will be of value to our readers. The other articles that were suggested for the content are already lengthy. It's possible that in a year or two, depending on how events play out, it might be best at that time to merge this article, but right now, we should keep this article. Noting that I came to this AFD because the nominator pinged me on my talk page since we had agreed on a previous dispute on an India-related article and, I suspect, thought I would agree with him on this one. Schazjmd (talk) 13:57, 6 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blag (band)

Blag (band) (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)

Per
WP:MUSIC Willbb234 (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First off, the article doesn't make a clear claim of notability. The only remotely notable thing that is mentioned is one of the band members' BAFTA, but that's not supported in the source given, and doesn't necessarily speak to the band's notability. The three sources given are:

Punktastic Review

I don't see Blag mentioned here.

Ska Mutiny band of the week

Dead link. Clearly not a particularly reliable source if the site is dead so soon after referencing!

Access to Music article about Kelle's BAFTA

A promotional publication of the music school which doesn't actually mention the BAFTA despite the link text. --Slashme (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails
Pez dispensers than she ever did with the band [18], [19]. It's never a good sign when your "side projects and activities outside the band" section is longer than that of the band itself. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 6 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:N
and the like).
Beyond this the delete argument - which is ahead in the headcount - relies on
WP:ENT#C2
is met.
On balance, the consensus is that the topic isn't separate enough from
WP:RFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Saffron Barker

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
csp
|username}}.

Saffron Barker (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)

Case of
WP:BLP1E most of the coverage is after participating in Strictly Come Dancing. There is no inherent notability attached to being a participant of a dance show unless she has won it. FitIndia ^{✉ बात} 07:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep
AfD. [reply
]

Notability
is not inherited. That means just that someone appears on a notable show doesn't make them notable in their own right. --Slashme (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete None of the independent, reliable sources indicate that she is notable beyond her association with Strictly Come Dancing. --Slashme (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTuber among with many others, with the exception of Strictly Come Dancing, there is nothing worthy of credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.191.169 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the refs don't add up to notability. It may be just
WP:TOOSOON but she certainly isn't notable yet. Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 09:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

How is she not notable? She’s a Youtuber with over 3 million subscribers and has been in a girl group, and now she’s a contestant on one of the biggest shows in the UK. Danis fast game (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are on the order of 3000 YouTube channels with over 3 million subscribers. They're not all notable. --Slashme (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When will people understand that followers or subscribers do not in anyway contribute to notability? Trillfendi (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Strictly Come Dancing (series 17). All of the coverage from reliable sources that are in the article and that I could find are directly related to her casting on Strictly. -- Whpq (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

She’s also written a book Danis fast game (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not all authors are notable. --Slashme (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

She’s not just an author though. I’m saying she’s an author AS WELL as being a singer and YouTube star, and now a television personality. That seems pretty notable to me. Danis fast game (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is getting plenty of press coverage such as the Daily Telegraph and so seems to pass
WP:BASIC. The BBC have invited her onto Strictly as a "social media star" (rather than as a professional dancer) and it is clearly their view that she is already a celebrity. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is lacking. Subject of this WP:GNG. There is no in-depth coverage. Netherzone (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Paid PROMO and canvassing disqualify this version. Perhaps start over legitimately, but this version should go. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete The issues of PAID, PROMO, and skullduggery aside, the subject simply dose not have enough significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Rewrite Article) The subject passes
WP:BASIC and is likely to be even more notable after Strictly so maybe redirect to Strictly Come Dancing until Strictly starts. However the article should be re written due to PAID, PROMO and canvassing.X on the Beach (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC) strike confirmed sock vote -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Appears notable enough (e.g. [20], [21], [22], [23]), is realistically only going to get more notable once Strictly starts, and there's no policy-based justification for deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:CRYSTAL. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:ENT#C2.--Laun chba ller 11:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree Redirect to Strictly Come Dancing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect as above. She has mostly garnered media attention after ~~her appearance~~ the announcement of her participation on "Strictly Come Dancing", so I'd say it's too early for a standalone article right now. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She hasn't appeared on Strictly Come Dancing yet, It's an upcoming series and the coverage is typical of the publicity machine for these shows drummming up articles about the contestants or show in advance of airing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and this looks like a part of their promotional strategy. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saffron is a YouTuber and a singer and a contestant on Strictly 176.35.78.20 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC) Note to closing admin: — 176.35.78.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21st-century globalization impacts on gender inequality in the United States

21st-century globalization impacts on gender inequality in the United States (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)

Pure original research. Needs
talk) 04:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: This is an essay, not an encyclopedic article. TNT absolutely warranted. Massive
SYNTH issues that can't easily be removed by editing. --Slashme (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I'm fairly certain somebody used Wikipedia as a host for a homework assignment.Squeeps 10 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:NOTESSAY.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolabahapple (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Regretfully, it's a good essay. Bearian (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTESSAY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as the article counters with
Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:38, 11 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 18:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ategeka

Christopher Ategeka (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 notability as an individual, lacks
WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete grand claims about being an important figure in a movement need better sourcing than we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced Forbes 30 under 30 should contribute to WP:Notability, and I would expect that there is sufficient coverage from other awards to scrape past. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Publications coming out annually with "30 under 30" and "40 under 40" and othersuch lists, getting on such a list is no where near a sign of notability. Meeanaya (talk) 04:52, 9 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 07:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Andrzejewski

Alexa Andrzejewski (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 outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of her news coverage are primarily for the company. Meeanaya (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a score at least of publications coming out annually with "30 under 30" and "40 under 40" and othersuch lists, getting on such a list is no where near a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 6 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 07:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Namita Banka

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Namita Banka

Articles for deletion/Namita Banka (2nd nomination)

Namita Banka (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 outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of her news coverage are primarily for the company. Meeanaya (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Her previous AFD was based on weak comments by new users & IP address with possible COI and have not discussed whether Namita Banka is notable as an individual or not. Meeanaya (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the Cartier Women's Initiative Awards is for her, not her company, and so is much of the coverage. PamD 11:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also hardly call the previous AfD keeps "weak comments from new users". PamD 12:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be something significant coming from her other just receiving some award. Banka is not notable if we are looking at the bigger picture, this is obviously a paid PR, which deserves a deletion. Meeanaya (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the keep !votes didn’t expound upon why they think she is notable beyond some award and that the article does seem promotional. Trillfendi (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Who's who, one does not pay their way to inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Just watched the previous AfD and came on conclusion that she wants to promote herself on the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not place for promotion and recognition. Many people are doing social work and get local coverage then it doesn't mean they are eligible for having Wikipedia page. This person fails
talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 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 07:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Davis (businessman)

Phil Davis (businessman) (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)

Founder of a non-notable company, No evidence of independent notability. The sources are passing mentions and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no sign of passing
WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a pundit in the branding industry. Meets
WP:CREATIVE in that he is an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors in branding. Coldsweats (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Blocked for
WP:UPE. MER-C 10:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There is nothing here to suggest notability, In my opinion the subject in question does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 15:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Little bit of a fake news connection, and rather than deleting outright, I'd like to see what the author could do, making sure to include non-positive articles, too. Roundrobinguy67 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)— Roundrobinguy67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Blocked for
WP:UPE. MER-C 10:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is
serious problems with this page. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as likely
paid-for spam. I've blocked the author for this. MER-C 15:33, 9 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 07:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin John Hewitt

Kevin John Hewitt (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 prod'd this with the following explanation: "Despite the Telegraph obit, and the interesting job, there isn't really a claim to notability, and I can find no other sources with the exception of one website that is clearly a mirror of this very page." However I then realised it was previously prod'd (by an IP) and de-prod'd (by DGG) back in 2011, so bringing this here instead.
To add to my comment in quote marks above, in response to the original de-prod explanation, I don't see anything even in the obituary that indicates notability. It's a fairly brief summary of a career that is certainly interesting and unusual by most standards, but doesn't seem notable as such. Hug^syrup 14:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said back in 2011,"seems notable to me based on the ref. First look for other sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. ". This cannot be really kept in mainspace unless additional sources can be found . There's no point in draftifying if nobody is around who wants to work on it. A preliminary check shows some possible director sources, not online; British newspapers would also be a possiility. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obituary in a major newspaper has always equalled notability on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no policy stating that merely having an obituary in a major newspaper = automatic notability. On the contrary, policy states "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources...". I have been unable to find any other significant coverage of this individual. Hug^syrup 16:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be a policy, but it is still an established practice to keep anyone who has an obituary in a major national newspaper. This has been accepted many times at AfD. After all, if a major national newspaper considers someone notable, when they publish obituaries far more selectively than we have biographical articles, who are Wikipedia to not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This supposed "established practice" is unsupported by policy or guideline. I would agree that in the vast majority of cases, where there is an obit in a major national newspaper, then there would almost always be additional coverage elsewhere. But this does not seem to be the case here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, supported by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policies are nothing more than a collection of established practices that are supported by consensus. Anyone is free to claim that anything is 'established practice', and 'supported by consensus', but if it's somehow not made it into any of our many, many notability policies, then I'm fairly comfortable with ignoring it, particularly when it directly contradicts what actually is written in the
WP:GNGs. Hug^syrup 10:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Just because a consensus is not written into a policy does not make it any less of a consensus. Wikipedia is not
bound by set rules. It has been held many times at AfD that an proper obit in a major newspaper is sufficient for notability. That equals consensus. Whether you want to ignore consensus or not is pretty irrelevant. And people do not get obits in major national newspapers out of the blue. The staff don't think, oh, let's just run an obit on this completely non-notable person because we feel like it today. They run obits on them because they are already notable. They run obits on a far, far smaller percentage of people than we have articles for. That should be a pretty fair indicator that a person is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"Just because a consensus is not written into a policy does not make it any less of a consensus." Actually, I think it does. Policy is an established consensus by a large number of editors, over a substantial period, with lots of people weighing in, debating it, and fine-tuning it. Changing it usually requires considerable debate and will attract numerous points of view. It can be found in clearly labelled locations, I can review exactly what it says, and if needs be I can directly challenge it and suggest changes to it. Compare that to a supposed consensus based on how some AFDs have been closed in the past. We don't know how many editors contributed to those, or how many other AFDs may have had an entirely contradictory outcome. All we do know is that no one seemed to think it was important enough to write it into any actual policy pages. I'd compare it to the difference between the constitution, and a few results in a lower court. I'm not saying it's not real, it's just not a particularly good argument.

"The staff don't think, oh, let's just run an obit on this completely non-notable person because we feel like it today." Well maybe not, but they sure do think "let's run an obit on this essentially unknown but interesting person with a peculiar life story that our readers will enjoy." The standards for a Telegraph obit and the standards for a Wikipedia article are not the same, and assuming that what is good enough for a Telegraph obit editor is good enough for us is flawed reasoning, particularly given the total lack of any other claims to notability. Hug^syrup 11:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I use the phrase "ill-considered" below, but perhaps "a quirky leaven to the obituary content required of a newspaper of record" might have been a kinder description. William Avery (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks substantial coverage for multiple, independent, reliable sources, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that multiple is a good thing. Unfortunately, I cannot find anything other than the one obituary. If there's any other coverage, contemporary throughout this person's life, in histories of circuses, or otherwise, I cannot find it; nor is it cited in the article. Uncle G (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ample time has been given for "coverage in multiple published secondary sources" to emerge. The Telegraph's decision to run an obit was perhaps ill-considered. William Avery (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the obituary thing may have one been consensus, but consensus can change. Considering that this consensus in general contributes to more articles on people in Britain and fewer on people in Ghana, I oppose it. Where is the obituary on Billy Johnson (Mormon), who clearly by any measure is notable. If you find one, I may reconsider such rules, till then I say this police sidelines Ghanaians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever read. How on earth would considering someone as notable because they have an obituary in a national newspaper in one country have any relevance to someone's notability in another? And does no Ghanaian newspaper run obituaries? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 9 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) 03:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Launch (company)

Green Launch (company) (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:NCORP. None of the sources actually mention the company. Dr. John W. Hunter may be notable but the company is not. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added an article directly referencing Green Launch (company) - "New technology testing may achieve the goals of HARP "space" gun" 3rd paragraph, 3rd Line, etal

From the comment that you removed here I gather that you have a
WP:PAID. Nevertheless I look at you source and it is affiliated because Green Lauch is using a US army facility and the source is a US army publication. The source does not help going towards showing notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I was inspired to approach wiki by
Quick Launch who had a similar technology but now hibernating and never had an operational system for testing. Obviously Project HARP
was notable, Green Launch is the current embodiment of the HARP approach to space access.

I am not being paid by Green Launch.
WP:PAID editing. When you wrote and subsequently erased We are real and reaching for the record books: you very clearly associate yourself with this company. You should make a clear and unambiguous statement of you connections with Green Launch on your user page. Also please remember to sign your comments on talk pages by using either of the buttons or by typing ~~~~. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources. Cool concept though, hopefully it becomes notable in the future --Spacepine (talk) 03:47, 7 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assault (1983 video game)

Assault (1983 video game) (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 does not seem to establish notability. Only one of the sources here is actually reliable and I haven't been able to find anything else about it - Google simply brings up unreliable sources, pages for an unrelated Namco arcade game, and stuff about World War II conflicts. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a little known game made by a small 3rd party publisher for a console that notoriously had a lot of rubbish produced for it Seasider91 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Old school games from the 8-bit era - particularly anything that came out for the ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, or BBC Micro - are almost always notable because they will have been reviewed by at least two different magazines given the prevalence of computing magazines at that time. Whilst the usual sources for reviews came up blank due to a lack of this game being ported over to more popular platforms, I do see one review in a book covering retro games: 1. The Moby database lists a 3/6 review from TeleMatch in July 1983, which is not exactly helpful since TeleMatch (a German magazine) did not have a July 1983 edition (it was a bimonthly magazine) and there was no such review in its June/July 1983 edition, however a little searching showed that it had a review of this game on p.31 of its August/September 1983 edition. Conclusion: two reviews in reliable sources, and as such, notable. FOARP (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Two multi-paragraph reviews would be considered sufficient
WP:RS
.

The early age of gaming is, if you'll forgive me a slight exaggeration, of similar significance to the early age of film and as such each game from that era has some significance.
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES does not apply where there ARE sources. FOARP (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm gonna have to agree with Jovanmilic right here. Wikipedia isn't a database for all video games, that's what Killer List of Video Games or other database sites are for. While I'm glad you've found sources for it (and rather surprised), I don't see how it's enough to warrant the page being kept. Maybe you can change my mind on it? Namcokid47 (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources weren't easy to find, but they are significant coverage in reliable sources, written decades apart. That's a pretty strong indicator of notability and meets
WP:GNG. One even points out that the game was the first to feature a particular functionality. FOARP (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The book review is not a single para, since there is preceding information on p. 32.

WP:SIGCOV is definitely met. FOARP (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

PS - one further RS review: TV Gamer, Autumn 1983, P.20. Took a lot of finding as had to go digging through magazines that aren't text-searchable and which often aren't logically arranged (e.g., games aren't in alphabetical order) and it's not clear when exactly during 1983 this launched (appears to have launched at different times in different markets, and reviewer copies seem not to have been sent out at the same time). FOARP (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article still lacks a development section of sorts, which imo should be needed for any and all video game articles. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure a development section is necessary for the article to exist, any more than a section on the recording of an album or the writing of a book is a must-have, but at the very least we know who the developers were (Bomb) and where they were from (Asia). The lack on a section about the development of the game is ultimately a page-quality issue and not for AFD. All that's really necessarily is that it should pass
WP:SIGCOV from at least two magazine reviews and a book as well as the reliable source recited in your nom. FOARP (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I think you've convinced me in keeping the page. I'll withdraw the nomination. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will strike my !Delete vote per
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks. Finding these references took a lot of work and I don't blame you or User:Namcokid47 for not finding them. Really, the original author of this article should have done a better job of finding them. FOARP (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews have been found. These games were so simple that's as long of a review as you could write for them. Dream Focus 04:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RSes have been added to the article. Phediuk (talk) 18:23, 10 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Tobacco Road Dance Productions

Tobacco Road Dance Productions (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)

While very well written, and has received some local coverage, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist one more time to see if we can get a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Help resolve disputes! 01:16, 6 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. Note: CSD#G5 is for creations by confirmed socks or banned users, and is not used for creations of suspected socks. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon in Pakistan

Doraemon in Pakistan (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)

Wholly uncited, would have moved it to draft, but for some reason I keep getting a "title protected" error message. Appears to be a fork of Doraemon in India. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't be shocked if you could scrape together an article about the proposed ban on Doraemon in Pakistan from a few years ago (it's not clear to me to what extent any such ban was ever enforced). But this isn't that article. Delete unless someone wants to start drafting said article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC) 06:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is this transcluded in Indian Deletion sorting list? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See this link regarding the "title protected" part.
talk) 20:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete totally uncited. I see no reason to keep this article. Fails
^📞 08:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and consider G5 since creator is suspected sock.
talk) 05:31, 11 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_6&oldid=1142614572"~~

[1] Leary, Partridge; popular alternatives to antibiotic feed additives in monogastric production systems; Zootecnica, June, 2008, p. 28 - 31

[2] ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.01.009

[3] ttps://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2019-0030

[4] ISSN 0040-781X
. Retrieved 2019-07-11.

[5] ISSN 0307-1235
. Retrieved 2019-07-11.

[6] "Secret source gives iLounge some Apple tablet rumor love". Engadget. Retrieved 2019-07-11.

[7] "iLounge's 2008 iPod+iPhone Buyer's Guide takes me back, still looks good". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2019-07-11.

[8] Kennedy, Erik (2007-06-10). "iLounge updates "everything iPod" guide, now with Apple TV and iPhone". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2019-08-06.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]