Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 8

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Moszkowicz

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

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

No coverage other than press releases, promotional features and passing mentions; fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and clean up), CEO of major film company. Lots of nontrivial mentions, e.g. [1], [2]. —Kusma (t·c) 09:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources like this show notability as does being the head of a major film studio and the honorary degree he got. Josalm64rc (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why is it not possible to improve the single issues instead of deleting the whole article? According to Variety [… Moszkowicz, Constantin’s head of film and TV, has become the face of Germany’s leading independent producer-distrib in recent years, overseeing such diverse concerns as film and TV production, domestic and international distribution, licensing, acquisitions and marketing. He has worked on more than 100 features, serving as producer, exec producer or production company head on such commercial and critical hits as Soenke Wortmann’s “Maybe… Maybe Not,” Michael Herbig’s “Manitou’s Shoe,” Caroline Link’s Oscar-winning “Nowhere in Africa,” Tom Tykwer’s “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer,” Oliver Hirschbiegel’s “Downfall” and Uli Edel’s “The Baader Meinhof Complex.” …] [3] Just in Variety there are 248 articles about Martin Moszkowicz: [4]Parola per parola (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about 240 of these are just that - no more than passing mentions, and effectively worthless. However, that still leaves at least half a dozen more substantial articles, which should suffice. The Variety archive clearly was a good place to look. - I'll leave this open for another day or so and then withdraw if no dissent emerges. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(NB, Parola per parola - it's useful to actually provide this type of source when starting an article. Why you would put this into mainspace as reliant on the crap sourcing originally used is mysterious. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your notes. Next time I'll try to be more effective and use the sources like this one [[5]] --Parola per parola (talk) 17:21, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kicked in the Nuts

Kicked in the Nuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find any basis for notability on this. It's been flagged as needing references for almost five years, and only has two. One reference is a college newspaper article [6] on a different topic (interviewing one of the co-creators, Mike Henry) with only one sentence on this show ("Henry and his brother Patrick also created ‘Kicked in the Nuts,” a popular and well-received entry in 2003 for Channel101.com, a short film-oriented Web site.") The other is a dead-link with no archive on the wayback machine. I independently found one other passing mention: a single sentence in the obituary [7] for the other co-creator Patrick Henry ("The pair produced a list of short films and the web series “Kicked in the Nuts,” a spoof on hidden camera shows."). Apart from that, nada.

The fact that it was alluded to in a Family Guy episode would initially suggest that it was notable enough, if it was referred to in a mainstream TV show... until you realize that the episode that referred to it was itself written by the Kicked in the Nuts co-creators.

It's been marked as needing sources for almost five years. I don't think it's going to get any; I certainly can't find any. And given that it's an Internet-based show, any sources would be likely to show up on the Internet.

I was going to take a stab at improving it, but apart from an infobox and an external link to IMDB [8], I don't see much of a way to do so, There simply isn't much of anything written about it; which is another way of saying it does not meet notability standards. TJRC (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I believe this is better considered as a short-film and not a "web series". Regardless, there is inadequate sourcing (though it is on Youtube).
  π, ν) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There isn’t much about this series I could find, imo lacks
  WP:GNG. 1989 (talk) 20:27, 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British Pearl Finance

British Pearl Finance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only "coverage" I can find are funding announcements and other

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as highly likely
  paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 16:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I do not believe this company meets
  WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by an editor with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless it is completely rewritten, for the reasons espoused above Sam-2727 (talk) 16:59, 15 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 Duttapukur. No prejudice to recreation if coverage can be found. Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dattapukur Mahesh Vidyapith

Dattapukur Mahesh Vidyapith (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 LuciferEdits (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 19:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:18, 15 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) 05:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Weyl

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

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

No evidence nor claim of notability.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 13:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete when the previous keep votes argued the person was notable because of how fast he got his Ph.D. to me that is a screaming sign that he is not notable. People are not notable because they get educated fast, and often people who plow through subjects fast do not have a deep understanding of them. OK, maybe I am biased because it was 9 years between when I started my bachelors degree and completed it, but still nothing shows this person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't have the time to invest in adding this stuff to the article, but Glen Weyl is a fairly prominent and respected figure. He's widely cited as an inventor of quadratic voting (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting-methods/#QuadVotiLiquDemo), he co-authored a popular and influential book (https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Markets-Uprooting-Capitalism-Democracy/dp/0691177503), and he's one of the founders of a new and growing political organization/movement (https://radicalxchange.org/). Just googling his name turns up a large number of news articles and videos. He's also at least as notable as his co-author on Radical Markets, Eric Posner. User:Zhoulikan
• Keep hot young intellectual needs a better article. Note incoming link from Quadratic voting, a concept Weyl co-created. Recent book was widely reviewed - I added a few of the reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)strike vote of sockpuppet.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cites you added seem to be material for the book's notability - do they cover Weyl himself in any biographical detail? - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not in depth, but multiple

WP:RS do cover his ideas in depth. Page just needs an editor, or just keep it and wait for it to be crowd-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC) strike apparent sockpuppet - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily meets
  WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The book he co-authored is notable (that's a start),
  WP:PROF. Pichpich (talk) 18:41, 15 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 spam for non-notable company — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus Consulting

Abacus Consulting (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)

Promotional content, non-notable company, started by

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. Appears to be a
  WP:G11. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 23:19, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J Farell

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

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

There's no claim of notability (or references) in the article and a Google search turned up almost nothing about him, let alone anything reliable and verifiable that would support notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know why this page was never CSD'ed to begin with, page never had references, but not sure if we can do that now. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I Searched Google and didn't found substantial information to support notability. Barca (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could have been speedied as A7 or BLPPROD'ed since there are no references. Now that it's at AfD, we need to check if there's any significant coverage of this man: I did not find any and I think he plainly fails
  WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 15 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandrine Le Normant d'Étiolles

Alexandrine Le Normant d'Étiolles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not independently notable. Not legitimate, so no claim to the throne. Scandal was about her mother, so no need for a separate article about this 9-year-old girl. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Her notability is not demonstrated by any claim to the throne but by the fact that she has been the subject of sustained interest by historians and biographers, as attested by the references provided in the article. There’s ‘no need’ for much of Wikipedia, but we judge notability on sourcing, meaning this clearly passes. Mccapra (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the sources cited are about her but about her mother. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes the sources are all books about her mother, but they all make reference to the daughter. The girl’s entire life is known through these sources. AFAIK every book about her mother discusses the daughter means so she has received sustained coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The girl was not historically significant, but per our guidelines she was notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete her mother was notable, nothing suggests that this 9 year old girl ever rose to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • … apart from all of the history books with her life in them. Not even cited in the article is
    fame and importance, years ago. It was wrong. Uncle G (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge briefly to her mother, who was an extremely notable royal mistress. She is certainly not independently notable. Even if she had been legitimate, a princess being educated in a convent would hardly be notable by the age of 9. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think you are mixing up significance with notability. There is no argument at all that she was significant. However if you look at
  WP:BASIC you’ll see she definitely passes our notability threshold. Mccapra (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Regarded by a king as his stepdaughter. Definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient coverage, though this could possibly be handled in a section of her mother's article.
  π, ν) 20:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I think merging to her mother would lead to a rather lengthy digression so keeping a (well-referenced) separate article is most appropriate. Pichpich (talk) 19:54, 15 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) 06:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Football Scouts Association

Professional Football Scouts Association (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 organisation. About 11 hits on GNews, no verifiable hits on Gbooks. I don't see the sort of in-depth coverage in a variety of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GS – Levivich 17:29, 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 redirect to Encantadia. Lacks evidence of separate notability. RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muros (Encantadia)

Muros (Encantadia) (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 fantasy character, not to mention that there is no mention of the character's real-world background and cultural impact in order to establish its notability. I don't mind its inclusion as a separate article in Wikipedia, but unless OP provides anything to back up its notability, the deletion request still remains. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think that it's necessary for an article to have a cultural impact if it's literally a piece of the culture itself. This article is creating a more in depth understanding of the story line it comes from, and adding that information to Wikipedia --regardless of it's cultural significance-- seems appropriate to me. The character was created for the story line, which is in itself, culturally significant. Keep, because it is a good piece of information, even if it is rather insignificant, to have in the Wikipedia database. BluePankow ✉ 14:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The following parts, "it is a good piece of information" and "The character was created for the story line, which is in itself, culturally significant", are not good "keep" arguments. I would recommend instead finding coverage of the character in third-party, reliable sources to prove notability to make a stronger argument to keep the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Encantadia as there does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to support notability. It could be a viable search term though so I think a redirect would be better and more helpful than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:GNG to become an independent article. 1989 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Incredibly
  chatter) 16:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:27, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publish and Be Damned

Publish and Be Damned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources are cited to show that the topic is notable. In fact, no sources are cited that mention the topic at all. This may be the same topic previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publish and be damned, which was unanimously agreed to be deleted in 2005 and was deleted again in 2006. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After sifting through a few pages of results for "Publish and Be Damned" + "publishing fair" on Google, the only in-depth coverage I found was this and this, which isn't enough to pass GNG. I also found some blog coverage, but no other reliable sources. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my !vote to neutral based on the sources found by E.M.Gregory. Unfortunately, the databases I have available to me do not index The Guardian or Artforum, so I'm not able to evaluate whether these additional sources provide significant coverage or are just routine coverage (as BarrelProof seems to think). – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if the publishing fair is deemed non notable then this term should be redirected to
  WP:2DABPRIMARY will do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• {{{1}}}

• • Most of the identified sources, which apparently took some effort to dig up (by someone who thinks the article should be deleted), are just minor promotional material and routine announcements of what's happening around town. The only source linked in the article is identified as an "event notice" and is only 12 sentences long (and has an ungrammatical sentence). Clearly this was a pretty minor event. We should not have articles about every little fair that is held at the local high school gymnasium church crypt, which seems to be roughly what this article is. This article is doomed to perma-stub status and should be deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• permanent stub status is a common and unobjectionable feature of Wikipedia. Many bried articles are worth keeping. this one does need improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I object. I find it very objectionable. If something is so non-notable that even after looking for sources we can't find anything that really discusses the subject in detail, and if that situation looks like it is never going to change (e.g. because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct, so that no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication), then we should not maintain a perma-stub about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be used as a vanity press, obscure fan site, or personal blogging site. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is always a good idea to look at the most recent updates before opining. And, when sources have been found, doing a fresh
  WP:BEFORE could not source. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I did review the latest changes before making that comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• p.s. - we really should have a stand alone article on Wellington and his phrase.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already an article on Wellington and it discusses his phrase. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am aware. What I intended to suggest is that an article on the subsequent uses to which the phrase has been put would be worth having.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is plenty written about this event. I did a simple article search in my library's article database for the event and its curators and found seven (7) references, e.g. Zappaterra, Y. (2006). Punk publishing. Design Week, 21(30), 36-36. I find the dismissive tone above "about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct" objectionable. Wikipedia is the ideal venue for such information. It is what many people come here for. Emphatic Keep. Gerntrash (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it was cited in this doctoral dissertation: Sullivan, Molly E. The Multivalent Platforms of Alternative Art Publications as Agents of Authentic Cultural Change, University of Southern California, 2010. Gerntrash (talk) 14:44, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aybars İbak

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}}.

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

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

The sources are all very short pieces that have no by-line in sources that seem to be mostly user-generated such as imdb, haber life, kimnereli where you can email your bio for publication etc etc. The sites seem to have no staff. This is a case of way

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is not a valid reason for me because there is no such thing as every news headline will be long, and when it comes to IMDb, there may be only known people in IMDb. Paulahted^(T) 8 August 2019 (UTC) — Paulahted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Paulahted: the above comment is your only edit to Wikipedia – you joined Wikipedia just to comment on this AfD? Richard3120 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the sources are the same biographical paragraph, he does't pass
  WP:GNG he maybe notable someday but he's not notable now. Whispering^(t) 15:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. The sources are unreliable and they do not help with establishing the subject's notability. He does not pass
  WP:GNG, at least for now. Keivan.f^Talk 06:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Resources seem to be sufficient. It's okay to stay. What is mentioned in the news is that the person (child) is slowly becoming a nationally recognized child. Kimnereli.net is a site where only well-known people are present and their personal information is provided. Sites like: famousbirthdays.com The information available by e-mail is an option for lesser-known people, and in such cases there is the “special request” sign in parentheses. Prianhana^(T) 7:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Prianhana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep editors of kimnereli style sites find things like birth date, height, biography from the internet. If they can’t find. E-mail option is available to receive e-mail from people who know it or from the manager of that famous name In very rare cases famous people can also e-mail. Huriyeot45^(T) 9:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Huriyeot45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep I can't see anything negative on the referenced sites. Only known, well-known people can be found on Imdb and kimnereli sites.Tarikmarulanson 12:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Tarikmarulanson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment to closing administrator:
  WP:MEATPUPPET alert – every one of the "keep" voters has joined Wikipedia in the last 24 hours, and all of them by coincidence have decided to use the same font for their signatures. Richard3120 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I reviewed the given sources There are no problems in the sources. Fikeithomas 20:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Fikeithomas (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Sockpuppet contributions struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fikeithomas. Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as not currently meeting
  WP:NBIO, created by a sock and supported by a flock of sox. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There seems to be some problems with the sources, but I think the person is worth notable.User:Kimfromkorea (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC) blocked sock Dom from Paris (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Definitely
  ZettaComposer (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep This person maybe a notable.Correcting the sources may not be a problem.Resources can be corrected.185.82.218.139 (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)— 185.82.218.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Weak Keep Once the necessary resources are added and corrected, the person can be everytime notable. (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)—(talk) Striking yet another blocked sockpuppet !vote...this must be a record! --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:15, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethical banks

List of ethical banks (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)

Although I accept that 'ethical banking' is a real phenomenon, this list is inevitably problematic.

• The nature of the title gives it an innate POV slant that is going to be very difficult to overcome (and are we saying that banks not included in this list are not ethical?).
• The criteria for inclusion are unclear, all banks presumably consider themselves 'ethical'.
• It's a pretty broad term that is impossible to objectively assess. Just look at the section in the main article about judging what is ethical. If Mill, Kant and Aristotle can't agree then how will Wikipedia editors?
• Finally, what one source might describe as 'ethical' will vary from what another might.

A redirection to Ethical banking could be an option but I oppose that on the grounds that there is currently no such list in that page, and I would avoid ever creating one for precisely the reasons given here. Hug^syrup 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ethical is a subjective phrase, and even if the term ethical bank reffered to a bank with a specific type of business model, there is no objective way of determining whether a bank matches the criteria. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Only banks identified as such by reliable sources should be included (e.g. The Guardian[9], The Ecologist[10], a Journal of Business Ethics article[11]), but that's an issue for cleanup, not deletion. The delete lvoters are focusing on the general meaning of the word "ethical" rather than the specialized, financial one. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​Nope. Read the second half of my sentence. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 20:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, how are we to know that those articles are referring to a 'specialized financial meaning'? None of the three links you provide refer to any objective specialized meaning, they simply describe a bank as ethical without further explanation, or describe it as a strategic positioning of that bank. Indeed, the Ecologist article notably places ethical bank in scare quotes every time, which rather illustrates my point. Hug^syrup 07:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTDIR. Ethical is a point-of-view that may differ depending on who defines something as ethical. Ajf773 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Hugsyrup,
  talk) 03:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is a super subjective term, all the more so considering how long banks can exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nom and others; this is highly subjective and therefore highly problematic. Even if we only listed those banks that were noted by independent sources to be "ethical", this is subject to change without additional coverage. Nope. Pegnawl (talk) 21:29, 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.

Cycle Gear

Cycle Gear (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 can not find any sources that indicate subject meets

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 12:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 20:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Ryukyuan and Okinawan Studies

International Association of Ryukyuan and Okinawan Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find any significant sources that establish notability of this organisation. Collaboratio (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:GNG. Sadly, their work looks interesting - the Ryukyuan languages are fascinating. Bearian (talk
  )

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cichy

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

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

Subject does not appear to

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable hockey plaeyr.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flowmaster

Flowmaster (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)

Promotional article about non-notable company with no substantial, independent coverage. Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Appears to be a direct violation of
  WP:G11. The "article" doesn't even have any references. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete G11 per PuzzledVegtable, unsourced and clearly promotional. ~~
  - talk 18:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete per G11. Pretty much cut-and-dried self-promotion. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to parent company
  price list or call to action as might be expected in blatant promotion. But this standalone article of a fairly known brand does have its problems. StonyBrook (talk) 01:46, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Bruess

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

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

Subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:39, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Bielke

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

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

Subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:58, 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. Clear consensus to delete. I would encourage User:Bobo192 to tone it down a bit with the accusations of lying.Making mistakes is human and AGF is expected from all editors, especially sysops. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmasdrasinhji

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

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

Does not meet GNG. Only statistical profiles and a scorecard found on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. I could not even find this name in Saurashtra Cricket Association database (http://www.saucricket.com/MenPlayers/Detail?PlayerName=dharmasdrasinhji). Dee03 08:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dee03 08:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment he does appear in the database: here, but it reveals no further information, and remains a bare statistical profile. Harrias ^talk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, Dee. Now not only are we trying to censor information, but we are lying in the process of doing so. The sad state of Wikipedia. Bobo. 10:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Bobo192, you're better than that. I'm confident that Dee03 searched in good faith, but didn't think to split the name. I only found it by trawling through manually. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me you can at least understand my frustration. I've been working my tuchis off for 15 years only for people to come along and say my work is unacceptable. This is why I'm upset. Bobo. 10:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse me of lying. I input the exact name provided by you in the article and got zero results on the Saurashtra website. I was searching that site only hoping to find this person's full name as I had just found

another Saurashtra cricketer's first name there. Now even if this cricketer's name is found (in a different form) on some other statistical website, it does not change the fact that he does not meet GNG. Dee03 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Although he meets
  WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

He does meet N. This is the whole point. N states "or". Bobo. 10:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. However, while some SSGs such as

WP:CRIN are not an alternative, as confirmed by community consensus in this discussion. Harrias ^talk 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Then you are lying too. Well done. Lying has got this whole project and this whole debate where it is. What a sad state of affairs. Bobo. 10:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"CRIN is just a rule of thumb which suggests whether a player will meet N". CRIN is just as much a "guideline" as N. As long as N states "or", the two guidelines are of equal footing. Bobo. 10:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest no, your understanding is flawed. Harrias ^talk 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I was just pointing out the irony that both were of equal footing and yet one is given more credence than the other even though N clearly states or. Bobo. 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time. Bobo. 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have a universe to attend to. I may be back. I may not... Bobo. 10:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- another virtually empty article about an obscure cricketer, full name unknown, based on pure stats databases containing not a single word of prose. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone article. A merge might be possible if there is a good target article. Calling people liars merely for disagreeing isn't acceptable behaviour. Reyk _YO! 12:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A claim was made. It was immediately proven to be false. How much more information do you want in the article? Any further information would be superfluous and unnecessary. Bobo. 14:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. It consists of brief notes transcribed from a statistical source and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion to a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable criketeer who does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers - this seems better than deleting and the incomplete list can be worked on at some point I'm sure. The lack of biographical information and single known match suggest very strongly that suitable sources for a standalone article are unlikely to be provided in the foreseeable future. If they are then we can create the article easily enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
  π, ν) 20:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Sharma

Alisha Sharma (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)