Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 July	14 July >

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. I see a consensus that the subject fails

WP:GNG as articles on numerous historical figures attest. Just Chilling (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

William Van Orden

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

Van Orden was a member of the militia of a city. He was not even a high ranking officer in that militia, which in and of itself would not make him notable, nor was he a member of it when it was continued under the same name as a territorial militia and fought multiple wars. He was not even an active officer in 1845 when the Nauvoo Militia was involved with skirmishes with other militia's in Hancock County, Illinois trying to discourage the burning of crops and houses. No, he was part of the honor gaurd for the slain head of the militia, and then got pnemonia and died. The first source mentions him as an example of the everman, only because the author is his direct descendant. The second is a family geneological web page. Nothing comes even remotely close to showing notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the article written in the Deseret News qualifies his notability as being an ancestor of the author. Does not meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisarepa (talk • contribs) 2019-07-14T00:31:33 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is a "redirect" (depending on wikistats of reader hits on this page?( (no, i don't know what the target would be) out of the question? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
Death of Joseph Smith. BIO1E, seems to fail GNG. Died while guarding Smith's body. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Unless we are treating Brigham Young University as some sort of diploma mill now, I am inclined to treat The Lives of William Van Orden and Julia Ann Haight Van Orden, a history written by Bruce A. Van Orden, as a source written by an identifiable credentialled expert historian, including plenty of notes about primary sources to back it up. That said, it really spends most of its time not talking about this person. There's a dearth of information even in Professor Van Orden's history, which has birth, marriage, death, purchase and sale of two things, the fact that he was a farmer (and might have done other things, although this is not nailed down as fact) and a lot of content about other events and other people. A quick search of the history books shows that this person otherwise gets a mention in the context of "the William Van Orden family" and that's about it. There simply isn't enough to hang a biography off, from Professor Van Orden or otherwise. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a PDF published on the family's website - vanordenfamily.org - which states explicitly that it "Bruce A. Van Orden, a great great grandson, Written in 2004, the 200th Anniversary of William’s Birth". The author is a qualified expert, however it is hard to call this an
  WP:INDEPENDENT source, and publication on a family website (without citations, in a voice that is far from undetached) is a tad different from most academic publications (e.g. [1]) by the same author. Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I am well aware of it being a PDF. I have read it. In your eagerness to overstretch the independence criterion beyond advertising and autobiography of a person who died almost a century and three quarters ago, you have missed the wood for the trees. It doesn't actually provide information beyond the basic genealogy. There are four citations on its page 2 alone, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. This is a family history written by a descendent. Writing these histories (and other genealogical work) is very common within the LDS religion (and strongly promoted by the religion) and the existence of such a history does not by itself indicate significance of a subject regardless of whether or not the author can be considered an expert historian. There are tens of thousands of these that have been written by LDS people, some of whom happen to be experts in history. Paisarepa (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, whether they are LDS or not is irrelevant, and it is the expertise of the author, the fact checking, the provenance, and the depth of the source that counts. Which is why the better argument at AFD is to read the source and determine and report how in-depth it is, as I did, rather than, as you are, attempting to dismiss a whole class of sources for fallacious reasons. Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The author's religion is not relevant to the question of whether or not William Van Orden is a notable person, but it does provide context that helps explain why the author created this document about a person who is not generally notable. Note that the author did not publish the document in a manner consistent with his other academic publishing, nor does the author make an explicit or implicit claim that the subject of the document is notable other than in a relatively narrow context. Rather, the fact that the document was published on the family's website implies that the author was aware that the subject would be considered notable only by a limited audience, primarily his descendants. The document is an expertly written piece of family history but in this case neither the quality of the document nor the fact that the author is an expert historian makes the document evidence that the subject is notable on the level required for inclusion on Wikipedia. Paisarepa (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also if that work on William and Julia gives William notability, we should also create an article on Julia Haight Van Orden. Of course the first Wikipedia article I ever created was on Phoebe Carter Woodruff so I think that has some validity, although others clearly have not agreed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not providing information beyond genealogy generally does not, because all that we get from that is a genealogy database, which what Wikipedia is not. And it was Phoebe Whittemore Carter. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the points given in the article (a member of legion, guarding the bodies, die from pneumonia) makes him notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial claim of importance or significance, and the references are all personal histories written by his descendants (and not independent).
π, ν) 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- Nothing in the content shows notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^📞 17:35, 20 July 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. Unanimity that this website fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Financer

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

This website is not notable--the references are essentially press releases. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or are puff pieces on the founder. This is after a pile of bad references and puffery were removed. There just isn't really evidence this passes
WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It has nothing that shows it passes
WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
talk) 11:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete because both notability issue and
WP:GNG failure.Forest90 (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete clearly fails
^📞 17:39, 20 July 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. Unanimity that the subject fails

WP:BAND. Just Chilling (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Proximity butterfly

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Article appears to have been written by a member of the band, and primary claims of notability are 1) featured in a Rolling Stone Magazine article, and 2) listed as having had one of the top 50 albums in mainland China by That's Shanghai magazine.

The Rolling Stone source is obviously incorrect, as it cites issue 243 which was published in 1977, more than 25 years before this band became active. There may be another article that does feature this band, but I was unable to find it. The WP article also cites an LA Times article for the same claim, but the actual LA Times article never mentions Proximity Butterfly. The That's Shanghai article does appear to be legitimate, but is not sufficient to meet WP:BAND. Paisarepa (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. There is no substantial coverage of this band.
talk) 15:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the article. AS above, the Article obviously fails both
WP:BAND.Forest90 (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

FYI, nominators comment about the Rolling Stone issue: just a guess, but the reference may be to the Chinese Edition of Rolling Stone. International editions of Rolling Stone have different numbering than the "official" U.S. counterpart. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't appear to meet
^📞 17:28, 20 July 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. Haukur (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Brown

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

Subject is an academic and an author. No indication in the article that he meets WP:NACADEMIC. As for WP:AUTHOR, he wrote one book that is somewhat known but doesn't appear to rise to the notability standard. There is a claim that the book was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize, but it is unsourced and I have been unable to verify it. Paisarepa (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- nominator. I can't withdraw the nomination since there are others supporting delete, but I am changing my support to keep (and will be providing the trout...) Paisarepa (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being nominated for an award does not make a work notable in most cases, nominations are often cheap. We would need multiple reviews showing that Brown's bio of Hofstaer is notable to show that Brown is a notable writer and that is lacking. I have to wonder if the article is outdated since it mentions his last work was 10 years ago. Ok, most historians do not have the output level of
Fred E. Woods (that article I do not think has been updated with all his works), although Woods publishes multiple works that are variations on the same theme, and Woods is more a compiler than a writer of prose, but there is no indication that Brown is seen as an impactful historian, and I say that as someone who has engaged more in metahistorial intellectual history studies than many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Setting aside the supposed Pulitzer nomination, his faculty profile already makes a clear case for
WP:AUTHOR (multiple published reviews of his books): "David Brown, Raffensperger Professor of History ... His work has been reviewed in the New York Times, New York Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, (London) Sunday Times, The Irish Times, and The Australian." As nominated, the article already contained external links to NYT and WSJ reviews of his books, so there is little excuse for the nominator to have failed to account for this in the nomination, and even less excuse for JPL to say we "need multiple reviews" when those reviews are already present. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment Major thanks for the improvements to the article. And you're right, I shouldn't have missed the NYT and WSJ reviews. Paisarepa (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Passes
WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- Holder of a named professorship and author of several books that are likely themselves to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure he passes NPROF(5) (as
WP:NBOOK and to a lesser degree Beyond the Frontier: The Midwestern Voice in American Historical Writing would as well - convincing me that NAUTHOR is quite likely to be met (as might NPROF). Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

HEY Keep. Kudos to David Epstein for sourcing and improving the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 16 July 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. Whilst there is significant support for a Dave MacKay and Vicky Hamilton page that is not the consensus. I see the consensus to be 'keep' but recommend a post-AfD 'move' discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Hamilton (musician)

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

No notability outside of forming a duo with Dave MacKay. Not even any solo releases. Merge or redirect?

talk) 02:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Dave Mackay (musician), because all of her known works were with him. Note that Hamilton has been mentioned in the recent news reports about the 2008 Universal Studios fire, but she was just one of many whose works may have been lost. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added sources and quotes from reviews to the article. If this is merged, then at least there will be more about her. I have also made a small edit to the article about
WP:NALBUM #1? Then perhaps this article could be re-written to be mainly about that album, and her name could be redirected to it???? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's the practical issue of how Twitter or Wikipedia's Women in Red project would respond to an AfD redirecting a jazz singer's article to her husband's with the rationale "all her known works were with him", and I don't want to get into that. Regardless, if they are noteworthy as a duo and MacKay is notable on his own, then the only real solutions are that we either have a page called Dave MacKay and Vicky Hamilton for them as a duo and redirect this article there, or we have an article for her herself. Given the fleshing-out this article has just obtained, the latter seems just fine to me. Chubbles (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the previous voter who is possibly being accused of something here. I actually think that a Move to Dave MacKay and Vicky Hamilton is a reasonable suggestion, because they released albums as a duo. But like it or not, even the recently-added sources continue to confirm that Hamilton has no solo works, and that is necessary for a solo article. Meanwhile I am stumped on how fears of Twitter flak matter for a discussion of someone's notability in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chubbles: there's really just a practical issue of working against systemic bias on Wikipedia. You shouldn't worry about what a certain WikiProject thinks: instead worry about fighting that bias and I think your suggestion about creating a duo page does just that. That's an excellent idea and I would support that. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Chubbles. BurmesePokemon (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or create merged article named for the duo. Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article is my first vote, because it's notable. But merging the article is the better option, and my second vote is merge the Article with Dave Mackay (musician).Forest90 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or create Dave MacKay and Vicky Hamilton. Having solo works has not been necessary in past AfDs for solo articles about musicians who only recorded with others - the question is whether reviewers noticed and wrote about the musician's work. The best coverage I found of her was in the New York Times - the other sources found so far do talk about them as a duo. There is enough coverage to have an article about the duo, if it's not considered enough to have one about her - so I do not think that she should be merged into the existing article about Dave Mackay (musician). The section in that article about the duo could be brief, and point to an article about the duo. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:16, 20 July 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. Unanimity that all three films fail

WP:NFILM. Just Chilling (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

After Shave (1999 film)

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

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

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

Three completely unsourced articles about short films with no credible claim to passing

WP:GNG. But none of these three films have either of those things at all, and they're not exempted from having to have notability claims just because they're available on YouTube either. Mitrani's feature films ain't going anywhere, because they all clear NFILM much better even if the articles technically still need improvement, but his pre-Igor Rizzi short films just don't clear the notability bar at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Howwever, @Bearcat: there only appears to be two films in the nom, not three, with the first and third films listed twice. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I had changed the third film in the "find sources" link, but forgot to change it in the "la" template. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. All three films fail
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:14, 20 July 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. Unanimity that this series of documentary movies fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn V Quarterly Reports

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

Article about a documentary film series, not

blog and YouTube copies of the films themselves, not reliable source media coverage about the films as would be required to deem them notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A peculiar construction - literally a list of sources, referenced to a list of these sources. There's no article here, nor a basis for one. Maybe these would make a useful extrnal link at Saturn (rocket family). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really, this looks more like a link dump at this point. Make a mention in Saturn V and delete the rest, as it's not really an article nor has notability outside of Saturn V. I also don't believe a redirect is helpful in this instance. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because fails
WP:NFILM.Forest90 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 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 that the subject fails

WP:POLITICIAN. Just Chilling (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Felix Chidi Idiga

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

Fails

WP:POLITICIAN. They're a couple of passing mentions about subject outside that no in-depth coverage at this time. He was a candidate for House of Representatives which he was never elected to or participated in elections. Lapablo (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I read this right, Idiga withdrew before the election. I have to admit that it is notoriously hard to find articles on some political leaders in countries in Africa, for example our article on Norman Kamosi would fail under most interpretations of GNG, except that he was a member of the parliament of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (well, actually of Zaire I believe). It still bothers me that I have not been able to dig up better sources on that. Instead everything I ever found on him post dates his fleeing to the United States in 1998 and is coverage more of his roles in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, such as president of a French-language branch in Metro DC and later as head of public relations for the building of the Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple. Even if today he may be a counselor in the Kinshasa Temple Preidency, and even if as is semi likely he is made the 2nd president of the temple in about 2 and a half years, none of that would be close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some corrections to the article, added more reliable sources from

The Daily Independent (Lagos newspaper), Leadership (newspaper), Legit.ng, Premium Times, Daily Post (Nigeria), Media Trust, The Nation (Nigeria). Kindly do reconsider your vote, Thank you. Jesusonogor (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I have replied to your post on my talkpage as you posted same here but unfortunately those are just passing mentions of the subject and nothing indepth. Lapablo (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I replied with sources where the subject was discussed extensively, kindly peruse through.Jesusonogor (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy
WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:POLITICIAN have been removed from the article, more reliable source about notability have been added, please do reconsider your vote.Jesusonogor (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete both a fail of
WP:NPOL. The language (ex: "Business Mogul") and "own work" photo appear to indicate that the article was created by someone with a close connection to the subject as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fail Passes
WP:GNG - MA Javadi (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I have addressed the issues you raised on the article. During my search on the subject i found out that he has received significant coverage from reliable sources according to

The Daily Independent (Lagos newspaper) https://www.independent.ng/gogan-urges-govs-nass-members-elect-to-partner-with-buhari-for-good-governance/?amp_markup=1, Leadership (newspaper) https://leadership.ng/2019/04/16/pmbs-records-of-good-governance-unmatched-gogan/. These are some of the most reliable sources in Nigeria, please kindly reconsider your vote.Jesusonogor (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this does not make a strong case that he has preexisting notability for his career in business, as the sourcing for that part of his background is entirely to glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things besides himself and/or his company's own
self-published website. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 17 July 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. This has been a poorly attended AfD but there is a light consensus for deletion. There have been no comments for over a fortnight so I don't think that yet another reist can be justified. Just Chilling (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Tel K. Ganesan

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

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

It does not appear he has directed any notable films, or founded any notable companies. The various listings in "outstanding young entrepreneur in Michigan " and the like are just PR. The references as well, as either Pr, rivial, or both. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete not every company head is notable, and there is just plain not enough coverage to show notability in other ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not think that being included in 50 Names to know in information technology – Crain’s Detroit Business can be considered public relations. Crain's Detroit Business is a reliable source and I think it made its judgements independently. Even of the person or his company asked for him to be included, the decision to include him was that of a journalist based on journalistic criteria. (Or at lest that seems to be the case to me from a considerable distance from Detroit.) US Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce Education Foundation's list may have been created in part to promote its members and the reference is a press release, but it may be notable depending on the media attention it received. Ernst & Young's list is valid if it received appropriate media attention. An big accounting firm talking about itself does not create notability, but when it talks about others in a context where it is not trying to pomote a client or supplier, it is probably a reliable source. The India West reference isn't very good (it doesn't define the acronym ILA), but hanging out with the Indian ambassador suggests that something is important. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 19:44, 13 July 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. Unanimity that this beverage fails our notability standards. Just Chilling (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weingarten (cocktail)

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

No sources listed in the article or found anywhere. This drink is unremarkable, and essentially just the vodka-cranberry/Cape Codder cocktail. $ɱ$ (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

ɱ

(talk) 19:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence for this either. Andrew D. (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources whatsoever for this drink. Searching for "weingarten" and any combination of the ingredients listed nothing by that name. CThomas³ (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this silly - how original can it be to mix cranberry juice with booze? No evidence is offered for this name.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability in sources. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for sources came up with nothing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it's not notable itself and also proper sources which cover the subject can't find.Forest90 (talk) 12:18, 20 July 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. Unanimity that the subject fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew John Caldwell

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

Article fails

WP:CREATIVE. Most of the references make no mention of the subject especially the sources from BBC. Lapablo (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails
WP:MUSICBIO. Likely autobiography (as you would expect from a PR guy), and leaving aside the fact that the majority of the sources fail WP:RS, the twelve sources currently in the article are four articles written by Mr. Caldwell himself, four sources talking about how he has authored a chapter about publicity in a non-notable book, an interview with him (primary source) on a website which charges to market your music, one radio show on which his song was played (probably not on rotation, but it's impossible to verify), and two articles about how he organised a street party in his home town. No in-depth reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Sources in the page are not
WP:CREATIVE, which he anyway doesn't meet). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. This appears to be a
run of the mill producer and DJ - one of tens of thousands in UK alone. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 18 July 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.

(non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ignition (video game)

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

Very poorly cited article. Due to the commonality of the name looking for sources was difficult, but searches in News and Books did not uncover enough in-depth coverage to show it meets

WP:GNG. Was a redirect, but another editor insists of page re-creation without any attempt at improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage (multiple reviews) by reliable sources as listed by Mobygames.[3] Other sources available with more research, such as this review in Russian magazine Games.EXE.[4]-
n 19:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
~~Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Keep. Mobygames lists 24 press reviews and many are from reliable sources. Phediuk (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found the Gamezone (Germany),
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - per Jovanmilic97. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:11, 15 July 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.

^📞 18:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ted Terry (politician)

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

WP:NPOL #2. As always, smalltown mayors are not automatically handed a notability freebie just because one or two pieces of purely local media coverage in their home media market can be shown to verify that they exist -- at this level of significance, the notability test is the ability to show a depth and range of coverage that marks him out as much more notable than most other mayors of places this size, such as nationalizing beyond just the local media. But people also don't get Wikipedia articles just for declaring their candidacies in future political party primaries, or for being the Eliza Doolittle in one episode of a television makeover show -- so nothing else here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have nationalizing coverage of his mayoralty. Of course, no prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if he wins the congressional election, but nothing here constitutes a reason why he would already qualify for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of the article I will not vote in this discussion, but I will note several RS articles that seem to cover Terry in depth: the Guardian, the Economist, Mother Jones, and (if interviews count) Vice. Also, all of these sources except the Mother Jones one were published before he appeared on Queer Eye. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the subject appears to pass
WP:GNG independently of the subject's campaign for US Senate. --Enos733 (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I agree with Enos733's comments re the additional sources cited by IntoThinAir. --Krelnik (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Enos733 and Krelnik comments regarding IntoThinAir's sources --Blahblah29 (talk) 01:50, 19 July 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 that this film fails

WP:NFILM. Just Chilling (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Cradle Song (1981 film)

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing

WP:GNG on the sourcing. But there are no references being cited here at all besides the IMDb profile itself, and even the IMDb profile doesn't list any awards that would count as notability-makers either. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No media coverage that I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all the above. Barca (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article. As above the article fails
WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator

(non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Monique Wilson (witch)

)

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

Does not meet WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Subject is not notable. Paisarepa (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator I failed to search the subject's maiden name and most importantly, her 'witch' name before nominating; information found in these searches indicates that she does meet WP:GNG. Paisarepa (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Possible
WP:BEFORE? A Google book search turns up a number of citations that have not been added to the article. I added one for a Sociology journal I found on JSTOR. A search should also be made under her "witch" name "Lady Olwyn" and her maiden name before discarding the article. Seems like there is enough online that may justify notability. Netherzone (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Passes
WP:GNG - After a search on Google Books, JSTOR and Newspapers.com, I found many news articles (mainly from the 1960s and 70s), a couple books and a scholarly paper. I've added a few of these to the reference section of the article. Netherzone (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP per Netherzone. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 01:25, 17 July 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. Unanimity that this duo fail notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kasler and Wilkie

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

Article about a musical theatre composing duo, not

WP:NOTLINKEDIN, and is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to place themselves for extra publicity — we're an encyclopedia, on which making it comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of RS coverage. Sources are a) the subject's own website, b) a school media source, and c) BroadwayWorld.com, which is a user submitted site for registered members, per [15]. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A google search does not turn up any noteworthy works by the subjects. However, User:ShelbyMarion is wrong about BWW. Readers can submit material for editorial consideration, but their editors decide whether it gets published in any form. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BWW is a mixture of editorial oversight and user submissions which, are, indeed, reviewed and edited for appropriateness and grammar/style, etc., much the same way "letters to the editor" make their way into RS magazines and newspapers after staff checks it over for appropriateness/edits before publishing. The dividing line between what's genuine coverage and user submitted is in the byline: one of them gets an actual byline, the other--user submitted stuff edited by staff, such as this expample--is credited to "BWW News Desk," because the actual author is the person who submitted it. If nothing else, it makes for confusion in whether any particular article in BWW can be considered Reliable coverage or not. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:47, 13 July 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. Unanimity that this software fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PjBmp2Avi

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

This was recently prodded by Premeditated Chaos, with the rationale "Non-notable piece of computer software. Can't find any independent in-depth sources discussing the program. Being listed on download sites isn't sufficient for notability." However, as it was already prodded in 2006, it cannot be prodded again. I agree with the rationale so I am taking it to AfD instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my PROD rationale. Thank you for converting this to an AfD, David :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any reason for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per
WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the Article, it's not notable enough.Forest90 (talk) 12:23, 20 July 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) 🐱 17:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Student loans refinancing

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

Poorly written, unencyclopedic orphan that is better suited as a small section in a related article about student loans. This page is written like a guide. Also, I am not sure that the page title is even appropriate. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 16:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTGUIDE. Mccapra (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Mccapra. ElKevbo (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete.
WP:NOTGUIDE and not an encyclopedic topic. Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
neither the title nor tone are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete because
WP:NOTGUIDE.Forest90 (talk) 12:26, 20 July 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Shaji Mathew

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

Non notable producer. Being one of the producers of some low key festival movies is not enough to impart any notability to the said person. Has been made by a user with an obvious

WP:COI, who has made all the articles for everyone and every movie associated with some movie making collective Jupitus Smart 16:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 13 July 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 Deleted as "

G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban" by User:Bbb23

. (I am only closing the Afd.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinaya Seshan

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

The prod was removed by user "Sanai Jeo" (possible sock account) with no convincing statements and appears to have a conflict of interest. The subject fails

WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does fail NFOOTY. Further, the way it is written, it focuses on her performance in the Dance World Cup. This is not a notable competition, and the gold medals mentioned were for team performances, not solo. Yes, there are sources, but they don't seem to go in depth about her—one doesn't even mention her last name. At best, she is a non-notable student. At worst, Wikipedia is not the place to puff up somebody's profile before they apply to university. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gold medallist at the
Hip-hop dance a couple of days ago by the same editor who created this article! Now removed, as the only source was its own website. If the DWC is really notable, someone should create an article about it. Winning a medal there might then give this person a claim to notability. For now, nothing. PamD 10:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Subject doesn't seem notable to me, and editing behavior on this article suggests possible COI/UPE activity. Aspening (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these remarks at the talk page, at least one editor is connected or otherwise has a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 14 July 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) 🐱 17:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birger Sellin

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

It's true that he has a book that he allegedly wrote through

talk) 14:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. That is clearly lacking here. What we need is an indepth and balanced article on facilitated communication, with a proper level of skepticism. We need to avoid dragging people into this. Basically, getting a book published does not make someone default notable. I have to question why then running after a ball in one game can make you notable, but this is not the place to attack the horribly over broad inclusion cretieria for footballers. Being a published writer does not make one default notable, and so Sellin is not clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
WP:NFRINGE requires that the subject's notability be established with sources skeptical of the fringe claim. It is not clear the fringe notability guidelines are satisfied. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 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) 🐱 17:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dese Majoo Hartaal

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

Yeah, this is not a real thing. It's a spam factory. I have personally connected 5 out of the 14 links to an alias identical or eerily similar to the username that created this article. I am now reviewing all their contributions for promo/spam. More might be incoming. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is purely promotional artice. It doesn't qualify to be a Wiki page.Ozar77 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozar77 (talk • contribs)
Delete Sock Spam. Szzuk (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination - MA Javadi (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn

(non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Krishna Tithi Khan

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

Bangladeshi singer who fails

(T) 13:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 13:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 13:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 13:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep according to this source here she did participate in two national TV singing competitions, winning one of them outright so she passes
WP:NMUSIC for passing a significant music competion and should not be deleted, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

(T) 07:35, 16 July 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. G7 by RHaworth.

π, ν) 20:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

ITSM-OPS

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

Misuse of Wikipedia as a free web host. MER-C 11:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello,

I should be grateful if you could kindly not delete this page as it will be benficial to the community.

I'm an individual and I have no commercial intentions. I have worked for more than 20 years in IT and I have found that a master page like this was missing where people and organizations could find a master index of information in one place.

As you will see in the article I am talking about several IT practices, standards, frameworks, methodologies.

I have no specific interest in anyone of them in particular. They are all from different organizations.

This page is a master index on the web.

Could you please share the details of what is wrong with the article?

Thanks and regards

Clive Perry Ramen

> The information contained on this webpage

Pages in Wikipedia are meant to be encyclopedia articles. The article is up for deletion because it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic. MER-C 13:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is it possible for you to help me so that I can get the article to be rewritten encyclopedically please? I would be happy to pay for the services if required provided that its affordable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryRamen (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have revised the article to be encyclopedic. I should be grateful if you could kindly re-assess the article please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryRamen (talk • contribs) 14:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this does not look like a personal webpage as per nom. However, we should still delete as a
WP:CONTENTFORK: ITSM is already addressed in IT service management, and the various subfields and certifications belong in Outline of information technology. BenKuykendall (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- And then the page's creator proceeds to tell you that it is, immediately below. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a personal webpage that I have developed. I have more than 20 years of experience in IT and I'm an SME (Subject Matter Expert) in ITSM & Operations. The contents of this article is different from the contents of Outline of information technology. Article IT service management does not address the Operations part of IT. Neither does it address all the Practices, Standards, Frameworks, Activities, Behaviours, Tools & Techniques listed in my article. If you delete this article you will destroy the start of a Master Index for Wikipedia in IT Service Management & Operations. I have updated the article to specify that it is a Global Index so that this article does not duplicate existing articles and added the required categories. I should be grateful if you could kindly consider approval of the article please. Respectfully yours, Perry.

You may check my LinkedIn profile at: www.linkedin.com/in/perry-ramen

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryRamen (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have implemented all your recommendations. I have also explained to you how this article is different from other articles that you have mentioned in the sense that it is a Global Index for IT Service Management & Operations. I have also explained to you that this article is not a duplicate of existing articles and that such a Global Index for IT Service Management & Operations was missing from Wikipedia. I am building this article in favour of Wikipedia. Having worked in IT for over 20 years, I have a holistic view of IT Service Management & Operations. I was myself lost before sometimes when looking for information due to the fact that there was not a central Index listing all the IT best practices, standards, guidelines, methodologies, frameworks, concepts, approaches, behaviours, techniques & tools on the web. This page is the Global Index that was missing and will be most beneficial to the community and Wikipedia. If you take a look at column "References & Links" of table "IT Practices/Processes/Functions/Activities", you will be able to see how many items do not have a link yet. These are separate articles that are yet to be written and developed on wikipedia. The table shows you at a glance what areas of IT have and don't have articles yet. I am working with and for Wikipedia by building and maintaining this page and I bring all my experience in IT to wikipedia. I will maintain the page and make it the Best Global Index in IT Service Management & Operations on the web. Please rest assured that you can rely on me. I should be grateful if you could kindly consider approval of the article please. Is it possible for me to have a status update from your side accordingly please? Respectfully yours, Perry.

LinkedIn profile at: www.linkedin.com/in/perry-ramen

Delete Wikipedia is explicitly
talk) 06:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello, I have been trying to explain to you that this article is not a guidebook or textbook but a Global Index.

You may proceed with the deletion of the article if you think that its not worthy.

Kind Regards

Perry — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryRamen (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This just trips over a whole load of
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. To-do lists do not go in article space; articles are descriptive not tutorial ("are encouraged to refer to this list as guidance"); and the only article-space indexes are our outline articles, which are not external hyperlink farms, and which this is not. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello, I should be grateful if you could kindly delete the page please. Thank you very much. Perry Ramen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryRamen (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 July 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 that this list fails

WP:NLIST. Just Chilling (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

List of NSW Central Coast Cricket First Grade Premiers

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

WP:NLIST and cricket guidelines. Störm (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Teraplane (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree this list is not suitable for Wikipedia but the creator appears to have put a lot of time, effort and meticulous research into it. However, they have not edited in a month and may very well come back to find all their hard work gone with no way of retrieving it. To avoid losing the list before it can be transferred to a suitable alternative outlet, perhaps it can be moved into either my or Nhoj1898's userspace for a few months instead of immediate deletion? – Teratix ₵ 05:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems fair, I know just how much time it takes to research lists! The list could be moved to their userpage? StickyWicket (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - although not suitable for Wikipedia, agree with userfying the list for say 6 months to allow the user to put it elsewhere. Bookscale (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails
WP:NLIST.Forest90 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 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. Userfication can be requested at

WP:REFUND or elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

List of NSW Central Coast cricket matches (1858–99)

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

WP:NLIST and cricket guidelines. Störm (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All matches at below Australian grade level and are non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Teraplane (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom HawkAussie (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree this list is not suitable for Wikipedia but the creator appears to have put a lot of time, effort and meticulous research into it. However, they have not edited in a month and may very well come back to find all their hard work gone with no way of retrieving it. To avoid losing the list before it can be transferred to a suitable alternative outlet, perhaps it can be moved into either my or Nhoj1898's userspace for a few months instead of immediate deletion? – Teratix ₵ 05:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - although not suitable for Wikipedia, agree with userfying the list for say 6 months to allow the user to put it elsewhere. Bookscale (talk) 01:22, 20 July 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. Userfication can be requested at

WP:REFUND or elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

List of NSW Central Coast cricket club season averages 1900-54

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

WP:LISTCRUFT, fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is
WP:NOTSTATS, that's all this appears to be. Seasider91 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This just seems to be something that you would put up as random stats which isn't really needed here. As this fails
WP:NOTSTATS HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
WP:NOTSTATS and appears to be below Australian grade cricket level. Ajf773 (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Teraplane (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree this list is not suitable for Wikipedia but the creator appears to have put a lot of time, effort and meticulous research into it. However, they have not edited in a month and may very well come back to find all their hard work gone with no way of retrieving it. To avoid losing the list before it can be transferred to a suitable alternative outlet, perhaps it can be moved into either my or Nhoj1898's userspace for a few months instead of immediate deletion? – Teratix ₵ 05:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - although not suitable for Wikipedia, agree with userfying the list for say 6 months to allow the user to put it elsewhere. Bookscale (talk) 01:23, 20 July 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.

Delete per nom.Forest90 (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to

Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Claire Booth

)

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

User:Surtsicna rationale: She is not notable as a physician. She does no royal work, so she is not notable as such either. She is just not notable at all. The sources cited here confirm that. Boldly redirecting to the article about her husband Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a redirect for two years. Why was the article restored only to be nominated for deletion immediately? Surtsicna (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because no discussion was held 2 years ago. With this amount of interwikis, there's a possibility the person is notable. I'm no expert in this subject though. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was also no opposition to turning the article into a redirect two years ago. You recreated an article after two years just because its turning into a redirect was a

happens to be first cousin once removed of Elizabeth II. Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restore redirect. You can't inherit notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She lacks the coverage to justify an article. Bringing this here is just a sign of Wikipediabeuracracy standing in the way of making the project useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect: no evidence of notability herself, but redirect to notable spouse is fine. Keep the category Category:British courtesy countesses, as this is her near-notability characteristic. PamD 10:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the redirect to point to section

Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster#Marriage, and add the {{for|the Olympic skier|Clare Booth}} hatnote at that section, as seen currently at the top of her article. PamD 10:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. maybe redirect as member of British Royal Family. There is a Claire Booth with good cites in biomed on GS [16], but I am not sure it is the same. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Can you please try to demonstrate that the subject of this article is notable? This Claire Booth is a pediatrician, not a biomedicine researcher. Surtsicna (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, adding a little more to husband's article. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 15 July 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 per

talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Bolic Sound

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Twixister: See here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 10:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep lacking any rationale for deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of this page. The previous page made on Bolic Sound in 2008 was a copyright violation. That author had posted entire paragraphs from a Rolling Stone article, but I did not do that. I provided relevant and valuable information from various credible sources, so there is no reason to delete this new and improved page. Bolic Sound is mentioned on various Wiki pages, so the studio having its own page with context is informative. Twixister (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth was this brought to AFD? The speedy deletion request for being a re-post of an AFD-deleted article was wrong on its face, and no other reason for deletion was either apparent or suggested. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 14 July 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 08:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stroth

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

Subject is an attorney who does not meet notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Article cites several sources, but almost all only mention subject in passing, or quote the subject in an article about someone or something else. Editor(s) with a conflict of interest have created suggested edits in the talk page that include an additional 98 references, but again I can't find any that are about the subject; all are about other people, court cases, etc., with the subject quoted or mentioned. Paisarepa (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am concerned about sockpuppetry at this article. Actioninjurylawyer and Andrewstroth have been blocked (the latter for having a User name the same as the subject of the article), and now Andrewvieira1993 shows up on the Talk page proposing addition of the same inappropriate content that the other editors have added to and have had reverted at the article. IP 108.240.193.22 attempted to remove the templated banners at the article while describing the Edit summary as "fixing errors". David notMD (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I discovered that this subject's article has already been through AfD once under the title Andrew M. Stroth and was delted. The editor that created Andrew M. Stroth was active in the AfD but created this article three months after the first was deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew M. Stroth Paisarepa (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: During intervening eight years AS may have achieved notability. However, from my sampling, the references in the content recently added (and deleted) which I looked at were only in-passing mentions of Stroth, not at-length content ABOUT Stroth. Therefore, the same dearth of reliable sources may still apply. The aforementioned editors are persistent in adding types of content that have no reason to be in the article. David notMD (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 09:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 09:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 09:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: From what I can gather by the sources in the article (and my own limited research) his proposed notability comes from being involved in marketing deals for athletes and representing the family of a Pierre Loury, a black 16-year-old who was shot by police in 2016. His firm represents other such cases apparently. None of those court cases/deals appears to be noteworthy enough to warrant an own article according to
WP:CRIME in particular), not to mention a dedicated article for the representing lawyer or head of the representing law firm. The small amount of media coverage about Andrew Stroth that exists appears to be limited to local news in the area of Chicago. That said, he might become more notable in the future, at which point an article might be created. Going through the draft process first might be a good idea to avoid another deletion vote or edit warring. Hecato (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Then you'll be interested to learn that
Shooting of Jemel Roberson. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for pointing those out. These are at least more notable since they seem to have national and international media coverage. If Andrew Stroth played an active role in those court cases then he could be mentioned in the respective articles. I still don't think he deserves an own article though, unless he did something especially noteworthy in those court cases or in the surrounding controversy. If he did, then this could change my vote to a weak keep and improve --Hecato (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never seen a Wikipedia article on a lawyer before that felt like large parts of it could be lifted and placed on an advertising billboard. The whole section of language on law suits over police "brutality" reeks of violation of NPOV. Not every person who is a claimed victim of excessive force has a notable situation, and not every lawyer involved in a notable case is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references cited do not establish notabilty. Most of them are based on what the subject himself said. Maproom (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Coverage that exists is about his clients, not him. Don't see significant independent coverage to show he meets the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A collection of views of only one side of a set of court cases violates the Wikipedia:neutral point of view policy, and certainly is not the way to build a biography of a lawyer. Not everything in Wikipedia should be presented in the form of biographical articles. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to delete. From the morass of links currently in the article and those now removed or posted on the talk page, there are exactly two which are about Stroth as opposed to his clients (I am excluding alumni news items and a student report on a talk he gave to a class at the Medill School of Journalism):

Kapos, Shia (6 September 2016). "After working with athletes, attorney pivots to the street". Chicago Sun Times
.
Silverstein, Jack (22 September 2014). "Brand builder: Stroth creates marketing deals for athletes". Chicago Daily Law Bulletin

The second one is very local and basically a trade publication. The first one is pretty local too, but at least is a prominent newspaper. This doesn't strike me as sufficiently passing

WP:GNG. All the rest are failed attempts to inherit notability (and publicize his law firm). The COI/socking shenanigans do not help either. In my view the creator of this article and a frequent editor up to January of this year is almost certainly a paid editor. The later editor and his various incarnations clearly has a COI and if an employee of the firm tasked with expanding the article is likewise an undeclared paid editor. See my more detailed comments at Talk:Andrew Stroth. Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Fails GNG, typical of a lawyer's article; also promo, again typical of a lawyers article. The CDLR, cited above, quoted him as saying he is on the faculty at Northwestern. The Law school's faculty directory doesn't show him. here. So much for fact checking from that source. John from Idegon (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-obsolescence Commodore 64 projects

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

Article seems to be written like an advertisement. The subject alone doesn't seem to be notable either to separate it from the Commodore 64 article. I found a few reliable sources upon a quick Google search on the Commodore 64 homebrew scene but I don't think it's enough coverage to establish general notability and it's only worthy of a short sub-section in its parent subject's article at best. letcreate123 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. letcreate123 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete under

WP:TNT. I'm not sure this could even make for a standalone article, as this could be covered in the main article, but it's current state needs a complete overwrite for it to meet policies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete any information here should be within the main commodore 64 article. I don't think there's articles for any other retro consoles emulations Seasider91 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- C64 seems to be the main retro target for e.g. new games. But I would be very happy for someone to make an similar article for e.g. the Amiga. Thue (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep as main author of article. The claim that there is no reliable sources is false. For example from the New York Times: A Toy With a Story For Game Makers, Inspiration In the Soul of an Old Machine (and these were not hard to find). The C64 Direct-to-TV sold 70,000 units on its first day, so new retro hardware for the C64 is quite popular. Just for game publishing, there are multiple publishers publishing new C64 games - surely that qualifies for an article. Thue (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article creator needs to learn the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable one. Even if it is notable enough, it needs to be
WP:TNT and rewritten to comply with Wikipedia standards._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- You do not think New York Times which I linked is a reliable source? Thue (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that all the sources in the article are dubious since they are either
    WP:PRIMARY or unreliable (not to mention incorrectly formatted). A couple of NY Times articles will not prove independent notability over something that could merely be added to Commodore 64 main article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep The New York Times article, etc, prove it meets the general notability guidelines just fine. Dream Focus 01:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:TNT. The NYT source is nice, but the article itself is almost entirely written according to fansites, and honestly the article reads like something that a fansite would host. It should be greatly trimmed/streamlined and put into the main article - a spin out is unnecessary. Sergecross73 msg me 11:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fenner

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

Cannot find significant coverage to meet

WP:GNG. Search results turning up brief mentions and routine reports [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Player is apparently retired now and a youth coach. [24] [25]. Not to be confused with other people with the same name, including an Irish footballer born in 1994 [26] [27] [28]. – Levivich 05:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 05:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 05:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 05:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 05:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 05:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 05:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 05:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete footballer in second rate leagues, nothing to suggest actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Footballer hasn't played in a professional league so he would fail
WP:NFOOTBALL and the only mention of him goes to a dead article. HawkAussie (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. USL D2 player (not NFOOTY). Not much coverage on him (in fact - I think most of what I found search are other individuals with the same name). Fails GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia McCaffrey

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

Does not meet

WP:N at it's present state. Feickus (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a
WP:SINGLEEVENT to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is an example of why Wikipedia needs to consistently apply not news. Just because someone makes the news cycle does not mean they are pemanently significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable person. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and Sexuality in Information Studies Colloquium (event)

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

An academic event which 100 people attended does not seem notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. This seems to fail

WP:NEWSEVENT. Marquardtika (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article documents the premiere event, and simply needs an update edit to recognize that it is no longer a stand-alone ::colloquium, but a biennial colloquium - there has been one in 2016, 2018, and one coming up in 2020. It is worthy of being ::maintained on Wikipedia. The colloquium is also associated with a library and information science and archival science academic ::book series that is published by Litwin Books, an independent publisher mentioned in the initial post of the article. Kewarren100 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only sources given are primary material and personal blogs. There are a vast number of regular academic conferences and no reason is given for this particular one to be considered notable. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 17:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per Nizolan. It's relatively common to have academic conferences, even biennial academic conferences, but the question is whether there's substantial documentation from outside of the event's own bubble. There does not seem to be that level of coverage.
talk) 15:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick R. McCaffrey Sr.

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

Article is about a casualty of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. The subject fails

WP:SOLDIER. Feickus (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Feickus (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.Feickus (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:SOLDIER. No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not notable as one of the fallen soldiers in Iraq war. Fails
talk) 14:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a clear violation of not memorial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing else to add. All already been said. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails SOLDIER, doesn't pass GNG in my estimation - there is some coverage recounting the incident, but not all that much of it. Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 14 July 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 arguments by Hunter Kahn do not address the uncontested substantive problems with the article. Deleting unsalvageable promotional content in order to allow a neutral rewrite is standard practice. Sandstein 08:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check Yourself Screening Tool

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

highly promotional article , though on a worthy product. Almost all the article is devoted to the problems it hopes to solve, rather than the ostensible subject of the article. It needs complete rewriting, and the first step for that is to remove the existing PR-based article DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sounds to me the nominator is saying this article is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, but that the article as it is written right now is problematic. If that is the case, it would seem AFD is not the way to go, per
WP:RUBBISH, and that instead the article should be merely improved... — Hunter Ka hn 04:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The distinction is that it can be improved if it is fixable without complete rewriting--and I have fixed several thousand such articles in my 12 years here, but if it take complete or almost complete rewriting, it is better to start over, per

WP:TNT (altho an essay, it does express the general view on a practical way) . From my experience, the best way of making the distinction is seeing if anyoneactually does rewrite it while it is at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It still seems to me that the argument you are making here is
WP:TNT, it seems the better solution than deleting it would be erasing the offensive content, reducing the article to a stub, then putting a template on it to encourage users to improve it. If it gets deleted, that will only discourage users from ever creating it again, since they will have seen it has already been deleted before. Given that the nominator himself asserts that the article subject is notable, I'm inclined to vote keep and encourage that they use more appropriate methods to encourage improvement... — Hunter Ka hn 02:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, AfD is almost the only way to actually get articles rewritten. The page you cite is an essay, not policy, and the various things stated there in a definite tone are not that definite as they sound---they are followed in different degrees. 12 years ago, when I started engaging in these afd discussions, I would have argued as you did--at the time, we did not fully realize the dangers of letting promotional articles stay around in WP . It's not only that htey stay here as advertising, and even worse show up as authoritative in Google (that "feature" of Google wasn't there 12 years ago, either) , but they serve as the models for other articles. Promotional writers thing that if others have gotten away with it, so can they; good faith but naïve new ediors actually think that a promotional style of writing is what we want since they see so much of it here. If you think it can be fix, fix it. Now. If you cannot do it now, try it in draft space. But the one thing we should not do is leave such articles in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't want to just keep repeating the same arguments over and over, but suffice it to say, I profoundly disagree with your interpretation of what AFD is and should be (though I've seen others who agree with you before over the course of my 11 years here). And since you yourself have indicated this article subject is notable, I vote keep. — Hunter Ka hn 13:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

b} 23:21, 19 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal el-Fayoumi

Kamal el-Fayoumi (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:BARE, just a little notable for only one event in 2008 and nothing then, his role in 2011 revolution is not notable nor memorable, just few articles from his mates describe him as "leader" and that is exaggeration and no one knows what is his exactly role, he has no awards nor political positions too. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails
WP:ONEEVENT, okay if a redirect to 2008 Egyptian general strike is made. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails
WP:ANYBIO. --SalmanZ (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
(T) 09:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Subject has only known for
talk) 14:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Some pretty strong claims about his leadership roles in the article which are seemingly not supported in the sources, and doesn't appear notable without them. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if he's not the leader, as indicated above, he's
a follower. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 18 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amyn Dahya

Amyn Dahya (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; searching online reveals no new work or news for sometime. Books are largely self published, and most references are his own social media accounts or lead to blank pages ie. MENA Water Resources World Conference Bottletoppen (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG for sheer lack of sources discoverable in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 02:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm concerned the "Controversies" section is a "hit job".
We tend to delete such articles. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 18 July 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 that this actor fails
WP:NACTOR Just Chilling (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Luing Andrews

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

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

No significant roles in notable films (his biggest role was in 8ish, which has dubious notability). Fails
WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(T) 09:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His biggest role (the others being either guest ones on TV shows or low importance ones in movies) seems to be on a short film
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 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_July_13&oldid=1142613962"