Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 16

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.

Amy Sequenzia

Amy Sequenzia (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)

Sources claiming that

• Delete According to
  WP:CITED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Ok, rephrase: Delete if obeying
    WP:RULES, it will have to be deleted as mission impossible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep It has yet to be proven that
  WP:FRINGE applies to this article. "The preponderance of peer-reviewed articles supports FC as a useful tool for developing communication skills." (reference) Based on this, and the number of reliable sources that used to be cited before the page was blanked, there is no reason to delete this page. --Anomalapropos (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

    This editor is now under a topic-ban.[1] The closer should consider what weight, if any, to give to an argument that was so disruptive that they would be unable to cast or reaffirm this

  !vote today. Alsee (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The source quoted has failed to declare a conflict of interest, the author has co-authored pro facilitated communication material with Douglas Biklen https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Contested_Words_Contested_Science.html?id=T4FtQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:69D1:3200:19D1:833:BDD8:6A2B (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Anomalapropos (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article should not have been gutted before being nominated. It is wholly misleading. Also, although this page doesn't how it, the article was nominated for deletion before and the consensus was keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:GRAPEVINE. The previous consensus was built on the unreliable sources that I "gutted" from the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete, but without prejudice against being re-created from a more reality-based perspective. The article, before the current content dispute [2], was based entirely on overly-credulous sources treating a discredited pseudo-science as though it were real. I can understand (per
  WP:DESCF) using those sources to establish notability, but it's pretty tasteless to treat them as unbiased fact, especially in a BLP for an unfortunate person who can't share their side of the story through any real method. ApLundell (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The AfD page header was malformed (likely not created using {{afd2}}) and not transcluded (now transcluded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 16). I think it's now in working order. —PaleoNeonate – 00:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PaleoNeonate: Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I apologize. This is my first time trying to delete a page. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:FRINGE). That's not what we want for a biography of an actual, living person and therefore I recommend deletion until much more extensive and balanced coverage is available. Abecedare (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The rights and wrongs of FC aside it is clear she is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not the point. The idea is that FC is a kind of channeling. So how do you write an article based upon sources that assume that channeling is real? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't you write an article based on sources that discus it, and there seems to be a few. The issue therefore if not notability but neutrality, and that is not (to my mind) a suitable excuse for AFD. Rather that is an excuse for a re-write.Slatersteven (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is clear that she is notable. I would love to have an article on her, but a brief google search did not return any reliable results. If anyone can find reliable sources (written from the view that FC is psudoscience) please post them here. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  reliable, independent sources that contain significant coverage of the subject other than Bakan's writing that I found and discussed above? Abecedare (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Depends what you mean, [[3]] is not by her (or anyone associated with her as far as I know). This combined with more trivial mentions (two or three paragraphs) and at least one interview with a major media organ tells me she may be notable. Of course part of the problem is that much has been written about her in books about FC (which tend to be rather credulous) but which none the less still means that withing that community she is very notable, and somewhat notable outside it. Notable enough to be mentioned by name in at least one overview of the subject by a scientist.Slatersteven (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The this week article is by David M Perry, a supporter of facilitated communication who has written at least one other article defending facilitated communication as genuine. It is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:69D1:3200:19D1:833:BDD8:6A2B (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that unreliable sources can be used to establish notability. If I am correct, she is certainly notable. However, I can not find any reliable sources on her, which is why I nominated this article for deletion. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the responses. Quick replies for now:

  • The one sentence on Sequenzia does not qualify as "significant coverage"
  • No, unreliable sources cannot be used to establish notability under
    WP:GNG
    .
  • I assume the "one interview with a major media organ" refers to this. Note that that is on the now closed HuffPost Contributor platform, and as a blog entry by a non-expert, it cannot be used as a source in a BLP; see the entry for HuffPost contributors at
    WP:RSP
    for links to 17 related RSN discussions.

  Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to
  talk) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "Till now, no

  argument to avoid at AfDs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 18:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 18:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Meets
  LA Times and Slate. I expanded the article a bit and added a bunch of references. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I added some RS and she's in a chapter in a book about Autism that I was able to fully access. I don't know about the FC thing, but the scholars at Oxford seem OK with whatever type of communication she is using with her iPad and help from her care-giver. The book is recent, too, from 2018. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  None of these sources are skeptical of facilitated communication, so none of them are reliable. This page again describes her (inaccurately) as a writer and an activist, which is why we must delete it. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The two posters above seem to be re-writing the article with the same sort of credulous minor coverage complained about above. One exception may be the the Bakan book. I'm not sure how to evaluate this book as a source of notability, but it certainly doesn't establish acceptance as WP:FRINGE requires,(Author is a musician not a medical professional), so, even if notable, its claims should really still be phrased as claims not facts. ApLundell (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The Guardian's not a reliable source? Are you Nigel Farage? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  According to Wikiman, no source is reliable if he deems the source sympathetic to facilitated communication. How this editor has lasted here without being blocked for an admitted disruptive agenda is beyond me, but I'm not up to fighting that battle.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The question is not whether or not The Guardian is a reliable source. The question is whether two short paragraphs in an article not actually about her establishes notability. Normally that would not be enough. Lots of people are mentioned by The Guardian in passing.

  (And beyond notability, does it illustrate scientific "acceptance" as required to uncritically report WP:FRINGE ideas as fact instead of claims?) ApLundell (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The author of the chapter in the OUP book is certainly convinced about the facilitated communication, but

  here show how convinced many non-experts have initially been, in cases which were later overturned. PamD 07:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Strong Keep The sourcing is a fair start, and Amy Sequenzia is quite the notable subject. Also, all these attempts to dismiss this article due to facilitated communication not being viewed as scientific is, if you ask me, grossly unfair.TH1980 (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  WP:NFRINGE, "a fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." --Wikiman2718 (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)--Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Please explain why. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject of the article has been victimized by the practice of facilitated communication. Failing to properly acknowledge that the facilitator is putting words in her mouth would be victimizing her further. Also, the subject is not notable outside of the group of adherents to the pseudoscience of facilitated communication. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point to a source that says that Sequenzia has been 'victimized'? If one exists, it should almost certainly be cited in the article. If on the other hand, there isn't a source, your assertion that victimization has taken place would seem to be based on the assumption that the 'facilitator' is intentionally 'putting words in her mouth', which again would need a source, given that most discussions of FC seem to be based on the premise that the 'facilitators' genuinely believe it works. Being wrong (even very wrong) about something is rather different than intended malice, which is what 'victimization' would seem to imply. Personally, I don't see WP:AVOIDVICTIM as being relevant here, if the consensus is that general notability criteria are met. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is a source that calls FC “an abuse of human rights”.[4] —Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it is a source that says that FC has been called an abuse of human rights by someone else. But it wasn't what I asked for which was a source stating that Sequenzia has been 'victimized'. We don't take general opinions about a topic as evidence for specifics. Particularly when making claims of malice regarding specific people - i.e. the 'facilitator'. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no claim of malice against the facilitator. And we do sometimes take general statements to prove the specific. For instance, the pseudoscientific status of perpetual motion implies the pseudoscientific status of any proposed perpetual motion machine. Additionally, I am not aware of any standards of evidence for victimhood. I believe that we can consider her a victim if we think she’s a victim, and I am arguing that we should. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how one can claim 'human rights abuse' without at least implying malice, but whatever. In general, decisions about permissible content are based on specific sources (and/or the lack of them), and not on what we 'think' or 'believe'. WP:AVOIDVICTIM clearly allows for some discretion in this context, but it doesn't automatically rule out all articles on victims: even victims of actual crimes. We have an article on Patty Hearst for example, which consists almost entirely of content relating to her kidnapping and subsequent events. I think you might do better to stick to arguing the case about notability in the general sense, where policy is clearer. Your opinion on 'human rights abuse' and 'victimhood' will presumably be taken into account by whoever closes this discussion, but they may find it less than persuasive. And I have to say that I find something of a contradiction between the arguments you present here and the fact that you have created an article entitled List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication which seems to consist entirely of content regarding otherwise non-notable individuals. Content which amply demonstrates that individuals were (via misplaced allegations via 'facilitation') victims of a credulous acceptance of the technique. If one is going to rule out content on 'victims' of FC, it should probably be done more consistently. Or at least, in a manner that looks a little less overtly partisan. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We are indeed partisans of

  WP:NPOV to state that Sequenzia herself is the writer of the writings attributed to her, since that is not an objectively assessable fact. In fact, she could be merely the sockpuppet of her facilitator, who is in the best case self-delusional and in the worst case a fraudster. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Tgeorgescu, you should be aware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages. I suggest you keep the hyperbole down. And then read what I actually wrote. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  At this article

  WP:RULES while strongly violating the other two. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  In which case, I suggest you think again, before violating WP:BLP... 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that [[WP:AVOIDVICTIM] does not rule out an article on this subject. But it is relevant, and if we decide not to delete the article, we must write from this prospective. Actually, I am starting to come around to the idea of keeping the article now that I see how it is progressing. I was worried that we wouldn’t have enough good sources to maintain WP:PARITY.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs)

  Damned if I do, damned if I don't, isn't it? We have to abort the article as mission impossible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  In as much as I have an opinion on the merits of this article that isn't shaped by my more general opinion that an 'anyone can edit' encyclopaedia is a fundamentally flawed concept, I've reached much the same conclusion. Which is why I've not chosen to !Vote (not that opinions anonymous IPs tend to get much notice anyway). There probably is the potential for a good encyclopaedic article on Sequenzia, I'm just not entirely convinced that Wikipedia is capable of producing it... 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, maybe an encyclopedia which does not take

  WP:SPOV seriously would be a better choice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  This isn't just a scientific story though. It is about real people. Some who can speak for themselves. Some who claim to speak for others. One who appears not be able to speak at all. Reducing it to nothing but 'science' would do it little service. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If we'd have to violate

  WP:YESPOV Wikipedia cannot have an article about her. There is a limit upon what can be written inside Wikipedia articles. And that limit is Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. At Wikipedia the burden of proof has never been upon those who say that Gregorian Bivolaru's claim to be in contact with an alien civilization is bogus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep but clarify the discredited/controversial status of her means of communication: Reading this nomination, alerted to it by the list of deletion discussions on women, I saw "Sources claiming that
  List of abuse allegations made via facilitated communication I felt quite shocked and can see where the nominator is coming from. Sequenzia does seem to be notable, but the article underplays the status of her means of communication. Our wikipedia article describes Facilitated communication as "a scientifically discredited technique". At the very least the lead sentence needs to change " produced through facilitated communication" to "produced through the discredited method of facilitated communication" or, more neutrally, "produced through the controversial method of facilitated communication", to alert readers (not all of whom are going to click on the link) to the status of Facilitated communication (just as we'd gloss any other little-known term, or add a geog context to a placename). She does appear to be notable and we owe it to our readers to have an article about her, but it needs to be more informative. PamD 07:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC) expanded 07:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Nice -- Quite nice. ∯WBG^converse 16:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BLP asks us to pay particular attention to human dignity. This is such a challenging task here that I lean towards delete. The FC-induced writings are very likely to be inauthentic but structuring the article around debunking them can make it come across as an attack piece with the subject of the article caught in the crossfire. Haukur (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

These are exactly my thoughts, while the article exists questioning the veracity of achievements within it look like bad faith attacks on the subject rather than rightful rejection of the debunked method of facilitated communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.22.66 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This Article is poorly written, and the Subject has insufficient notoriety. - Nolan Perry ^{Yell at me!} 01:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Insufficient sourcing at this time to write a policy-compliant article.
  Reliable Source Noticeboard if the NYT published an interview or other information obtained via telepathy or channeling of dead spirits, without even commenting that the communication might be questioned, without giving any indication they even considered the issue and that they actively consider this case reliable.
  If Amy is the author of the words attributed to her, I see no reasonable way to simultaneously comply with BLP and other policies until we have adequate sourcing about her communication. The attempts to indirectly attribute the words to her in a qualified manner are atrocious for a living biography.
  If Amy is not the author of the words attributed to her, I see no reasonable way to simultaneously comply with BLP and other policies until we have adequate sourcing about the source of those words. The attempts to indirectly attribute the words to her in a qualified manner are atrocious for a living biography. Alsee (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Lacks independent reliable sources. Some of the sources are even from blogs. Fails
  ^📞 01:09, 24 June 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.

Jill Barto

Jill Barto (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)

School district trustees do not generally meet criteria of

Delete After searching on Google and Google news, I found no other reports from reliable sources other than routine press coverage for the school district. Viztor (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. School board trustees are not automatically notable per
  primary source table of election results is not, in and of itself, a notability freebie that exempts her from having to have real media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.Being in school board does not make her notable with not enough coverage. Alex-h (talk) 12:13, 22 June 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.

Jo Alegria

Jo Alegria (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)

School district trustees do not generally meet criteria of

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Fails
  talk) 13:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. School board trustees are not automatically notable per
  primary source table of election results is not, in and of itself, a notability freebie that exempts her from having to have real media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  the general notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 19 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Episcopal Historians and Archivists

National Episcopal Historians and Archivists (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)

One of multiple Episcopalian historical societies, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As annoying as it is to have multiple redundant organizations, this article is useful in that they publish "The Historiographer". In the case of "The Historiographer", having this article allows readers to more easily determine the source of the journal (in articles such as Henry Benjamin Whipple), and to distinguish it from Historiographer Royal. This organization is a cited publisher on several EC-USA pages: All Saints Episcopal Church, Waveland (Jensen Beach, Florida) and Christ Episcopal Church (Monticello, Florida).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep -- It is useful to have articles on learned societies, though it is difficult to find external reliable sources on them. This particularly applies when they publish an academic journal. In this case, The Historiographer is only described as a newsletter, which is why I only say weak keep. Nevertheless, it is worth having an article on the denominational history society of a major denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are reliable book sources and it does have a scholarly significance in preserving church history Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rena Strober

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

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

There seems to be no notability other than the game where she voiced in, in which case the game's article should be enough. fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She is a working actress with real credits. She is even listed on behindthevoiceactors. Problem is that no secondary sources are writing about her. Doesn't seem to have any deep RS coverage. It's only credit listing sites (aggregators) and her own websites. HM Wilburt (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NCREATIVE. Not every actor is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Bartl

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

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

No evidence of notability, most search results turned up to be the Brazilian athlete, little about the model, when I look exclusively for the model, there is no significant coverage from reliable sources. Viztor (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find some passing coverage, mostly in gossipy/entertainment sources [5]. As nom says, no depth to coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have added a reference to a nice article about him in
  WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 06:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment.
  The Toledo Blade, has made any real attempt to confirm something that occurred so long ago. I feel that only the most famous clashes should be included. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I agree with
  WP:CONTN, that is not a reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Whiteley

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

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

This apparently impressive article is essentially advertising--and the surgeon does not meetthe re DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• COI editing Bunch of accounts just here to promote this person. Agree with DGGs concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF and the article appears to be rather promotional in tone. --Tataral (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG.
  b} 02:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete due to failing the GNG - of the five sources, some contain only trivial coverage and others are not reachable anymore. The claims of her age being 125 are not verifiable - we can verify that she /claimed/ to be 125, but not that she /was/ - and the claim of being 150 is simply laughable. ST47 (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fulla Nayak

Fulla Nayak (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)

Time for another AfD. Farcical longevity claim, which all of the few sources here treat with far too much credulity. After the previous AfD people stripped all the unreliable sources out of this, which leaves us with the following 1. a couple one-off articles about smoking weed at a purportedly old age, which is not actually notable, 2. an uncritical puff piece on her age, and 3. a couple obituaries. Maybe a short mention on Longevity myths at most, but definitely not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails
  WP:SIGCOV of her. It all dates from around the years she died and made a little buzz. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is SIGCOV in RS. The first part of the nom's rationale (that the sources are uncritical) should be disregarded as it is not based in policy. The second part of the nom's rationale is in and of itself an argument for keep, as he acknowledges that there such significant coverage exists. schetm (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  How is noting 2 articles about her alleged weed habit and 1 obviously factually inaccurate article significant coverage? I'm open to thinking I missed something here, but that's about what I found. And just because an ordinarily reliable source says something that's obviously wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia has to, or should, repeat it here; factual accuracy matters, and that's seriously compromised if one of the only sources is wildly off-base. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One simply reports that, although the newspapers have called her 120+, she has not been validated as such by any of the normal agencies that do so (GRG, Guinness, etc.) SIGCOV is defined as "address(ing) the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The existing coverage, in my mind, meets that, and therefore gets her over the hump. schetm (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Parliamentary Cricket Tournament 2019

Inter-Parliamentary Cricket Tournament 2019 (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)

Simply an informal knock about by politicians. A one-off, non-notable event and most certainly cannot be called a tournament - it's a friendly knock about, no different to meeting for expensive caviar to have a chat about world events! Simply because politicians are playing it does not make it notable, as notability is not inherited. StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it suddenly makes lots of serious news coverage rather than fluffy coverage. Say a fight breaks out and war gets declared between two nations as a result - that sort of thing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Despite their being coverage about the Paki PM entering the tournament, this isn't really something that most of the other teams that are competing in the tournament would probably cover. HawkAussie (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo Type 937

Alfa Romeo Type 937 (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)

Copy of existing articles, can't be redirected, uses chassis code as name, have confusing values that need to be separated YBSOne (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, no redirect. Very confusing, not really a subject worhy of a Wiki article. This isn't a chassis too IIRC, both vehicles that base their design around this are of a monocoque design. Nightfury 15:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can't find anything that makes this article notable Alex-h (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NursingNotes

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

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

Non-notable periodical. No independent sources. Fails

All information on the site is verifiable. MattBodell (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have searched and cannot find coverage. @
  conflict of interest guidance. Tacyarg (talk) 17:35, 16 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Ask Me If I Love

Don't Ask Me If I Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A non-notable book. Geoffroi (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With sympathy to Nom and editor above who appear not to have access to news archive searches, where there is coverage of the book and the film that was based on it. I have
  WP:HEYMANN expanded and sourced the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Nom change Delete to Keep. E.M., thanks for your research and edits. I am more than happy to dismiss this nomination. Rogermx (talk) 18:58, 18 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Talish (actor)

Raza Talish (actor) (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)

Brand new actor at beginning of career. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep @Scope creep: @CAPTAIN RAJU: The article a BLP is a stub. I have improved it. Let us keep it and give a chance to editors to improve it. Rickyurs (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepRickyurs edits merit more time for improvement.--CryptoWriter (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You may have updated and tried to improve the referencing even though it is still poor. The reason for that is that there is no coverage. It is mostly social media links.scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel enough references are already there -- Dawn (newspaper), Gulf News and The Nation (Pakistan) newspapers. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actor is not on IMDB. Doesn't have an IMDB page and is not listed on any of the productions mentioned. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT. Looks like a case of TOOSOON. HM Wilburt (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tabeer. Which productions are you talking about? The thing is that he was nominated on 2 June and at that time he was lacking sources but Gulf News publish about him on 10 June, https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/pakistani-cinema/suno-chandas-raza-talish-on-his-breakthrough-role-1.64496331 and also both of his roles are justified by sources. Also please check https://images.dawn.com/news/1182287, https://www.somethinghaute.com/in-conversation-with-suno-chanda-mithoo-raza-talish/, https://nation.com.pk/07-May-2019/suno-chanda-is-back. He was one of the main lead in Suno Chanda 2. Also passing NACTOR because of his roles in two projects. Regards. Ghazal Pervaiz (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Seems to pass WP:ENT but lacks SIGCOV, most of the sources aren't independent and are just namechecks, others are social media. The article lacks BLP. HM Wilburt (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An actor passes wikipidea notability of article if he passing WP:ENT. It also has three valid news sources which is enough to meet criteria. It lacks BLP info but thats not the point. We can expand it whenever needed. This time he only has three projects (two being actor, one being assistant director). Regards Ghazal Pervaiz (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abiotic (band)

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

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

The coverage is

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The most I could find was this article about their album and the two articles in the Wikipedia article from Metal Injection. Comment: The article on Metal Injection should also probably be looked into for notability. A brief search turns up nothing notable, and the article relies almost entirely on primary sources right now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Two albums on
  WP:NMUSIC criterion 5, and while (like most metal bands) the majority of coverage is likely to be in print sources, there are multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources online: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and an interview in Guitar World: [11]. --Michig (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • When I originally saw it, I didn't think the Guitar World interview would help toward GNG for the band. I'm still not sure it does. I did see the AllMusic review, but did not find the other reviews or articles. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passes criterion 1 and 5 of
  WP:NMUSIC with significant coverage in reliable sources such as AllMusic, Sputnik Music, PopMatters, New Noise Magazine and Houston Free Press and has two albums on a notable label, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Band is signed to a major label, seems pretty notable. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 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.

Cormac Ó Comáin

Cormac Ó Comáin (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)

Contested PROD. Content was "Hagiographic article, the few sources either aren't RS or don't actually seem to mention the subject, and nothing to support the grandiose claims here." Contrary to the de-PROD reason I did not cite the purported age, though that further adds to the absurdity of this article; Wikipedia should not uncritically parrot ridiculous claims. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually (I having just compared the article against the source), Walker supports everything here except the age at death, the subject being still alive when Walker wrote about xem. The problem is that there is exactly one source for this. All of the books that supposedly document this … are actually reprints of, simple and obvious plagiarism of, or outright cite as their one source, Walker's article. And The Blade of the Northern Lights is not the first to complain about this. The editor of the Ulster Journal of Archaeology (1907, p.53) wrote in a prefix to yet another copy of Walker's biographical memoir that

  [This account of Cormac Dall is written in the usual fulsome, and often objectionable, tone of the period, which I have not hesitated to alter and amend. — Ed.]

  The problem is that this source is not very good, relating things from other unidentified people ("I have been assured that") and blaming someone named Ralph Ousley for the rest. It really does seem that this is a bunch of hearsay and non-factual opinion, that Wikipedia editors have bravely but in vain tried to neutralize in much the same way as the UJA editor did, and that no historian in over two centuries has produced another separate and independent account with everyone parrotting Walker wholesale. It does not seem very safe to base an article on a single, quite bad, source. I am strongly in favour of multiple independent sources. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Glad to see you around again!) I did say "either aren't RS", which was meant to cover that; a terrible source saying something isn't any better than no source at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said that in the Proposed Deletion nomination, to which the reply was "has reliable book coverage". Unless you want the conversation to vainly go around in circles, the next step is to explain why you are asserting unreliability when apparent sourcing can be turned up with a Google Books search. This subject warrants more explanation by a nominator, to fend off the usual "just look in Google Books!" rebuttal that you know it would otherwise get. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, I'll make sure to be more precise going forward. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 01:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete This article fails
  WP:GNG because the one source in the article is a book of dubious reliability and other independent reliable sources could not be found, as all other writings on the subject are mere copies of the Walker book. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hagiography or not, O'Halloran, Clare (1989). "Irish Re-Creations of the Gaelic Past: The Challenge of Macpherson's Ossian". Past & Present. 124: 69–95. seems pretty positive about Walker and his skepticism toward "dubious" material. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walker's own research is one thing. But this is material given to him (as Walker explicitly notes ahead of the memoir) by Ralph Ousley, who I believe to be (but Walker does not say) the Ralph Ouseley (1739) that you might have heard of. (Although Walker says "Ralph Ousley", that is a known alternative spelling, and the illustration is credited to one "William Ousley" whom I believe to be, but again without support from Walker, William Ouseley Ralph's son.) The editorial criticism of the source that I mentioned before comes from Francis Joseph Bigger, whom you also may have heard of. Bigger is himself regarded as a purveyor of purple prose by serious standards (see Clements 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFClements2007 (help) in the AFC submission), and anything that Bigger regards as "fulsome and objectionable" is bad indeed, and way below modern standards for serious historical scholarship. Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Don’t we have many notable historical figures for which their true RS aggregates back to one source historical account that may or may not be fully true? I also think that for historical figures, it becomes less about pure WP:GNG, and includes aspects of WP:PRESERVE, as sources, for even unambiguously worthy historical subjects, can be thin. My question therefore is whether this subject is "inherently notable", and thus worthy of PRESERVE (notwithstanding the need for the article to clarify the issues of sourcing; which are also helpful to readers)? Britishfinance (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case it goes back to one source which hasn't gotten a lot of attention and which, of the few other historians who have studied it, most of them agree is wildly unreliable. There's nothing here which can even remotely be verified by modern standards. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are we saying that mention in the book aside, this subject would never have really been "inherently notable" – E.g. he was an unremarkable artist. My check is whether he was historically "inherently notable", but his sources are thin/suspect? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, we largely do not. For must such subjects, there is at least an identified historian who has done the legwork, even if said legwork results in the historian publishing "I can find birth and death records, and everything else that we know of the subject comes from W.". In this case we do not even know who "Ralph Ousley" and "William Ousley" are. Walker does not say, and it is my educated guess that these are Ralph Ouseley (1739) and William Ouseley. (Drmies now understands why the Limericks.) But we do not even have a historian confirming that. There's the original hearsay, lots of re-hashes and outright plagiarism of the original hearsay that tail off into the start of the 20th century, a note from Francis Joseph Bigger that this is too poor by his standards, and nothing else; no historian doing any sort of legwork at all. And that's the problem. We cannot put in my guesses about the Ouseleys, nor yours or any other Wikipedia editor's, and there's simply no good historical scholarship on this matter to work from. Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suggest to consider that he's mentioned (as Cormac Dall) by others beside Walker ([12], [13],[14]), as well as in "an eighteenth-century paper manuscript containing drafts of short biographies" and in this in one from 1746, predating Walker's publication. He also has an entry in this British Musical Biography(1897). Between legend and reality, he seems to have established himself. Homer may well never have existed either. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, contrary to what is written in the article, his "Lament for John Burke of Carrentryle" is actually reported on page 58 of [15]. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make my point for me. You've just pointed to:
    • two outright copies of Walker, the Sedley one crediting Walker's historical memoirs in a footnote and more heavily edited than the Conran one that does not and is largely word-for-word except for the usual editorial exchanges ("simple and honest" and "poor and honest" for example);
    • a short story work of fiction in a "Ladies' Magazine", not history by a historian at all, that contains nothing except the subject's name in a footnote;
    • a manuscript description that far from pre-dating Walker as you claim, has the statement "ultimately derives from Walker’s Historical memoirs of the Irish bards." for the part about Cormac at the top of the page, a historian pointing out what I am pointing out;
    • even worse, a listing of an actual manuscript of these appendices to Walker's Historical memoirs of the Irish bards in a library catalogue (observe the titles, for starters!).
  • That leaves the 3-sentence British Musical Biography entry, which we can tell is not based upon a historian doing the legwork but yet again on Walker because it contains the wishy-washy claim that the subject must have "died about the end of the 18th century, or at least after 1786", this deduction clearly made because he was apparently alive when Walker's Historical memoirs of the Irish bards came out. (In reality, he was alive when Ralph Ousley told Walker, whenever that was. Walker does not say.) In Wikipedia "about the end of the 18th century" would have a {{when}} against it in short order, and might well be outright removed for being uninformative tripe telling the reader the blindingly obvious that the subject must have died at some point. The British Musical Biography compilers did to Walker's (Ousley's) account what Wikipedia editors tried to, and ended up with largely nothing.

    Thank you for at least not doing the usual handwave in the direction of Google Books, but for this AFD discussion the bar is raised a lot higher. You actually have to read the sources and check that they aren't yet more re-hashes and plagiarism of Walker, and find one that contains the result of actual legwork done by a historian. More plagiarism of Walker's hearsay, re-hashes of it, or outright identified derivatives of it, with historians and editors making the same points as I am, are not nearly enough.

    Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. a) The first three references are indeed inspired or derived from Walker, but this means that Cormac was widely known. You do not appear in a Ladies' Magazine tale if no one knows who you are. b) Cormac is mentioned in Manuscript MS 12 B 20 , while the reference to Walker is in Manuscript 24 O 22 of the Forde-Pigot Collection. c) I still fail to see how "[42]. ‘Marbhnaoi Sheáin de Búrc cheathramhadh an Tríaill c. na Gaillbhe, le Cormac dall o Comáin (1746)" (that's the Carrentryle ode in Gaelic) could be derived from Walker, who was born in 1760, fourteen years later. Perhaps the date is spurious, but that's a supposition. d) The Carrentryle ode is translated in its entirety by Charlotte Brooke in her book "Maon". This confirms Cormac's fame. The Carrentryle ode was clearly famous and it is still there, in Gaelic and in English. Someone must have written it. Mind, whether Cormac really existed is beside the point. What I am saying is that his literary personality, real or legendary, is established. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 2015 reference to Brooke's translation of Cormac Common's poetry. A curious reader may come to Wikipedia to learn more. After this AfD he may well find NOTHING. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. 188.218.87.79 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of which addresses the problems Uncle G laid out above, namely that it's all variations on a single source. Wikipedia needs more than one source for an article on someone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Inclusion in A Compendium of Irish Biography is sufficient to satisfy point three of
  WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing is quite weak, though. schetm (talk) 08:38, 18 June 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.

Julian Askin

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

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

Non-notable. Article describes him as a "business investor and published author": the first is not in itself notable and the second is based on one book from 1979, which is way down the Amazon sales list. Nothing in the article hints at notability within either investing or authorship. The only source is Askin's book (basically that it exists). Note that the page was created on 16 November 2009‎ by User:Shishg, who has contibuted to no other article, with the edit summary "Entry made by Chris Hitman - Personal Marketing Specialist". Emeraude (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 22 June 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. ST47 (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ropate Rakuita Qalo

Dr Ropate Rakuita Qalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing any notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep finding more sources as "Ropate Rakuita Qalo", consideration for being from an isolated country in the pacific of just 900,000 people with no major International news outlets does make it more difficult to find online sources. Gnangarra 18:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should be renamed to Ropate Rakuita Qalo Gnangarra 02:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable WP:Notability Mrbuskin (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal-E-Azam (2010 flim)

Mughal-E-Azam (2010 flim) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nomination. Geoffroi (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I do not think it's an extraordinary movie, it does not mean that the movie's releases all the movies are notable films.-
  talk) 13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only ref on the article is a database listing in Wikipedia. The film has not recived any kind of film review or anything else.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]