Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 6

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 that the sources are inadequate to establish notability for the reasons described by Insertcleverphrasehere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Frost (skysurfer)

Mike Frost (skysurfer) (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)

Can't find any reliable sources about this guy, or verify any of the claims about world records or gold medals. He definitely exists, but doesn't appear to be notable. —

• Delete In addition to failing
  WP:AUTOBIO who has been trying work in mentions of himself in related articles as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hello, I'm sorry as I'm quite new at Wikipedia and have removed most of the bio detail. The internet did not exist when i first started skysurfing and as such find it difficult to secure all the sources so have removed much of this although i can assure you it was exciting. I have been asked by the British Parachute Association to conduct a live web-strem and seminar on skysurfing in January to re-introduce the sport to the global community and would like them to have a point of reference and contact for them so they can undertake this safely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped skysurfing following a major accident and have only re-started in the past few years, now my children are much older and not so reliant on me. I would appreciate any support to make my bio better - please do suggest any changes you think i should make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

help there public image. You should not be writing about yourself at all per Wikipedia's policies. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Best wishes mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails
  WP:SELFPROMO. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hello Jmertel23

I have amended the page considerably and believe this does not contravene the self promotion policy.

I have also read the policy regarding GNG, and believe the page is impartial, with no links to web sites, no auto bios, advertising and sources are all independent. I am more than happy to make any further changes you suggest?

Best wishes, Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysurfer Mike (talk • contribs) 10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skysurfer Mike, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as you have put a bit of work into making the article less promotional. I'll have a look at each source on its merits. We need at least 2, preferably 3 sources that discuss the subject in significant detail, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The numbering below is as of the writing of this comment:

Source 1 contains an article that Mike Frost wrote in a magazine: Not independent.

Source 2 is an article for The Independent, written by a third party, it contains numerous long quotes directed at the author; While not in interview format this makes me think this was more of an interview, which doesn't count towards notability because of non-independence (Borderline at best).

Source 3 contains a long piece on Frost, but is clearly an interview which can't count towards notability.

Source 4 is a blog with a passing mention and is not a reliable source.

Source 5 is a forum post which is not appropriate for use at all.

Source 6 another Magazine article written by Mike Frost. Not independent.

Source 7 is just source 2.

Source 8 is an interview. Not independent.

Source 9 appears to be an advertisement featuring a picture of Mike Frost. Not significant coverage.

Source 10 is another Magazine article written by Mike Frost. Not independent.

Source 11 is to a Wikipedia page revision edited by Mike Frost. This is not an appropriate source, nor is it reliable or independent.

Source 12 does not seem to mention Mike Frost at all, though I can't be sure as I'm relying on google translate. In any case, it is about 'extreme Ironing' not about Mike Frost.

Source 13 His picture appears on the cover of this magazine. Not significant coverage.

Source 14 Forum post. Not reliable, not independent, not significant coverage.

Source 15 appears to be a published book. Seems fine as a source, Probably reliable and independent, but is only a passing mention of Mike Frost, therefore not significant coverage and not suitable for contributing towards notability of the topic.

Source 16 is a couple sentences, a quote from frost and a photo and an announcement of winning a trophy. Not Significant coverage.

Sorry mate, but nothing here demonstrates that the topic is notable by Wikipedia's requirements for topics that have standalone articles. At best we have one very borderline source (source 2). We need at least 2 solid ones that satisfy

click me!) 13:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong delete all autobiographies are banned on Wikipedia and we need to actually enforce this rule with hard and absolute deletion of everyone we find. We have way too much presentist bias without people mucking things up by creating articles on themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just because one editor fills in a single citation doesn't mean it's no longer at autobiography. It's still an autobiography in violation of our rules.
  not even close. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juli Briskman

Juli Briskman (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 woman flipped off the president and got a whole bunch of coverage. She has now been elected to a county level post. Neither of these confer notability under any SNG nor do they add-up to GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I could never understand this policy of deleting articles that are useful for the final reader. In the end, shouldn't that be the final criterium - what's useful for the end-user? I was just listening to some international coverage on this woman I had never heard of. I got curious, and I looked her up on Wikipedia. I was lucky to find the article and get the context. Who cares if she is relevant according to some obscure criteria that is subjective anyway (to me, she is definitely relevant). What should matter is whether this article is sought and read by wikipedia users who want to have information on a subject. Under tha criterium, no person is too unimportant, as long as readers want to know about her.jlmalaquias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaquias (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep I agree with the nom. Low level local officeholder fails
  WP:NOT applies. Lightburst (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There was media establishing her notability twice: once for being arrested, now for being elected. Either one wouldn't establish notability but now she has been covered multiple times by multiple outlets for multiple things across multiple years. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I’m not even done with the article as it is (as I said in the edit summary I’ve only published the foundation of it) but anyway, for 2 years now the woman has gotten sustained coverage from the biggest reliable sources that exist not just in the US but internationally. If that doesn’t meet general notability then this is pure goal post moving. I mean for God’s sake, the New York Times isn’t good enough for you? The Washington Post isn’t good enough for you? The Independent isn’t good enough for you? Vogue isn’t good enough for you? USA Today isn’t good enough for you? The Guardian isn’t good enough for you? CNN isn’t good enough for you? NBC News isn’t good enough for you? TIME isn’t good enough for you? BBC isn’t good enough for you? That she flipped her local office is a continuation of her saga in the public eye. But as usual, as soon as a female gets an article the deletion machine goes into overdrive. Trillfendi (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not fair. female gets an article the deletion machine goes into overdrive. I reject that assessment. And basically she flipped off the president and the AP coverage was repeated out over and over. Can you imagine how many people have flipped off a president? This one? Now she is a low level politician, and that is it. For the rest of her life, she is the lady who flipped the bird to the pres. And they will run that same photo and bring up that AP article. Not encyclopedia worthy IMO. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, she is the one who made international news for telling the president she thought he was number one (you get my drift). That act in itself wasn’t encyclopedia worthy, it would’ve been a paragraph in another article at best and she would’ve continued her life a normal working woman in Virginia. The difference is, she turned that notoriety into sustained coverage and a successful foray into politics, no matter how low people see the position, she won the election and once again is in the international news—and the nationwide elections happened on Tuesday weren’t even that eventful so that’s saying something—with facts to verify biographical details. For all I care she could’ve thrown rotten tomatoes at him. Trillfendi (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A person flips the bird to the president...and later gets coverage for something not at all noteworthy. This woman has been elected to a low level position similar to an Alderman or even a School Board Member. The coverage she gets is from a liberal media establishment. From here forward all of her coverage will only be as a result of her one defiant vulgar gesture (see headline of every ref in article). If a WP reader or editor is liberal, the woman is referred to as plucky (see below keep vote) If a reader or editor is conservative, the woman is irreverent and not noteworthy. One !voter points out that her area (Loudoun County) is Republican as if her win was notable because of a flip - however her area voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And in 2016 Donald Trump was trounced in (Loudoun County). The state of Virginia also has a Democrat Governor (Ralph Northam) and voted Democrat (Hillary Clinton) in 2016. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was born and raised in Virginia... I already know how it gets down. It wasn’t that long ago that they Bob McDonnell was governor (it was bloody 5 years ago). Virginia really isn’t the liberal bastion people try to make it out to be when we have teachers probably still using the Abeka curriculum in private schools because they can get away with it, but I digress. Personally, I have no bias for any political party when I edit, let the record show. What matters here is the notability requirements don’t change just because of the circumstances of how they got attention. One of the guidelines is Notability is not temporary. Essentially this woman struck lightning twice. Trillfendi (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, not even for the one event. Do not redirect to
  WP:COATRACK. I'd remove it, but not while this is under discussion. See also this RFD from 2017. TJRC (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Last I checked, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. so pray tell how does that not apply to this subejct? Trillfendi (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject". Per Trillfendi. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Trillfendi. Sharper {talk} 00:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Trillfendi and Tagishsimon. Notabilty comes in many flavors and from many directions and for many reasons. She has had multiple mentions in RS, ergo Notable Oldperson (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The reporting on her election is substantially linked to the gesture she made — The Guardian even words it that way, as Woman who gave Trump the finger elected in Virginia. That The Guardian had to mention the first incident in order to relate the second shows that this is a single claim story. The coverage of her being elected is to a local position, which does not satisfy
  WP:NPOL, since I take "significant press coverage" to mean more than reporting on only one incident. Regards,  Spintendo  01:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Funny how you can't count two events, magically see it as BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Aside from the original media coverage due to the viral photo and her firing, there is now again international coverage of her due to her victory in the Virginia elections. I actually saw a report on her in the mainstream Germans news.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All of the coverage is due to her single act of flipping off the President. Without that, there would be zero coverage. Hence
  WP:BIO1E applies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Funny how you can't count two events, magically see it as BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s how it goes: Woman is photographed by White House photographer flipping off the president with face not shown, photo goes viral, woman makes international news, woman gets fired for ‘fessing up to it being her, woman sues, woman decides to run for office a year later rather than appeal for her job back (news covers it), woman wins office 2 years later, woman makes more news than she did the first time. Is it hard? Trillfendi (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denial is the first stage of grief. Abductive (reasoning) 02:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grieving... what exactly? The 30 minutes to conceive the article while chilling in bed on my day off? 5 editors are already in agreement with me on notability so try again. Trillfendi (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not you, the Delete voters. Abductive (reasoning) 02:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the largely Republican electorate of Loudoun County elected to elect a candidate who lost her job for exercising her 1st Amendment rights. That alone is astounding, and as multiple, independent secondary sources have pointed out, has national repercussions for the upcoming 2020 elections. Abductive (reasoning) 02:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Trillfendi. (And I'm betting we have not heard the last from this plucky woman.) Gandydancer (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Widely covered in secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Trillfendi. I looked her up here to see which company fired her on what grounds, and would have been surprised not to find an article on her here. Preslav (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable has been established. Meets GNG. Articles can easily be found with a quick Google search in major news sources, like the NYTimes, Washington Post, Vogue, USA Today, CNN, etc. Sustained coverage in RS for two years. The nom logic that the only reason why she was elected to office in Virginia was because she flipped off the prez has no merit. She won an election. This is not a case of "one event". Netherzone (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Contrary to some of the delete !voters,
  WP:NPOL actually proves notability in this case. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Satisfies
  WP:NPOL by a country mile. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep More than satisfies
  WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV and per Trillfendi, Tagishsimon, Oldperson , Abductive, Gandydancer, Erpert.--198.185.164.120 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The "only notable for one event" argument is manifestly inapplicable. If a person does one thing, gets press coverage for it, and then does another thing, that's two things they've done, even if the news stories about the second mention the first.
  talk) 20:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Just a note that I clearly respect the many thoughtful, experienced editors who are telling me that I got this one wrong. I'd have already withdrawn were it not for other delete !voters meaning it couldn't be closed anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in that case can we get a speedy/snowball close? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is mountain of coverage her that trumps the known for one event argument. I suspect she probably was reported on by every newspaper in the west at the very least. Here is a Der Spiegel article:[1]. If it is case of she slips into oblivion 6 months up the road, then article can be revisited, but at the moment is vastly salient.scope_creep^Talk 11:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep She received international attention for flipping off President Donald Trump. Despite her controversial behaviour, she gained international news which in fact makes her very much notable. Abishe (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The deletion argument here is that certain aspects or events do not guarantee notability. That may very well be the case but it is in itself not a good argument for deletion, as it neglects the fact that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent publications. --Cold Season (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like a
  WP:SNOW keep. As an aside, I may go flip off someone important and hope to get an article on WP. (sarcasm) Pretty clearly a keep. I retract my delete in the face of overwhelming keeps. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reinstated my delete !vote. My opinion had never changed, I was just succumbing to the snow keep: however the latecomers have convinced me that I should remain on record with a Delete. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A previously unknown Iraqi journalist threw both his shoes at President George W. Bush. I see separate web pages for the journalist and for the incident. Paul Klinkman —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Delete Ehhhh, I'm very uncomfortable keeping this, but I'm not sure how strong my delete argument is especially given the many keep !voters above.
  WP:NOTNEWS public interest stories which have merged into a WP:BLP2E. I'm not going to vote to delete it, but I wanted to comment here in the event someone looks at this ten years from now and wonders what the heck we were all doing then if she never gets any further press coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 10:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

And that’s where WP:CRYSTALBALL comes in. We don’t know what’s gonna happen even next year in politics let alone in a decade. WaPo sums up the current trend of non-politicians running for office because they were pissed off enough to. Hence why the article wasn’t created before she actually accomplished notability. And as I pointed out up top, one of the guidelines applies to 15 minutes of fame: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. (then again, here we are 2 years later). For myself, I had long forgotten about the story until I was bombarded with news stories about her after the election on Tuesday. So like I said, y’all can call this a low-level position but the only other person who was getting this level of coverage (nationally and internationally) was Andy Beshear of the Kentucky gubernatorial race. Trillfendi (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually where

WP:10YT comes in. If she goes from strength to strength, there's no issue. If we never hear from her again, I'm not convinced she's actually notable, and we've just had two "and finally!" stories about the same person. But again, not arguing to delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Updated to a delete after checking how few votes she received in the county election. I know this will get kept because of the large number of keep !votes above me, but I don't care. Even though she won the election, she only got covered in the election because of the event she's notable for. SportingFlyer T·C 10:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Though I share SportingFlyer's concerns, I'm willing to give this a chance (and there is decent coverage that may indeed satisfy GNG). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Super strong delete This "media covered her election" is rubbish. County officials get media coverage for election, but we have decided that is never enough to show notability. Making obscene gestures at the president falls under news, and thus is excluded under the not news guidelines. It is time to rid Wikipedia of its horrendous presentism and the junk articles that clutter it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If this rubbish article is kept it will be a sign that all hope of objectivity is dead on Wikipedia and it has been taken over by a liberal cabal that will stop at nothing to force their views into the encyclopedia and attack others in the process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agreed with you @
  WP:SNOW storm I relented. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Does no one realize that deletion discussion isn’t about votes? Trillfendi (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is an easy way to put it saying "!vote". But yes, we all understand the process and the policy rationale's weight. I have cited policy. Mine was not
  WP:JUSTAVOTE I was initially tabling my very strong rationale so that I would not be standing in the way of a snow storm. But now some latecomers have emerged and I realize I should stay on record as a delete. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, all the coverage is for a single event , not notable Alex-h (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage isn’t about a “single” event, it’s about an election (you know, multiple elections happened on Tuesday) whose victor had some notoriety to her name. This isn’t an article about the act of flipping off Trump. Is it that hard? Trillfendi (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in part because the election was hyper-local, she only got 6,300 votes, and the only reason why her election received any media coverage at all is because she flipped off Trump. Denie Corbo got 52,000 votes for School Board in the same election and no press coverage at all. SportingFlyer T·C 10:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Denise Corbo didn’t have an interesting story. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. 🍪 Trillfendi (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep This person has had international coverage in 2018 and 2019. Whether we like it or not, "a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it" ". There was coverage of the original event - the photo of her giving the president the finger. There was coverage in Australia of her suing her employer for being forced to resign, and of her being elected. I can assure those who say that she's just a county official, and there is always media coverage of the election of county officials, that there is not coverage of every US county official's election in Australia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Difficult to argue with your rationale @RebeccaGreen:. But just for kicks read the headline of every single reference. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - arguably, there's been six events - the flipping, the Trump-tweeting, the firing, the suing, the campaigning, and the electing, of which all have gotten international coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 11 November 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 22:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kapur

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

)

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines for academics. Unable to establish notability through research --- appears subject is less notable than many other academics who do not have Wikipedia pages. Backfiah (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Backfiah (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hardly remarkable. Fails
  WP:NBIO. Ajf773 (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Doesn't meet
  talk) 12:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The sources we have that are independent of the subject are not in-depth enough for
  WP:GNG. I found more independent but insufficiently in-depth sourcing [2] but not evidence of actual notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apeiruss

Apeiruss (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)

Who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. not enough to establish notability music company or group. This music group seems to be too early in the concept phase for any such coverage to exist then it means WP:TOOSOON for this young singers group. As because they have worked with some famous singer that is Tahsan So, isn't means that they did won something or receive any an award. Even i didn't find any notable album in bangladesh. this article should be Deleted. Nahid Hossain (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not a project I work on in any level of frequency, to an extent that I haven't yet developed an opinion toward delete or keep. I have done a bit of a search to find additional sources that may be usable in the article in some way here and here. It seems plausible to me that a half-decent Wiki article could be constructed from these sources and the sources already in the article, and I'd prefer a rescue rather than deletion. What prevents me from giving this a soft keep right now is that I have no reference for
  WP:RELIABILITY on these sources. They look less like press releases than other sites I did not list here, but ultimately that's the only judgment call I can make. hewhoamareismyself 23:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nahid Hossain (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as they have reliable sources newspaper coverage in the article and also in the Dhaka Tribune so there is no reason for deletion. Also they formed in 2014 so are well beyond the concept phase imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per
  (T) 09:06, 13 November 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 Draftify/moved to draft. BD2412 T 20:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mosel (programming language)

Mosel (programming language) (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)

Aside from a few press releases, I cannot find anything that supports that this programming language has established acceptance by the programming community and therefore may fail Wikipedia's notability requirements.

There are only 10 questions on StackOverflow that are tagged with mosel and the videos I can find on YouTube mostly seem to be related to advertising and tutorials uploaded by the creator. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 21:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 21:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 21:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't seem notable to me. —
  click me!) 21:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment:(re-!voting below)Keep or perhaps better draftify The likely clever thing to do on this was to
  WP:BEFORE. I quite frankly haven't delved into the those references but the article plainly isn't currently fit for mainspace. I've put a belated-welcome on the creators talk page for links to the help pages.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Author here. I don't even know if i'm supposed to write on this page frankly I find Wikipedia really unintuitive sometimes.... Perhaps I should have edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optimization_software or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICO_Xpress instead? The 'programming community' which uses this language is a very narrowly focused group of people doing mathematical modeling of systems of linear equations. My suspicion is that references to this industry/language on stack overflow is mostly full of open-source alternatives. Please view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optimization_software for an indication of what this space consists of. The article was meant to be a 'stub' since I don't have a ton of time to complete it in one sitting. I was looking for more of an unbiased assessment of the language's capabilities compared to others listed on that page. I supppose I don't care if this gets it's own page or not. I wanted to link properly from the Mosel disambiguation page as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonybakermpls (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:TEAHOUSE. Your article will not be until a week has passed since nomination at the earliest. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @Anthonybakermpls please do not be offended by any of these proposals or actions and to be clear, we certainly appreciate honest and thoughtful attempts to making Wikipedia a better place! @Djm-leighpark has GREAT advice for you and it's a good place for you to start. I personally don't think it's the worst thing in the world if you have a connection to the subject matter as long as such COI is declared and edits are purely objective and factual. In my point of view, everyone who is an expert in something that wants to contribute has some degree of interest. I'm a Microsoft Certified Software Engineer and I have worked with non-profits, medical firms, publishing software companies and educational institutions. Those associations and such don't per se disqualify me from posting in related subjects. However, if I chose to contribute in such a way, I would have to exercise a great deal of caution to avoid diluting Wikipedia and harming the efforts of future consumers of that information. So, yes, please follow @Djm-leighpark's advice. Perhaps we can resolve this without a deletion and improve the quality of the article. Welcome to Wikipedia; we're happy to have you :) Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 19:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: Then optionally change redirect to point to Anchor [[:FICO Xpress#A-Mosel}} (printworthy, with possibilities etc.) What to say is doing my head in but I'm happiest with that suggested. Mosel is quite linked to FICO and may be developed there ... but that said the language may have some independence so it tricky. Might suit Wikibooks, and might not. Djm-leighpark (talk)
• Draftify to give User:Anthonybakermpls time to create a suitable article.4meter4 (talk) 09:59, 14 November 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 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Study Hall School

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

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

Non-notable school which clearly fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  run of the mill school with run of the mill mission. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 12 November 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 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Bisciotti

Taylor Bisciotti (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 are not sources indicating she's notable. Current sourcing includes work biography and two alumni magazine pieces. Lots of non-notable people have appeared on Today so that's no sign either. A BEFORE did not find better sourcing to indicate notability. I think journalists have a harder time proving notability than some people of equal levels of note in other fields but under our current policies and guidelines she does not seem to meet our threshold. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not finding anything other than social media and a few human interest stories, but it does not seem to add up to significant coverage in reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find much either. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 8 November 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 22:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Willsheer

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guy (help!) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a clear violation of one event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While he might meet
  WP:NAUTHOR, searching on his name finds no reviews of the books he has contributed to. There is no other coverage apart from the crash event, except one picture of the day by him in the Telegraph [3], for which the caption says 'A biker is engulfed in a ball of fire as his 1950cc twin-cylinder machine explodes. Greger Johansson was performing a 'burnout' to heat his tyre when the 190mph nitro superbike malfunctioned. Photographer Andy Willsheer managed to capture the moment the fireball erupted - and a piece of the engine came hurtling towards him at Tierp Arena, Sweden. Andy says: "There was a bang then he was engulfed in flames. The intake manifold came flying towards me spewing flames, but luckily it clattered to the ground." ' Someone may well write about him one day if he keeps standing in the way of crashes, but they haven't yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above, and
  lack of significant coverage, being that there is one source that goes in depth about him once. I don't follow car racing, so I don't know how important his books are. As a photographer, there's no evidence his images have won awards or been exhibited in major art galleries. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 12 November 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 22:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Alternators

Transformers: Alternators (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 toy line TTN (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a combination of
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unencyclopedic for Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - one of the most blatant examples of fancruft. Zero sourcing. Fails
  WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Non notable toy line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:GNG RockingGeo (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Fails
  WP:GNG ,Alex-h (talk) 10:37, 10 November 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 22:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6 November 2019 Islamist attacks

6 November 2019 Islamist attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete — Unfortunately there are lots of terror attacks, but these are not by the same group and haven't even been connected in skeptic media. Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Or split if no connection is shown. Only the Thailand attack has an article. The attacks are notable. Remove Islamist from the title if that motivation can't be shown. Jim Michael (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support some kind of split for the other attacks. Might start the articles myself; I had thought they existed, but thanks Jim for correcting me there :) Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — There is no direct correlation between these attacks and the existence of this page is unnecessary, since its purpose is better served by
  ✉ 22:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:NOTNEWS perhaps the attacks are not related, the research does not even know. And given that the world has 1.8 billion muslims, it is likely that this coincidence occurs often. Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as SYNTH and a violation of NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you all be voting to delete if there were separate articles about each attack & Islamist were not in their titles? Jim Michael (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ansh.666 02:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the individual events, as I have said 1.8 billion muslims. Not notable.
  WP:CONTINUED

Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)restoring my erased comment. I assume accidentally erased.[reply]

You don't need to make anymore wikis. Jim Michael you only put one sentence and a source. There is no need if we have current events and you can fit a whole sentence on that. Only make wikis if you can put more sources in and it's actually important. Only two of the attacks today are notable today, the one in Thailand and Burkina Faso. None of the other attacks are even close to being important. 11S117 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  talk) 02:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or Merge into
  WP:NOTNEWS applies. hewhoamareismyself 05:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete When we make this kind of articles about different not related attacks in the world, we can make this kind of articles every day. When the stabber in Lebanon was targeting Western tourists it is notable enough for a separate article in my opinion. Lukasvdb99 (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 5 attacks in this article happened in Lebanon. Do you mean that the attack in Jerash, Jordan should have its own article? Jim Michael (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant that one. I confused the countries.Lukasvdb99 (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per SYNTH and NOTNEWS. No connection between events has been demonstrated other than they happened to occur on the same day. Daß Wölf 23:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:OR. There are other dates in history were multiple terrorist attacks or shootings occurred simultaneously while unrelated to one another. Inter&anthro (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete We do not have news round up articles. There is zeron evidence these create a discrete unit, let alone that they were covered as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The events are not related; may be they are in author’s mind but the article does not give any conclusion. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - putting them together is
  a fringe theory. Bearian (talk
  )

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerax

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

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

I tagged this page two years ago as failing GNG for an organisation per

I attempted to find reliable sources for this company and failed to do so. From what I have seen, I would argue it is not even notable in its niche industry.

✉ 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  WP:PRESERVE Lightburst (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Agree with @Lightburst:, the article is about a notable manufacturer of percussion instruments. It could be improved, of course, but I don't think deletion be a good idea. - Fma12 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with @
  WP:PRESERVE Rocktober2018 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 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.

Rocky Ricardo Meade

Rocky Ricardo Meade (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 page seems to only promote the entity. It may be possible spam. PROD was declined by the author for no reason. Awesome Aasim 20:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep He's the highest ranking uniformed member of the Jamaican military as the Chief of Defense Staff. That's a clear
  WP:NSOLDIER pass. The article does need work though. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Obviously. As a general per
  WP:SOLDIER. Ridiculous nomination. Yes, the article needs work, but he's clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdrawn - apparently I made an error again in not remembering that deletion is not the solution to everything. Will have to disable Twinkle again for a long while :\ Awesome Aasim 05:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Kind of Town

This Kind of Town (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)

Failure to Meet Notability Guidelines Hog Farm (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Part of the discography of a notable artist and written by a notable songwriter. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 22:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable song from a notable album and a notable. country star. Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina#District 6. So that people can still access the content if needed (seeing as some people wanted to preserve the content in some way) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Watts (politician)

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

)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment such a well written and referenced article. I understand the Nom's concerns. I may circle back later. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draft Perhaps it is a case of
  WP:PRESERVE with draft. If the subject has other achievements it can be resubmitted. Lightburst (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2018#District_6 as a usual and appropriate outcome for an unsuccessful candidate for public office. --Enos733 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete an unelected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I saved it to my sandbox, because it is a nice article, but until he does something more than be a candidate, this page should probably go. Alex the Nerd (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and save the material in the sandbox. Thank you, Alex the Nerd! Bearian (talk) 14:02, 12 November 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 22:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Robinson

Vernon Robinson (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)

Poorly sourced

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsuccessful candidates don't meet
  WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unelected candiates for political office are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - ran for office three times; NPOL applies. That's not enough to be a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 12 November 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) 19:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Fant Donnan

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bkissin (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not every person who runs for state-wide office becomes notable. Oddly enough, we lack articles on all the people who have held this office that she ran for. It would be nice if people would spend their energy creating articles on office holders, not unelected candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was merge to Swimming pool sanitation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral sanitizer

Mineral sanitizer (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

• Merge into swimming pool sanitation which lists various types of agent in a more general and structured way. Andrew D. (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. This is a
  WP:FORK
  . 13:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that merge is a good option here. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:15, 12 November 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) 19:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Alliance

Interstellar Alliance (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)

De-prod-ed article. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable fancruft with an overly vague title.
  WP:SALT so it can't be recreated a 3rd time._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Generic title so probably does not make sense to redirect it to Babylon 5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unsourced fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 11:53, 13 November 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 15:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia D. Brown

Cynthia D. Brown (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)

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable only as a city councillor and non-winning candidate in a political party's senate primary. As always, these are not article-clinching notability claims per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete city council members need better sourcing to show notability and those who lost senate primaries have never been shown to be notable at all for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. doesnt seem to be much point relisting since no one else commented since the last relisting. There is no clear consensus that GNG is or is not met at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Valdez

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

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

Article about footballer who made a few appearances in the Romanian and Paraguayan top divisions (both of which are considered fully-professional at

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails GNG which is more important than squeezing by on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I was not able to find anything on the internet for the majority of his
  WP:NFOOTY pass, his Paraguayan career, but I did add a couple of sources I found quickly to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep meets GNG with sources added since the nomination. Meets NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how anyone would conclude that article meets the GNG. The prosport.ro transfer announcement article is the closest thing to significant coverage, but it reads as routine coverage to me (just a quick rundown of his prior career). Jogurney (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The combination of that one, and the
      WP:N does it, barely, for me. I'd think a detailed search would find more. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I respectfully disagree; the gsp.ro article is nothing more than a note about him contracting swine flu. I did a detailed search and found nothing that gives an impression of significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I don't see these as GNG, because they say almost nothing about this player. What are we going to write in our article? "Abel Valdez was signed in 2009 to Astra Ploieşti, played two games, and got the swine flu." (That is pretty close to what the article actually says.) We just don't need stand-alone pages for articles that won't grow beyond a few sentences, because nobody is writing secondary sources for us to summarize. – Levivich 03:47, 5 November 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) 09:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Bouanga

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

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

Does not meet

The only game attributed to him by Transfermarkt is a November 2014 Lorient-PSG game. However, the source in the article itself clearly states that it was Denis and not Didier who played in Ligue 1, with Didier only playing for a reserve team. There is also an interview made right after that match clearly stating it was Denis who played and not Didier.

He did not played for any national team either: he was called for Gabon U20 but his club never released him.

There is no evidence he played in any further professional or national team match: bar this misattributed Lorient-PSG game his Transfermarkt profile is empty — NickK (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:44, 7 November 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. we are not the Guiness Book of World Records — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Ayub Khan

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

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

Article created by a sock of a blocked editor but it had some edits by other people so not eligible for G5. The claims to notability are 1) a few Guinness World Records for things like "Fastest time to burst 20 water balloons with the feet" and 2) his appealing to the Government of Punjab to help him with his college fees two years ago. Regarding the former, being a Guinness record holder does not automatically lead to notability, and while the latter was covered in a few newspapers at the time, it's pretty much

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we are not the Guiness Book of World Records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. INeedSupport ^:V 03:56, 11 November 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. BD2412 T 20:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Reddi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no prejudice against re-creating the article later should notability be established. Suggest
  trying another wiki for now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Usha is notable for being the first Asian american elected and sworn in as mayor to any city in Kansas. She likely was notable when she was elected in 2013 to the mayor position. I can edit the infobox to show her term as mayor as well. I think the article isn't written to publicize her campaign. I noticed that she is the only candidate that does not have the page created, which is why I authored it. There are more primary sources that aren't just from local media outlets which I can include. I tried to include a diverse mix of sources. Furthermore, I read through WP:BLP and I don't see any clear line of notability that is cited there that would prevent an article on Usha to be included. So long as the article focuses on only her public career and what can be cited in the public domain and is written from a neutral point of view, unless I am reading that wrong. Certainly her page on Ballotpedia or another wiki are also good places for this information to be updated, but when I was reading through the article on the 2020 Senate election, to me, it didn't feel right that Usha's name was only a blue link when she has already accomplished a lot as mayor and two-term elected city commissioner. She also had a failed bid at state school board which I have yet to include in the article. WaltBren (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can provide details of the independent, third party coverage required by the
    WP:POLITICIAN or some other means I'd be happy to change my position. I applaud your enthusiasm, and I hope I'm wrong! The KC Star article is nice I admit... but I see no mention of her in the WIBW article. The KMAN article is just election statistics and the Winchester Star article is about a man charged with rape but has no mention of the person the article is about--we can presume she was the victim and it's normally good policy for newspapers to not print the name of the victim, but even if they did just being a victim although tragic doesn't make an individual notable. The rest of the articles (from what I can tell) are useful for confirming data but not necessarily for confirming notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Firstly, mayors who hold the position on a rotational "everybody on city council gets a turn" basis, and are not directly elected by the voters, are never inherently notable just because they exist — that type of mayor is accepted as notable only if you can demonstrate a reason why they're uniquely much more notable than most other mayors.
    Secondly, "first member of X group to do an otherwise non-notable thing" is not an automatic free pass to being special, either — if she wasn't the first Asian-American city councillor in the entire United States, then you don't get to spin off 50 more second-level firsts for the first Asian American city councillors in each individual state, and then thousands of third-level firsts for the first Asian American municipal councillor in each individual town or city within each state. If her firstness doesn't have nationalized significance, then just being able to claim that she was the first of something is not an exemption from having to pass our regular notability standards the normal way.
    And thirdly, the fact that the article is written in a fairly neutral, rather than blatantly advertorial, tone isn't relevant — it was still created because she's running in a political primary she hasn't won yet for an office she hasn't held yet, and that's not a notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this brave woman. There is media coverage of her childhood rape and her quest to convict her father. Coverage of her term as mayor.
  WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]