Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 October	24 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. This is A7-able as a BLP that makes no effort to establish notability. ST47 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Bove

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

Apparent bypassing of AfC (see

^{(open talk page)} 23:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^{(open talk page)} 23:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^{(open talk page)} 23:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Non-notable; no references; and as above, cannot find sources. As an unreferenced
WP:BLP should not have found its way to mainspace. Eagleash (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Tina Bhatia

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

A clear case of

WP:BIO, there aren't any in depth reliable sources. Most probably will be notable but suggest waiting at least a couple of years Ceethekreator (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems
WP:TOOSOON at this stage with no prominent roles in notable productions (having Wikipedia articles) and most of the sources in the article are from YouTube. She may well be notable in the future when an article may be created then, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete. It looks like her career is starting to get traction with the award win at the film festival and several upcoming larger roles. At this point, she just doesn't have the RS to meet
WP:SIGCOV. It can always be recreated later after more reviews of her performances are made.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 30 October 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 Swamp Thing. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of Trees

)

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, um... no indication of notability here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swamp Thing. It's a valid search term, and this target provides sufficient detail. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swamp Thing - There are a few independent sources that mention the Parliament, mostly in regards to analysis of Alan Moore's writing. But, the mentions of the Parliament are brief, and do not really go beyond just a plot summary of what it was in the narrative of the Swamp Thing, which is not enough to support an independent article. That said, as a major part of the mythology of the character, and as it is already described in the target article, a redirect to the main Swamp Thing article would make sense as a valid search term. Rorshacma (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swamp Thing.4meter4 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 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 Ender's Game (novel series). MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Formics

)

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge to Ender's Game (novel series). Surely merits a mention there, though lacks notability for its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ender's Game (novel series). As a major element of a notable book series, it is, at the very least, a plausible search term. Merging can be performed as necessary, though as this current article is sourced only to quotes from the books, I'm not sure how much here is worth really transferring over. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Ender's Game (novel series).4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 30 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beri Weber

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

The subject is insufficiently notable within his field. Almost all of the information is about the singer as a person and not as a singer -- such as where he lived and which Hasidic sect he used to belong to vs what he belongs to now, or attempting to highlight his success and notability based on the fact that he has a single out -- this does not make someone notable. Furthermore, information is from poorly substantiated website sources almost entirely relying on the singer's submitted CV to the sources in question. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article clearly lists multiple albums and singles to his credit, so the point about a single being out seems irrelevant. StonyBrook (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
flash-in-the-pan Hasidic singer. StonyBrook (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Seems to pass
WP:SINGER : "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Article gives many sources which seem to show enough of a level of notability.Adam Bernstein (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Passes
WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Sabetpour

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Survived PROD in 2011 but I can't find anything to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one source used and also subject is not notable per wp:gng. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
minor functionary in the cog of the revolution. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The subject is not notable per
WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:58, 31 October 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. Deleted by

(non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

October 44th

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

Fails

WP:TOOSOON and it's possible that either the artist or their forthcoming EP will be notable enough for an article, but right now there's nothing to support this song. Richard3120 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: has now been speedily deleted under A9, so this AfD may be closed. Richard3120 (talk) 23:06, 23 October 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. I will also be performing the move for which there is consensus as part of this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Collins

)

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

This is a bit complicated, so bear with me. I was creating a short article today in response to a requested article at the rugby union wiki project for a player called

Justin Collins

for a different rugby league player (for the uninitiated, rugby union and rugby league are similar in name and practice but are actually entirely separate sports).

After completing the article, I took a closer look at the rugby league article and noticed that several facts about the rugby union player seem to have been inserted into the rugby league article, such as the birth date, birth place and physical dimensions. There are several confusing similarities between these two subjects: they both have the same name, they are both Australian by birth (though the rugby union player moved to New Zealand when he was 10 and has been there ever since); they both play a similar sport. I believe this has led to facts about the rugby union player being inserted in the rugby league player article without the authors realising what they were doing, creating a very confusing situation.

When I tried to look for some other sources to try and untangle this mess and find the real information for the rugby league article, I couldn’t find any reliable sources relating to the rugby league player. If he’s played for Hull FC as the article says then he would be notable if that were verifiable, but since I can’t verify it he fails the

WP:GNG. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Steve Collins (rugby league) and add to the disambiguation page at Stephen Collins (disambiguation), removing the "See also" entry for him there. It looks as if he is better known by this name - see all the sources given. There are various sources which support him playing for Featherstone Indie article, Wakefield Express and for Hull FC an Alamy photo, "Collins try ends Giants' comeback". But there's obviously a horrible mess of confusion between Steve and Gus, with all profile pages giving the same date of birth for them both, such as union club site and league club site. Plenty of work to be done disentangling. PamD 21:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that - lack of rugby league knowledge shining through. I agree with your suggestion. I'm inclined to believe the bio data relates to the rugby union player, the sources look solid. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move. The rugby league player is clearly notable and clearly a different person from the rugby union player. It's also clear that he goes by the name Steve, so the page should be moved to
Mkativerata (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but move to Steve Collins (rugby league). There was some confusion in my mind when I initiated Justin Collins article this time last year; as the rugby league player appears to be known as both Justin and Steve in the hullfc.com reference, but apparently nowhere else. The date/place of birth appeared reasonable, as Tasmania is an island state of Australia not New Zealand, and so it gave initial credence to the date/place of birth being for the Australian rugby league player rather than the New Zealand rugby union player, but it now seems more likely to be conflated. I think we can all agree that neither the rugby league player or the rugby union player are; Justin Lee Collins. Thanks to @Boleyn: for directing me here. DynamoDegsy (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in here. Very easy to get those two mixed up! I think the sources for the bio information of the rugby union player look pretty solid, so I've removed that information from the league article if that's ok. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Steve Collins (rugby league) as per all of the above. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Steve Collins (rugby league).4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 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. The article has already been deleted through CSD while the discussion remained on AfD. Utopes (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamunity

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

No external sources provided, no evidence of notability. —

talk ~ contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep.

(non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Brookfield Schools

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

I can't find any sources because the schools' website and pages where people review schools. It is mentioned a few time in articles about the town, but has no significant coverage. —

talk ~ contribs) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. There's a longstanding consensus that high schools (and above) are kept; here's a NJESD lawsuit, academic and qualitative data and presentation, public funding rates, listing as a specialized clinic, which is enough to me to prove it exists; as a school serving various groups of special needs it certainly isn't going to have as big of a profile as public schools. tedder (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per reasons and potential sources to improve the article cited by Tedder. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added content and citations that I believe adequately establish notability for this stub article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Following the additions by Grand'mere Eugene, I then went and made a number of changes and additions such as adding an Infobox, NCES stats, expanded history, categories etc - see this diff (added logo on next edit) No longer a stub now Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had looked at the article shortly after the AfD was created and saw an article that merited retention, but needed to be expanded with reliably and verifiably sourced material. That standard has been met with the article as it currently stands. Alansohn (talk) 12:48, 27 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Reynolds

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

Non-notable. Fails

WP:BIO. Some incidental coverage, but nothing in-depth nor independent. scope_creep^Talk 18:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is fluffy, borderline promotional--as indicated by fake sourcing such as this. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no in depth coverage. Barca (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG because of lack of RS.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Gilliam

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

Apparently non-notable actor. His most significant role appears to have been in

WP:GNG either. I don't see an obvious target for a redirect. Wham2001 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wham2001 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
dubious. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 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 List of Suicide Squad members. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuoso (comics)

)

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

Non-notable character TTN (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--nothing but the usual fan sites, and not even a lot of those. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see anything that establishes the notability of this character. Barca (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Suicide Squad members.4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 30 October 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 List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Psycho

)

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

Non-notable character TTN (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another fictional entry based on nothing but comic books. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect At the very least. Why would we delete this rather than redirect, TTN? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content is all in-universe, so there is no need to merge. I have no objection to a new redirect after deletion, but I honestly think it's pointless considering the scope of DC's completely literal tens of thousands of characters. TTN (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members.4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 30 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire (Stephen King)

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not only is this nothing but completely in-universe summaries sourced only to the works of fiction themselves, but a whole lot of this is
WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, with some of it actually not even being correct. I have not yet looked to see if there are any actual legitimate, secondary sources that discuss vampires in King's works as a whole (as opposed to just on individual vampires like Kurt Barlow) in more than just terms of plot summary that would give the topic notability, but even if there are, the vast bulk of the current article needs to be removed and completely re-written. Rorshacma (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete - After actually looking for sources, I haven't found enough on the topic that would support an article. There are plenty of sources on individual works of King's that feature vampires (largely
WP:SYNTH. Rorshacma (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:OR fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: a SYNTHy topic based purely on original research. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as
WP:OR.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Antonio Roberts

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

Non-notable. What sources are available are name drops. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Not independent or in-depth scope_creep^Talk 17:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is terrible, a resume stub, and more than half the sources need to be thrown out--primary, casual mentions, etc. But he's listed and gets a few sentences in that Oxford Handbook, and that should tip him over the edge. I'm going with weak keep. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes substantial pruning of sources is needed, but recent additions have established notability. The article just needs time and effort for improvements. keep Yaxu (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the weak side, as above. The Oxford Handbook of Algorithmic Music has a solid paragraph. He's quoted bythe British Library blog here. The Times mentions him here but I cannot get past the paywall to see in what depth. Minor coverage in MixMag. There are a few others, which overall mean he's slightly notable.
talk) 23:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Well spotted, well done. Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep.

(non-admin closure) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

2019 Grays incident

)

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

WP:RECENTISM. No indication that this will have any lasting notability. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy Keep Just one of the biggest murder investigations in the UK, and an incident revealing issues of port crossings from Europe to the UK a week before Brexit. Yeah, no notability whatsoever. Kingsif (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I am confused on why you are citing
WP:NOTNEWS, a large death count has led to broad coverage. I would wait at least a week before revisiting deletion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow keep - close this AfD due to being ridiculous. An organised, international gang killed 39 people together. This is similar to the
2000 Dover incident - both are very historically notable. Jim Michael (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep This is a definite keep. There are organized crime implications that are probably international.50.111.3.59 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - too early to tell about lasting notability. all I know is that it is notable now per WP;GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 23 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kashubian Americans

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

Bottom line is that this is a likely

Kaszubians#Diaspora, so a soft delete and merge might be an option, through I am still unsure if Szulist work is reliable enough to be cited (it's rather borderline). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not need articles advancing fringe theories on ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is used in passing in Chicago Churches and Synagogues: An Architectural Pilgrimage,George Lane, Loyola University Press, 1981; A Kashubian idiolect in the United States by Jan Louis Perkowski, Indiana University Press, 1969; Polish Genealogical Society of Wisconsin, 1995, page 5; and The Prayer of St. Hyacinth Parish, Detroit, Michigan ; Michael A. Krʹolewski, St. Hyacinth Parish, 1984. Ethnicities are generally notable. 4meter4 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 17:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If
WP:SPINOFF. StonyBrook (talk) 06:45, 24 October 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. Deleted per G5. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish-Pawan Ishwar

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

Blatantly promotional. Declined G11 (for some reason) and moved to draft, then moved back by a sock with no improvement. DePRODed by an anonymous account that added promotional sources only covering the topic in a passing matter. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The G11 was declined and the article moved back to draft space--that's a good enough reason. But G5 applies here, given the history. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sathyananda Saraswathi

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

Fails

WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG^converse 12:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 12:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 12:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 12:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 12:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
its "chairman" isn't necessarily so. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 29 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ferreira

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Low fan count on Youtube. It has a combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism, including the sale of music on WP. scope_creep^Talk 12:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC) scope_creep^Talk 12:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he's not really notable except for working with other bands. Can this be merged or redirected? Bearian (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian, could do. I see it has been open for ages. I usually trust your judgement but I'm not doing the work for merge and I don't think there is anybody available, hence the lack of discussion. I propose a redirect. It would seem to be the sensible approach. scope_creep^Talk 21:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. There really isn't an obvious redirect because he has mainly worked as a session musician with a variety of groups. Redirecting to anyone is not really helpful.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. No previous deletion attempts and no objections (or other commentary) after two weeks. RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Sri Sathya Sai International Centre for Sports

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

Fails

WP:GEOFEAT. ∯WBG^converse 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 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. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UCrush

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

Defunct. One working reference, but doesnt appear very notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The website garnered only minor and fleeting attention. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage to establish notability. Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai School

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

I am unable to land on a single piece of significant coverage in any reliable secondary source, covering this school.

Fails

WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 14:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - private school now closed, difficult to write a full article. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Sri Sathya Sai Vidyapeeth

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

I am unable to land on a single piece of significant coverage in any reliable secondary source, covering this school.

Fails

WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 14:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 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. NACADEMIC explicitly suggests it is an alternative to GNG - however it still requires verifiable evidence. Several editors have commented, to varying degrees, that Ansari, might be notable under NACADEMIC but none have attempted to show this with verifiable evidence. As such the consensus of those editors suggesting Ansari is not notable holds. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Ansari

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Article on Zoe Ansari, is an important addition to Wikipedia. I will highly appreciate if you give me some time to complete this article. This article should not be deleted. Kindly read the Progressive Writer's movement page. His name was already there but no page linking to it. He was a great writer and translator. It is because of him the south Asian community got a better introduction with Russian literature and Literary criticism. Thanks in anticipation. Khadem Hussain, India. (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need some RS saying all this, I found none.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't understand. Kindly elaborate. What's RS? Khadem Hussain, India. (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources, please read

wp:n should be read.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I have found one source, an article in Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies, which compares Ansari's translation of Russian texts with another Urdu translation. There are some other English language sources which have some information about him or his work. I think there are likely to be more sources about him in Urdu, though. Some of the references in the Urdu Wikipedia article might be useful (though the first, although published in a reliable source, is an obituary/reflection on his death by someone who knew him well, and probably doesn't meet WP:RS requirements). Perhaps there are other obituaries, however, and certainly there are more sources than are currently in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability; poor sources.Strandvue (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. The article definitely needs rigorous work, but it does not deserve to be deleted. I am trying to find out details of his PhD as well. I have just added a line about his contribution to the study of an Indian-Persian Poet. Zoe Ansari is a figure, who is overlooked despite his encyclopaedic contributions. Instead of a discussion on deletion, there should a discussion on improving this article. Thanks to all you senior editors. Khademhussain (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say it yourself, he has been overlooked, we have articles on people who have not been overlooked.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that shouldn't be the spirit. Genuine scholars should be remembered. Here is a link to the british library's entry of his Urdu-Russian Dictionary, which he edited. http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=moreTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=BLL01001986729&indx=8&recIds=BLL01001986729&recIdxs=7&elementId=7&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&frbg=&&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope%3A%28BLCONTENT%29&vl(2084770704UI0)=any&tb=t&vid=BLVU1&mode=Basic&srt=rank&tab=local_tab&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=Zoe%20Ansari&dstmp=1572286009351. Khademhussain (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you think this proves.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is. Simply producing a small biographical account on here, wouldn't hurt. It will be beneficial to those who are researches and students of both Urdu and Russian literature or comparative literature or world literature. Plus, his urdu page already exists, so I see no reason, to delete this, small account. (to be improved of course)Khademhussain (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its called policy, to be precise

wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

What is your opinion on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raaz_Lyallpuri Khademhussain (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I read

wp:rs. I have since then updated the article and added various RS. The link I sent above is of an urdu poet who's page is on Wikipedia and he has no notability. That page should be deleted.Khademhussain (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe, but that is irrelevant here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, agreed. What do you think of the Zoe Ansari added references now?Khademhussain (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse order

A WIND OF CHANGE, cannot check.

"The Debate on Amir Khusrau's "Inventions" in Hindustani Music", Journal of the Indian Musicological Society cannot check.

Music and Society in North India: From the Mughals to the Mutiny. cannot check

But as they are not about him, and you give the full article page numbers (and in one case the fist page does not mention him) I cannot help but wonder of these are all just passing mentions.

http://nyazamana.com is a review, so might be OK, but I see no byline by anyone whose view might be notable, and may be a comments page.

Youtube is not an RS.

Can you link to two in depth RS about him here on the AFD?Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am finding a lot of academic peer reviewed journal articles, doctoral theses, and academic books that cite Zoe Ansari. I am not finding any sources about Zoe Ansari. The number of publications citing the author though make me wonder if he might pass
WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I just did a cursory search through Google Books. This writer is mentioned many times in scholarly texts related to the literature and politics of South Asia. This article definitely needs to be re-worked, preferably by an expert on the subject.Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: here's a source assess table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table:
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/waraq-waraq-z-ansari-ebooks	WP:SPS			✘ No
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/chekhaf-zoe-ansari-ebooks	WP:SPS			✘ No
https://pakistaniat.com/2007/11/29/the-cyber-rebirth-of-pak-tea-house/	WP:AGF , no apparent affiliation	It says "this list was taken from Wikipedia"	Passing mention in a list	✘ No
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/communist-aur-mazhab-z-ansari-ebooks	WP:SPS			✘ No
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/abul-kalam-azad-ka-zehni-safar-z-ansari-ebooks	WP:SPS			✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/No-time-for-Trotsky/articleshow/15098451.cms			Passing mention in a list	✘ No
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ALA8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT353&dq=dr+zoe+ansari&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqsNLoqL_lAhVirHEKHcL_CZYQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=dr%20zoe%20ansari&f=false	?	?	Passing mention in a list	✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/books/chasing-khusro/article3672990.ece		?	Sharma is the main point of coverage, a short paragraph details his interaction with Ansari.	✘ No
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/khusrau-ka-zehni-safar-zoe-ansari-ebooks	WP:SPS			✘ No
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/urdumedia/biblio.html	?	?	Bibliography entry	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imaYYMK03Bk	Recording of subject's speech with no context as to where or the occasion	?	It's his speech, so yes	✘ No
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4419584			Single entry on bibliography page is not significant coverage	✘ No
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Li4uAAAAMAAJ&q=dr+zoe+ansari&dq=dr+zoe+ansari&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqsNLoqL_lAhVirHEKHcL_CZYQ6AEIMzAB			Single short quote, mentioned once, does not constitute significant coverage	✘ No
Error: a source must be specified				? Unknown
http://nyazamana.com/2016/01/book-review-liaqat-ali-2/	WP:AGF , no apparent affiliation.	Appears to be a blog post, not a major reviewed publication.	Appears to review one of his books.	✘ No
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23329101			? Single paragraph on eleventh page.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

~~I'll fill in sources 12 to 16 in a bit, more research is needed. But so far~~ the subject doesn't meet

reliable sources. SITH (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit: all of the sources I can access have been put in the table. Still not seeing the significant coverage required to be considered notable. SITH (talk) 12:30, 1 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, contributions) 08:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Disarray (EP)

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

Fails

WP:NALBUM, having no sources at all, and no reliable sources found online, just the usual non-RS sites for metal bands such as Spirit of Metal and Metal Archives. All the articles related to the band were recently created by a SPA and have borderline notability, but this fails outright without any sources. Redirect not really an option as the EP name is the same as the band. Richard3120 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of coverage in third-party, reliable sources. I agree that a redirect would probably be quite silly as a person who starts to enter the title into the search bar would easily be able to find the article on the band before they type out the (EP) part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article clearly fails the notability test for albums but also general notability. There just isn't anything here to make an encyclopedia article out of.Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

QuizFace

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

Can't find any independent coverage - all from Capital ~~

- talk 14:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

- talk 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Trivial. No independent sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:05, 30 October 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 that content is purely in-universe without showing notability, as well as being an unneeded content fork from the individual/series articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

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

Non-notable collection of in-universe

WP:PLOT only details. The details about one planet being in the top ten of naming a celestial body are completely trivial. There is a main series article and five novel articles, so there should be no issue describing the necessary context of the relevant locations in each individual page. TTN (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Before looking at the state of the article I was thinking that maybe one or two of these had potential, but not after looking at it. I don't see anything that can be rescued to the series pages' that isn't already covered there in the narrative. --Masem (t) 14:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and multiple
WP:INUNIVERSE violations. Bondegezou (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per nom and per
WP:TNT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: No one will take up the challenge to repair this should it be deleted. The legacy of this deletion will be a swarm of redlinks. Serendi ^podous 11:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would need a full rewrite regardless to comply with Wikipedia standards. But surely fine details about the planets of a fictional work are not super necessary to understand that work._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:46, 24 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Foundation universe planets

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

List of in-universe

WP:PLOT only details with no sources to establish notability. There's some 40+ novels in these series, along with three individual series pages. That is plenty to summarize the proper context of the main locations of each setting and the relevant locations of each individual novel. TTN (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I actually quite like the Foundation series, but this is vast, sprawling, unsourced fancruft that belongs on a Wikia. Reyk _YO! 18:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Reyk._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Enough with the fictional planets lists already! Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article for the series. Some of the information might be merged over there if not already. Dream Focus 15:32, 25 October 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Drinan

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Fails

fully-professional league and doesn't look like doing so any time soon). Article should be deleted; can be restored if/when he is notable. Giant Snowman 12:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drinan is on a professional contract in a professional league in Sweden at the moment. He's on loan from Ipswich Town where he's also on a professional contract and has been on other pro contracts at Waterford and Cork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersaints2014 (talk • contribs)

@

WP:FPL. Giant Snowman 12:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity He might be in a professional team which doesn't mean automatically make it as a Wikipedia page. Looking through the references, I see that most of them are basically the norm with transfers and match reports so you can't really deemed to be notable there. For me I would say to move it to draft as the Superettan season is finishing up and we will see what Ipswich Town do with this player. HawkAussie (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Clarification Requested~~: This person seems to have appeared in games for teams in the League of Ireland and in Superettan. This would seem to qualify under NFOOTBALL, assuming those leagues count as "fully professional". Are these leagues not "fully professional"? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @

WP:FPL states that the Superettan and the League of Ireland is not a professional league which would have the player fail due to that. But because they are contracted to Ipswich Town which is in the English Championship that is why I voted for drafity. HawkAussie (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

In that case, I agree that Draftify is the correct action. Thank you, @HawkAussie:, for the information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Midnight Sonder

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

Little-known film with no remarkable actors. Questionable sources also found within article, not sure if the award is good enough to prove notability? Suspected originally created by film creator as a way of self-promotion. Nightfury 10:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish the folks behind this film the best of luck, but there's just not sufficient coverage for notability (as Wikipedia defines it). Neither of the film festival awards are sufficient to confer notability. They are both small, recently established festivals (2 years each), with little external attention. CIFF in particular openly advertises the large number of award categories as a draw for filmmakers to enter films into competition there (because that makes a larger percentage of the field into winners, of course), and the award at Fameus is effectively a third place award. These do not satisfy
NFILM #3. And beyond the minor festivals, the closest thing to a reliable source is this snippet of an article, which is really just a vehicle for the trailer. I can't find any full reviews in the industry media, just a scant handful of user-submitted opinions that don't meet project standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

ConveyIQ

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

Non-notable company, lacks significant in-depth source from

WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see a lot of press releases and routine industry coverage, but not much of the sort needed for
WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:36, 26 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheLadders.com

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

Non-notable company, lacks

WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
WP:BEFORE assessment of the discussion and the sources identified in the previous AfD which led to its Keep conclusion? AllyD (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this AfD should succeed where the last one failed. The sourcing is decent enough. Keep. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found new
WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:57, 30 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 00:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Rubin (attorney)

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

article has been tagged with "may not meet notability guideline" since 2012. So let's have the discussion - what makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Quakewoody (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Quakewoody (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. lullabying (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep.
WP:BEFORE gave me obits in LA Times (in-depth, major news outlet of global-level city), a San Francisco Chronicle reprint of LA Times obit (though with some info cut) and same state), and Sun Sentinel (shorter, but quite far from where the person was prominent in), but that's about it. ミラ P 18:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes
reliable source as a "having a reputation" in his field, trustee of major charities, "service on a major bar association committee or section", etc. I found this list that mentions his bar presidency. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a bit more work is needed it references--Dreerwin (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments are saying keep, but the only reliable source mentioned is a single obit (reprinted twice). Resisting to see if any more sources can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Obituaries do count as RS when they are journalist written and unpaid for, which is the case here. The substantial obit in the WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 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 Nivedita Menon. This is, as Madness points out, a difficult nomination to close. XfD, though seeking a generation of consensus, is not a vote, and assertions of notability that fall short of the requirement of in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources, or assertions that notability will be discovered in the future can not be weighed in favor of a subject. With respect to WBG's concern that BLPs should not point to other BLPs, that is a valid concern, but the subject in this case is already mentioned in the proposed target article, and asserted familial relationship between the BLPs does not appear to be in controversy. Even if there were no discussion here, the proposed target article would be the natural redirect target for the term. Of course, this close is without prejudice to the article being restored should sufficient sources be found. bd2412 T 20:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pramada Menon

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

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

Fails
WP:ANYBIO ∯WBG^converse 11:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 11:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 11:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a little more information about her activism and her artistic work (film and standup). She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GNG necessitates multiple instances of significant coverage. She gets a host of trivial mentions (mainly as general acknowledgments of help in scholarly publications) but barring an interview over a city-supplementary of the Hindu (which FWIW, are almost always paid-for), am not seeing remotely anything like that. FWIW, Plainspeak ain't a RS. You are requested to provide the specific sources that lends to GNG and quote the exact passages. ∯WBG^converse 06:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LiveMint is an RS. The Hindu is an RS (and unless you can definitively show this one was paid, then don't say it was.) Why do you feel that Plainspeak not an RS? It's a digital magazine with submission guidelines, etc. It's not a blog. All of her "mentions" in scholarly publications are pretty significant indicating a person that's respected in her field. All put together add up to GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can't ever definitely prove that something was paid (follow the link, in case you thought that it was just me!) but interviews/coverage in metro supplements are almost-always paid (and they don't really carry colorful banners proclaiming they are paid).

Pray provide some of those significant mentions in scholarly sources. (Quote the paragraphs, please.)

As DLinker says below, Plainspeak is not a RS. A website of a NGO, masquerading as a scholarly magazine and an interview over there contributes nothing to notability.

The Mint (merely) has a review of their work. ∯WBG^converse 13:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably Merge to Nivedita Menon and mention there in the family section. The problem here is largely because the few articles in (reliable) Indian media are all interviews. Not that I have anything against interviews, but I think we should not use them for notability since it is not really a third person's view. Some of the other sources like Plainspeak are not really reliable sources, it is actually the website of an NGO. I have known about Pramada Menon's work since a while and she has done some good work; unfortunately most of it is behind the scenes which is perhaps not flashy or sensational enough to be covered in media. There is a good chance though that in the coming years there could be coverage about their work. Perhaps a good solution right now would be to merge some of the information into the article of Nivedita Menon under the family section and not outright delete the article. I cannot support an outright keep here, so a merge would be best--DreamLinker (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all aspects. But, am very skeptical about redirecting BLPs to other BLPs ... ∯WBG^converse 13:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the work done by Megalibrarygirl, which seems to point a bit more towards notability. DreamLinker's points, too, are solid, making this a close and difficult decision. Madness ^Darkness 23:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may not fulfill the notability issues for now, but it can improved in the coming days. It can be further expanded and the article is available in other languages as well. Despite the issues, I would still prefer to keep this. Abishe (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might take a look at
for we are not a crystal-ball. ∯WBG^converse 15:07, 31 October 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 that individual isn't notable, including a !vote after the addition of more info Nosebagbear (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Vee

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

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

Subject is a American rapper. A
talk) 10:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just added more info, plus more to come. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caterpillar84 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood Football

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Lakewood Football

Articles for deletion/Lakewood Football (2nd nomination)

Lakewood Football (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 of high school sports team.
Last AFD closed as withdrawn and
- talk 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There are a large number of issues with this article, including
WP:YOUNGATH I don't think we typically include articles about youth school sports clubs. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My article merely discusses the history of a football team and its accomplishments. I don't understand how this may be considered advertising or promoting. As for notoriety, there are several references listed to prove the validity of my article. A comment was made about generally not hosting material about "youth sports." My article focuses on the sport of football, regardless of its level of competition. Please reconsider instating my article. Another interesting fact, it is my understanding that this website is in need of art or graphic designs. I can contribute a vast amount of this work through my article, if given the opportunity. Is history not one of the top subjects on this site? That is all I wanted to share in this community. BigRed66 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Create a fan website page for it on your own or ask the school if you can contribute to their website. tedder (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't even have an article for the dominant
chatter) 23:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, *Redirect to ~~Lakewood High School (California), where~~ and instead place a brief paragraph covering the team at the Lakewood High School (California) page to adequately cover the team in the main school article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not optimum at all; there are nine other Lakewood High Schools in the United States, and we aren't going to redirect to one while cutting those other nine out. chatter) 20:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Good point. With such a common school name, I guess there's no logical redirect target. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps a few sentences can be merged into the main article. I'm not confident a redirect is even necessary. tedder (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional piece, not notable separate from Lakewood High School. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable sports team.
WP:PROMO also applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete clearly non-notable team. The sentence "The purpose of this newest web site is to bring to the forefront the proud tradition and history of Lancer football" also suggests a lack of understanding of the concept/purpose of Wikipedia -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Notability" here is defined as accomplishment recognition, and clearly there are notable professional alumni listed in the article. This is far from a promotional piece. It merely focuses on the history and achievements of a football team. If it's a simple phrase about a proud tradition, it can be removed.BigRed66 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, almost the entire article is full of
WP:NTEAM). Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Eagles247: Would you mind directing me to an example of what is an acceptable sports team article? Almost all of the current football articles hosted here mention an enormous amount of history, which is what I'm trying to do with my piece.BigRed66 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The history isn't the problem, it's the notability of the actual subject being described as well as the language used in general.
weasel words. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Eagles247: I noticed the highlights. Thanks for pointing them out. I'll have a look at Maryland's page for more insite.BigRed66 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear, simply re-writing the article (and, as commented above, it would require a near-total re-write if kept) will not in and of itself resolve the major problem, which is the notability of the subject. WP's notability guidelines specifically state the following: "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond routine coverage." So you would need to be able to demonstrate that the team has received extensive coverage in independent news media, books, etc, which goes beyond simply noting the team's results. If such coverage doesn't exist then I don't think there's any chance of the article being kept -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:YOUNGATH. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@ChrisTheDude: You mentioned media coverage. I've listed several references to validate that point. Can you clarify what you mean by "routine coverage?" The updated article mentions extensive coverage of the team's coach, which is independent of the subject I would say.BigRed66 (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To which reference(s) do you refer? I can't see any references currently in the article which contain "extensive coverage of the team's coach". And to answer your question, routine coverage in the context of sport essentially mentions reporting on games. So if a newspaper runs a short report on each of the team's games the following morning, that's routine coverage. So there needs to be evidence of coverage more in-depth than that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@
prep-to-pro player, but high school teams very rarely will make the cut. Secondly, the article lacks an encyclopedic tone, because it reflects your passion for your team, written almost like the second broadcaster in the booth who provides interesting commentary on the action. By contrast, the tone of the encyclopedia is more subdued, less flashy, less hyperbolic. Think dull as dirt, without any promotional verbiage whatsoever. If you want to contribute to Lakewood High School (California), consider adding an "External link" to your website at the bottom of that article. As writers and editors, we appreciate your effort, but in this instance you have just missed the mark entirely. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, and do not redirect. The creator of this clearly worked very hard on this and should look to finding a host, but we are specifically
school article guidelines. Sorry. An encyclopedia article is built of information paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. There are only a couple articles on high school football programs in the US. These cover schools that have programs 125 + years old that have been the subject of multiple full length books. John from Idegon (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails notability. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:05, 30 October 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 Al-Anwar Club. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Anwar Club Stadium

Al-Anwar Club Stadium (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
ping}} me in replies) 10:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Al-Anwar Club - no independent notability. Giant Snowman 10:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Al-Anwar Club, I don't know if a redirect is necessary, seems rather generic in name. Govvy (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's too early to delete it . I already add source and i will adding more media just waiting to visit the place. Slayym (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per GiantSnowman because it can then be easily retrieved if Slayym provides the additional data. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chitrak Shah

Chitrak Shah (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 BLP. Fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, and BLP. Also, may be a
WP:COATRACK to publicize negative information. I removed poorly sourced negative BLP material - see diff here - [1] Steve Quinn (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. --RaviC (talk) 18:54, 28 October 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 Nom withdrawn. Tagged as G12 copyvio.
- talk 08:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Lakewood Football

Lakewood Football (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 page for a high school American football team. ~~
- talk 08:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 08:02, 23 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Maya

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

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

Notability is questionable, most of the appearance are special guests, lacks significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources, fails
WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I never know what to do about articles on Colombian radio and TV "personalities"... most of them are similar to this one, in that you can find sources for the university studies and internship mentioned in the lead [2] her two husbands and children, and living and working in Miami [3], [4] or her entry into the world of YouTubers [5]. All the sources in the article are reliable ones, mostly well-established national newspapers. Ms. Maya is certainly a well known personality in Colombia, but I understand the nominator's concerns that despite the sources the article just adds up to a lot of fluff – sadly, this is exactly the depth of reporting you will get in Colombia for most people involved in the entertainment business, and there are dozens of articles on Colombian TV presenters and soap opera stars which will never be any better than this one, because it's all on the level of Hello! magazine. But there's no question that the sources in the article and mentioned above are reliable ones. Richard3120 (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is significant reliable sources coverage directly about her as detailed above. While she does not pass
WP:NACTOR she found fame as a model and that is where the main claims of significance are, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Atlantic306.4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 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. While there is a lack of clarity as to the existence of the film, there is clear consensus that it lacks notability Nosebagbear (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radical (film)

Radical (film) (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 found no sources beyond IMDb and no proof that the film was ever released. SL93 (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think? This is a weird one. It completed production in 2011. Variety announced plans in 2012 to package distribution with another Cameron Romero / Tom Sizemore film, Auteur. And then... not much. Auteur was picked up for distribution and released in 2014, although I'm not super confident that it's notable either. My guess is that the package deal with Radical didn't get traction with the eventual Auteur distributor (Music Video Distributors). IMDb claims a 2017 release date for Radical without any sort of sourcing or confirmation; FilmAffinity claims a 2011 release date with no more evidence... but I'm pretty sure that one is just wrong. In any case, and despite the obnoxiously false-positive-laden title, I can't find any reliable reviews of this film or other reportage following the 2011 quick takes. I think the nominator was right to suspect that this was never actually released, and I think equally correct that it isn't notable. It might be worth a redirect and quick mention in Cameron Romero's article, except we don't have one of those. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as whether or not it has been released there is a lack of coverage, for example there are no external reviews at IMDb and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 27 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured One

Armoured One (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 company lacks significant
WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of
ping}} me in replies) 08:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I see the subject has been covered in various reputable publications and clearly passes the
general notability guidelines. Armoured One's training and its visits to schools have been reported by many news channels including KTLA Morning News, Spectrum News, WPTV Abdul.kanchwala (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I made up my mind to write an article about Armoured One after seeing its team being invited on many News shows to discuss on school shootings and how to deal with it. The article is thoroughly cited and meets the
WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul.kanchwala (talk • contribs) 14:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Not sure why this was nominated for deletion under this rationale as the article contains plenty of sources to meet
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Eztax.in

Eztax.in (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)

Lacks indepth
WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 23 October 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 Bhat, Daskroi. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of faliyas in Bhat

List of faliyas in Bhat (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 encyclopedic in anyway. Original research.
want to talk? 06:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
want to talk? 06:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:LISTN. Non notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as original research. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on the town. The information will need a source; ref 2 would appearto be suchasource. The links do not work, but that does not mean that plain information such as this is not sourceable. We do not remove articles because of dead links unless we are sure there is no other possible source . . DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on the town per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 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 Bhat, Daskroi. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garba Chowk

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

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

Not notable place to include in Wikipedia.
want to talk? 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
want to talk? 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
want to talk? 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
want to talk? 06:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete original research. Mccapra (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have voted merge to the village but the article is Original Research without any reference. Appears that squares with this name are in several Gujarati cities. [6] In any case this does not appear to merit a seperate article, at best a paragraph in the village article, but a reliable source will still be needed. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. thei nformation will need sourcing, but there is no deadline. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 30 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 00:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moti Lake

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

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

Not notable. Fails
want to talk? 06:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
want to talk? 06:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
want to talk? 06:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep
WP:GEOLAND applies. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

How Geoland applies here? It’s not disputed territory or any type of the legally recognised place. If you can see the source then it’s of district authority office and you’ll find no mention of it except name of village. Read
want to talk? 11:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I think Mccapra means the GEOLAND statement of "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you that’s what I meant. Mccapra (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But clearly it’s not provided here. The lake is not famous to have significant coverage in books or news about its history or geography. —
want to talk? 17:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
As a geographical feature it doesn’t need significant coverage. Many articles about lakes, reservoirs etc. on Wikipedia don’t. Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lake exists, so the criteria listed on
WP:GEOLAND apply. Utopes (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. a geographical feature does not have to be famousto be notable, ; the assumption is that if it has sources for more than a map reference or a population figure, that it is notable . Thebasis for this is the statement in the most fundamental of all our rules,
WP:5, that WP has some of the characteristics of a gazetteer. DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@
want to talk? 09:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:MAPOUTCOMES covers geographical features, and it's fairly widely accepted that articles about lakes are kept, even if they aren't notable in a GNG sort of way. I also think this is a ~~keep~~, based on what I'm seeing at the article. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Striking keep, explanatory comment below. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GEOLAND. Andrew Base (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as the information in the article cannot be verified as expected in
WP:GEOLAND, however information has to be verifiable. If I cannot even verify the name of the lake, I don't see why Wikipedia should keep what could be a potentially incorrect article.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Exactly DreamLinker! That’s what I was saying to the people who wrote keep. Here’re key points of WP:GEOLAND and here’s how it fails
Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.

Is any information about this lake is available in public domain? N

Are statistics even available with us? N

The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article.

Is there any verifiable content available in books or newspapers? N

Do locals living near the place are aware of this lake? N

Do Google shows any result about the place and information in reliable sources? N

I think I should ping @
want to talk? 02:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

want to talk? 03:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If you follow the coordinates given in the article you can see the lake on Google maps. If you search for ‘Moti talav’ you’ll see pictures of it, (there are pics on Wikipedia Commons) plus 1, 2, 3 and plenty of others. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
want to talk? 04:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
ok that deserves a laugh. Mccapra (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
want to talk? 04:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Well I’ve thought about that and decided not to. When I search for Moti Lake in Gujarat I get one passing mention in a research paper and not much else, but my keep !vote was not based on a misidentification of this lake with another - I only went and searched just now. My keep !vote was based on Wikipedia being a gazetteer of geographical features. I’ve spent many happy hours deorphaning articles about lakes of the same size as this in France and Germany. There are hundreds of them, and for most we have no more by way of sourcing than we have for Moti Lake. On this basis I’ve decided to leave my !vote as it is. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and information merged in village article. According to
WP:GEOLAND, Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes... lakes... The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. I tried hard in English and local Gujarati language. Only information I can find is there is a reservoir lake (અનુશ્રવણ તળાવ) in Bhat village with size of 0.16 cubic and 2 metere depth Source: Ahmedabad district site No. 103 in list. In Google Maps, I can see two other lakes (one being tagged Vasdar Talav and other not tagged). The listed reservoir lake could any one of these three lakes. The person who created the article created many articles on Bhat village for each and every small feature of the village. There is also a serious chance that the lake does not have any name and the creator himself named it Moti lake. Or at best the people living near it calling it Moti lake. There no sources available for Moti lake and is unlikely to expand beyond a sentence in future. There is no point in keeping this article only because it is a lake. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
canvassing
? I'm not saying you've broken them with your pings above, since it could be argued that you pinged the people you did because they are known for their expertise in this field, which would be appropriate notification, I'm merely mentioning it in case it wasn't something you were aware of - pinging specific editors from deletion discussions is sometimes interpreted as an attempt to improperly affect the outcome of the discussion.

You'll see that I've struck my keep vote above, based on the arguments you've put forward, and on Nizil's comments above. I have not done an exhaustive search for sourcing myself, but based on what Nizil is saying the best option might be to ~~Merge~~what content we can into an article about the region or area the lake is in, and redirect this title to that article. Users with better local knowledge than me would be better placed than I am to suggest which article that should be - Bhat seems like a possible candidate, a short line about this lake might be added to the 'Geography' section there, perhaps referenced to the research paper that Mccapra identified (a passing reference should be enough to support an assertion that the lake exists). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing mind again per latest discussion

No, I know about canvassing and thus, I pinged three users who are living in near place like I am so that their opinion matters. And I pinged all of those first who voted here. And article you’ve linked is of community not of village. Best article is
want to talk? 10:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Harshil169, OK, no probs - just wanted to make sure you were aware. You're much better placed than me to determine the best redirect target, I'll bow to your judgement there. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can support a merge/redirect because the name of the lake itself is unreferenced.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DreamLinker, I think Mccapra said further up that they had found a source that mentioned it (albeit in passing) - Mccapra, could you post a link to that so we can see whether it would support a merge? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
want to talk? 17:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Harshil169, No, it was later in the conversation, they said it mentioned a Lake Moti in Ghujarat. It would be worth checking that. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes I found this (see page 4 just above figure 2) though on rereading it, although it’s in Gujarat, I’m not completely sure it’s the same place. Mccapra (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
want to talk? 02:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok well, if that source is also a dud, and we literally don't have any source that attests to the name even, then there's nothing to merge - striking the above. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lake that is only verified to exist is NOT by default notable. The province of Quebec has more than 500,000 lakes. These all presumably can be seen in maps. But we do not want articles for all of these, with merely location and name of lake information. Here it sounds like the lake is relatively unknown even locally, and there do not exist sources to meet wp:GNG. --Doncram (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 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. Incomprehensibility questions aside it seems like there are notability concerns as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puncturable signature

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

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

I cannot tell if this is notable , as I do not understand it. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as
WP:CSD § A1. It is a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. We write articles to give information, not to encourage people to disregard them go find said information elsewhere. Sending it to the draft namespace is another alternative. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment There are countless mainspace articles I can't understand because they're too technical for me or because I don't know enough about proteins or fluid mechanics. That's not a reason for deleting them. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I would like to emphasize that not understanding this article was not a factor in my recommendation of "speedy delete". flowing dreams (talk page) 14:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that
A1 applies, because the article does establish a context: this thing is a variant of this other kind of thing that computer people study. But there doesn't appear to be enough discussion of it in the academic literature to establish it as wiki-notable. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I also don't think that
WP:TOOSOON to have developed RS about it. Hence, my recommendation is to delete with with no prejudice to re-creation if and when sufficient RS become available. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As per above EvilxFish (talk) 16:22, 29 October 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 Bhat, Daskroi. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holi Dhal (Bhat)

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

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

Not notable place to have article on Wikipedia. Didn't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources.
want to talk? 06:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
want to talk? 06:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
want to talk? 06:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

merge information in Bhat, Daskroi and delete article, no redirect needed. A square in a small village and no reference. -Nizil (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested. I note the nom of this article has recently removed most of the information from the article on the village without giving a reason. I assume the reaso nwas the lack of an inline source, but such sources are required only for blp. If links do not work, that does not mean that plain information such as this is not sourceable. We do not remove content because of dead links unlesswe are sure there is no other possible source . DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (judiciously) to Bhat, Daskroi, no need for a separate article. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 27 October 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) 07:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benny morgan

Benny morgan (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 obvious COI and sockpuppetry aside, the article fails
WP:G11 may be entertained given the promotional sources. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 05:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 05:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 05:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to suggest keep, but then looked at kubilive.com and discovered that it's a very slick site by one blogger. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss the subject. Apparently
WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom fails
WP:NMUSIC. Theroadislong (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I draftified this article previously, and it failed the AfC criteria. It appears the original creator went ahead and added it to namespace anyway. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Utopes (talk) 00:59, 24 October 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) 07:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin Chinese Lessons with Serge Melnyk

Mandarin Chinese Lessons with Serge Melnyk (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)

Totally spammy insignificant website. Not notable. Fails
WP:GNG Iamchinahand (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. Amazing this spammy article has gone undetected for so long. -Zanhe (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 17:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Fails
WP:GNG --SalmanZ (talk) 17:11, 23 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poonthran

Poonthran (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)

A self promoted Indian Muslim family. Fails
talk) 04:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The whole article appears self-promotional, and despite all
weasel words, there is no real claim to notability. There are only claims to being a family that is "highly regarded (weasel) for their superior wisdom and prestige (peacock)" There is much reason to believe that this article was written by a person who was close to the source, or by the source. Utopes (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as self promotional. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Beo Zafar

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

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

Fails
WP:NACTOR. Minor support roles. Coverage is minor except for one ref. Books are non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 01:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:50, 23 October 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) 07:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Johnson

Thomas A. Johnson (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 apparent claim of notability in the article, the sources present are weak and nothing reliable and verifiable could be found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual claim to notability. When an article details placement in Who's Who in America, we are substituting paid for honors for the real thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- apparently a one-man ministry. We regularly delete local churches as NN and free-lance ministers are often less notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 27 October 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) 07:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afiat Basheh

Afiat Basheh (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)

Nominated for deletion in Persian Wikipedia, the article contains not much more than definitions, improper for Wikipedia. Mohammad 03:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mohammad 03:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mohammad 03:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mohammad 03:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written this is a dictionary not an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 24 October 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. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Syperek

Jack Syperek (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)

As a band member of
BAND, and therefore this page should be deleted. JGHowes ^talk 03:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 03:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JGHowes ^talk 04:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to be a
WP:NOTINHERITED, as subjects must be shown to be individually notable to be considered for a standalone article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, without prejudice against the recreation of a redirect to
reliably sourced as having standalone notability for some substantive reason (e.g. solo albums) outside of the band context. But this literally just states that he exists as a band member, the end, which is not enough. And there's no substantive reason why we would need to retain the edit history behind a redirect, so we should delete and then redirect rather than just immediately redirecting with the edit history intact. Bearcat (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to The Trews as not independently notable from the band, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 26 October 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 The Trews. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin MacDonald (musician)

Colin MacDonald (musician) (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)

As a band member of
BAND, and therefore this page should be deleted. JGHowes ^talk 02:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 03:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JGHowes ^talk 04:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against the recreation of a redirect to
reliably sourced as having standalone notability for some substantive reason (e.g. solo albums) outside of the band context. But this literally just states that he exists as a band member, the end, which is not enough. And there's no substantive reason why we would need to retain the edit history behind a redirect, so we should delete and then redirect rather than just immediately redirecting with the edit history intact. Bearcat (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect as not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/ Redirect to
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No point redirecting as the term includes disambiguation; the more appropriate place would be a note to The Trews in Colin MacDonald. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:29, 30 October 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. Those advocating deletion suggest that this article's topic is not studied by Philosophers in a way that would convey notability and/or that it serves as a POVFORK/COATRACK from Conspiracy theory. Those advocating keep suggest that there are enough philosophical works in reliable sources to support the article topic's existence. This AfD's closure is complicated by the posting to the Fringe Noticeboard. A neutrally worded message on a noticeboard is not CANVASSING however the posting in this instance was hardly neutral. While it did not directly mention this AfD merely the article, it seems to have drawn attention in the sense that the AfD had been open for two weeks prior to that posting and the majority of participation, including nearly all delete !voters, followed that notice. However, as CANVASS is a behavioral policy and there was a split in the vote of those who came following the FRINGE posting I have given full weight to all editors views expressed here. As such there is no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of conspiracy theories

Philosophy of conspiracy theories (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)

WP:SYNTH A loose necktie (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I've consulted the NOR page and the section on synthesis, and I don't think this article has these problems. I've removed one paragraph anyway, which might be objectionable on notability grounds. And I changed the introduction to be a simple straightforward statement of the topic.

I would note that the content is largely, though not exclusively, a summary of summaries, as can be seen by looking at the references. For example, in one section, I repeatedly cite David Coady's introduction to his book Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate, in which he summarizes the published articles on this topic up until 2006. Isn't that exactly what I'm supposed to do?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knuteson (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knuteson is the creator of the article and the major contributor to it. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Summarizes a topic from the academic literature without advancing a new thesis about it. It might need a going-over with the encyclopedic-tone-alizer, but the subject is legitimate and the sourcing is OK. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the purpose of the
Conspiracy Theory article? To summarize the credible, scholarly literature on the topic? I would expect a "Philosophy of" article to be a good deal more "meta" and to focus on the history and impact of the scholarship itself. ApLundell (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, basically per XOR'easter. bd2412 T 19:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no branch of
per sources, that is called "Philosophy of conspiracy theories." This is a blatantly false claim. There's a plethora of work on conspiracy theories, in general or about particular ones, their origins, their effect on society and people, and so on. (The text looks like a student's paper, by the way, one of the avalanche of papers that are trying to find their way onto Wikipedia lately.) At best, this text needs to be draftified and get a serious make over. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I assume I can vote for a page I originated, although my support is already implicit.) It seems The Gnome is suggesting that one of the sources is illegitimate because it, apparently, characterized the philosophy of conspiracy theory as a "branch" of philosophy. The Gnome calls this a "blatantly false claim." It is not clear which source is the offending one, so that makes checking the context difficult. In any case, I'm not sure it is quite fair to call this a "blatantly false claim." Personally, I would prefer to describe the philosophy of conspiracy theory as a subfield of applied epistemology, which is a subfield (or perhaps "branch") of applied philosophy, which may be considered a branch of philosophy. However, I think there is some ambiguity regarding what counts as a "branch" and that the word may legitimately be used in a loose way in this circumstance. The Gnome may disagree. But I don't think this criticism amounts to much, as there can be little question that it refers to a distinct, albeit small, subfield of philosophy. Knuteson (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knuteson, could you then please name a few philosophers of conspiracy theories? Philosophers, please, and not sociologists, psychologists, analysts, reporters, critics, and so on. Additionally, could we locate any philosophy studies taught anywhere with Conspiracy Theories as their subject? All philosophical schools and subjects are taught somewhere. But, first, let's identify the philosophers, which denotes something quite specific. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : There is nothing "loose" or vague about the term "philosophy", or its derivatives, i.e. "philosopher". We may be saying in everyday parlance, "Paul is being philosophical about his misfortune", but that is a metaphorical, colloquial use. -The Gnome (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bona fide philosophers who have written at least a couple articles on the subject include: Charles Pigden, David Coady, Steve Clarke, Quassim Cassam, Matthew Dentith, Lee Basham, Kurtis Hagen, Brian Keeley, Patrick Stokes and Juha Räikkä. Other philosophers who have written at least one article include on the topic include: Keith Harris, Neil Levy, Pete Mandik, Philippe Huneman and Marion Vorms (jointly), and Joel Buenting and Jason Taylor (jointly). Other notable scholars who are not philosophers, such as Cass Sunstein and Adrien Vermeule, have contributed to the discussion in philosophy venues (such as the Journal of Political Philosophy). As to whether it is taught at universities: According to Google, “Epistemology of Conspiracy Theories” has been taught as a philosophy course, by Professor of Philosophy Aaron James, at the University of California, Irvine. I imagine it has been taught elsewhere to some degree, perhaps by some of the philosophers who publish in that area, though I don’t know the extent. Knuteson (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the Companion to Applied Philosophy (Wiley Blackwell, 2017) contains a chapter, “Are Conspiracy Theories Epistemically Vicious?” by Charles Pigden. This suggests that such questions are regarded as relatively representative of applied philosophy. Knuteson (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that the Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology (2019) has a chapter called ‘The applied epistemology of conspiracy theories: An overview’ by M. R. X. Dentith and Brian Keeley. (And I seem to have missed the work of philosopher Susan Feldman. I have probably missed others as well.) Knuteson (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Knuteson:

conspiracy theorist
would hardly be called a "philosopher." Therefore, all that stuff about epistemology is irrelevant.

The fact that, in philosophy classes, the epistemology of conspiracy theories is (sometimes) taught, and not conspiracy theories per se, should be edifying - and enough.

The poet Roger Angell writes regularly, and one would dare say gloriously, about baseball. Yet, this does not make the game part of the poetry canon. Baseball can only be denoted as "poetry" metaphorically. Same goes for all those "philosophers who have written at least a couple articles on the subject" of conspiracy theories, whom you brought forth as evidence of your argument. If you'd care to read what they have written, you'd see that they're treating the subject as a social phenomenon; not as part of some philosophical endeavor. Random samples: Charles Pigden here; Quassim Cassam here; Patrick Stokes here; Brian L. Keeley here (quote "An analysis of the alleged explanatory virtues of unwarranted conspiracies suggests some reasons for their current popularity, while at the same time providing grounds for their rejection"); and so on.)

You cite the existence of a chapter titled “Are Conspiracy Theories Epistemically Vicious?” in a book for philosophy classes. But this is simply part of various issues in life that philosophers also examine, as I explained above. It does not mean, as you assert, that "questions [such as conspiracy theories] are regarded as relatively representative of applied philosophy."
groundless and a serious liguistic mistake. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Response to The Gnome:

This is getting a little tiring. You had asked questions, and I answered them. Now you seem to be moving the goal post. I thought the question was whether bona fide philosophers have discussed the epistemic merits of conspiracy theories in philosophical venues, including philosophy journals and philosophy classes. They have. But now you are turning it into a question of whether this really counts as philosophy of that subject.
It is not that conspiracy theories are part of philosophy, it is that treating them philosophically is part of philosophy. The same can be said of religion and science (see point 2 below). In any case, I suppose we could trade examples and give competing arguments by analogy regarding the meaning of “philosophy of …” But the important fact is that the phrase “the epistemology of conspiracy theories” has been used in philosophical circles (as cited above) to refer to the philosophical exploration of the epistemic merits and demerits of conspiracy theories, and the phrase “the philosophy of conspiracy theories” has been used to indicate the same terrain while also being inclusive of ethical issues. (I have not yet included a section on the ethics of conspiracy theorizing, but I plan to). Is your objection that the page has been improperly titled? In that case the solution is not deletion, but simply changing the title. (Any suggestions?) Or is it that you think philosophers discussing conspiracy theories in the philosophical literature is not a topic that should be permitted on Wikipedia? If so, on what basis?

A “philosophy of science” class would not involve science, but rather philosophical discussions about science; a “philosophy of religion” would not teach religion, but rather involve a philosophical discussion about issues related to religion. Similarly, the philosophy of conspiracy theories involves philosophical considerations regarding ethical and epistemological issues related to conspiracy theories. (The epistemology of conspiracy theories covers the subset of epistemological considerations.)

In point 3 you seem to suggest that philosophers who discuss conspiracy theories in philosophy forums are somehow not doing philosophy when they do so. They are like, you seem to suggest, philosophers who happen to be talking about baseball, rather than discussing philosophical issues involved in baseball. (There is, in fact, a book called “The Philosophy of Baseball,” by a philosopher, which is presumably a work of philosophy.) In fact, if they are treating the matter philosophically, they are doing the kind of philosophy called “applied philosophy,” and it does count as philosophy—philosophy departments count this work as research in philosophy relevant to tenure and promotion. (It is unclear why the papers by Stokes and Keeley, in particular, are supposed to be examples of “not philosophy.” They most certainly count as philosophy. Whether they treat conspiracy theories as “a social phenomenon” is totally irrelevant. Of course conspiracy theorizing is a social phenomenon. One can philosophize about social phenomena—and I’m not using the word “philosophize” loosely here.)

Point 4 seems to reflect multiple misunderstandings (some of which have been discussed above), as well as lack of familiarity with the material. Also, your understanding of “conspiracy theory” seems highly skewed. In the philosophical literature, at least, the meaning that you imply has been largely repudiated. Coincidently, I have just finished, and will be adding, a new section on the discussion of the definition of conspiracy theory. Perhaps the fact that most academic philosophers who write on this subject don’t share your perspective rubs you the wrong way. But that is not a good reason to delete the page. (Since this is Wikipedia, anyone is free to check the references and make adjustments if something seems to be mischaracterized, or to add bits or sections, if one thinks I’ve given a skewed account.)

Although I am just learning the ways of Wikipedia, I have done the reading on this topic (everything I’ve cited, and more, but not everything written by everybody), and I have had some training in philosophy. I do know what I’m talking about, and I’d appreciate it if you did not insinuate otherwise. Knuteson (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that continuing the discussion is tiring, and, I'd add, fruitless. You seem to have a very loose definition of philosophy, whereby the use of the term perforce renders a subject part of philosopy, through the back door of the "applied" term. So be it. I will only state here that
it's high time I take my leave. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay. Thank you. I do have to make some final remarks about all this, just for the record: The comment, “If you'd care to read what they have written, you'd see …” seems to imply that the person addressed had not read the works in question. I leave it to others to judge whether or not the inference, on my part, given the full context, was unfounded. But perhaps you just mean that, on your part, it was unintended. Fair enough.

As for the looseness of the definition, William James famously defined philosophy as the “uncommonly stubborn attempt to think clearly.” It may be that James and I, and the many philosophers who list unusual projects on their university websites, and the committees that recommend them for tenure and promotion, have a loose definition of philosophy. But I don’t think that makes the most sense of the situation. And I don’t think applied philosophy is some sort of “back door,” as though it isn’t fully legitimate. I suspect philosophy faculty members who contribute to journals such as the Journal of Applied Philosophy, and the International Journal of Applied Philosophy would concur with me on this. Knuteson (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is rather difficult to judge. @A loose necktie: I would suggest asking neutrally for participation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy to get some feedback from editors who regularly work in this content area. I personally am finding it difficult to parse out whether this is an actual field of study in and of itself, or whether it's just putting a philosophy lens through which to view conspiracy theories. This is one of those things where it requires some prior knowledge of the field to really properly assess. Good luck.4meter4 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the call for feedback. I hope that this issue can come to a resolution relatively quickly. I must say that I don’t see what is so difficult to judge about it. Questions and challenges have been presented, and they have all been answered. Further, there are Wikipedia pages for the philosophy of suicide, philosophy of space and time, philosophy of self, and philosophy of the social sciences—and that is just for areas that start with “s” (chosen at random). There are lots and lots such pages. In any case, philosophers have been interacting in a debate that has been going for two decades and has been commented on by historians. Surely the phenomenon is noteworthy. Is it just a problem with the title? Or is there some sort of bias against what these philosophers are saying? What exactly is the substance of the complaint? I feel like I've been playing whack a mole. Knuteson (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more difficult to parse out abstract concepts as to whether they are accurate to the source material or an original synthesis supported by the source material. I haven't the background in philosophy (beyond what everyone takes in Philosophy 101 in college) to feel like I can form an opinion. I left a neutral note at the WikiProject to come here. I myself am not voting, Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll bet you anything that you won't find such a page in any other Wikipedia other than the English one. This is because "conspiracy theories" are a meme and and obsession of American culture since the assassination of President Kennedy, in 1963, which to my view is basically just still an unresolved mystery. But leaving that aside, there is a Conspiracy Theory page in the English Wikipedia in which these issues are all debated quite frequently. To my view, there in no need for an additional page on the "philosophy" of this meme and American cultural obsession. warshy ^(¥¥) 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It not true that this issue is not discussed in other countries. But that point is not relevant anyway. If it did have relevance it would suggest that the “conspiracy theory” page ought to be deleted too. As for “these issues” being debated quite frequently on the conspiracy theory page, please point me to the best examples of these discussions you’ve had about the philosophical literature on conspiracy theories. Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our
WP:COATRACK. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

What exactly are you referring to? The article itself contains no significant discussion of the work of bona fide philosophers. Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly a
WP:COATRACKing. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Although this is new to me, I see that there are various different kind of COATRACKing. Which kind are you alleging? And what exactly is your evidence? Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Guy Macon, LuckyLouie, and warshy, I have a question for you three. Before you recommended that this page be deleted, had you read any of the literature in question? What exactly had you read? Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I would agree that many academic scholars have studied the generalized topic of “conspiracy theory” (certainly many historians have done so) and I accept that philosophers might have explored the topic from a philosophical perspective... but does anyone actually use the phrase “philosophy of conspiracy theory” to describe what they are doing? Is it the title of a university course somewhere? Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least one: https://www.coursicle.com/ccnycuny/courses/PHIL/11203/ --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clever class, but it doesn't represent a coherent research community or discourse. Instead, it's simply an offshoot of other skeptical Phil. 101-type classes. jps (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There has also been a book on the topic with that title. But I don’t think the title is really that important. There have been at least a couple courses on the “epistemology of conspiracy theories.” But that label leaves out the related ethical issues. There is a special issue of the journal Argumenta titled, “The Ethics and the Epistemology of Conspiracy Theories.” We could call it that. There is a book called “Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate,” we could call it that. A book chapter called, “The History of Conspiracy Theory Research,” has a section called, “The Debate in Analytical Philosophy on Warranted and Unwarranted Conspiracy Believes (Mid-1990s to the Present).” That’s a bit unwieldy. “Philosophy of conspiracy theories” is more succinct. But let’s not confuse the issue of whether there is something noteworthy, which legitimates its inclusion on Wikipedia, with the separate issue of what it should be called. Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POVFORK/COATRACK as others have said. Any material on the "philosophy" of conspiracy theories should be included in the main
talk) 06:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I have no objection to this suggestion. Let us not confuse reasons to move this material with reasons to delete it. Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK Delete Looks like a POVFORK/COATRACK to avoid the definition question.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how I’ve avoided the definition question. It is addressed at the top of the page. If you think this material is better suited for the “conspiracy theory” page, I’m fine with including it there. After all, what discipline concerns itself with careful analysis of concepts? Is it the social sciences? No, their discussions of definitions are usually perfunctory. It is philosophy. It is in the philosophical literature where one actually finds a rigorous scholarly debate going on about how best to understand the concept "conspiracy theory." Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an
WP:SECONDARY sources. The narrative being spun is that there is some coherent group of "philosophers of conspiracy theories" when, instead, we simply have some philosophers who have written about conspiracy theories in various contexts. jps (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I’ve used secondary sources as much as possible. The introduction to a volume of previously published essays that summarizes them is a secondary source. Further, it is not the case that only secondary sources may be used. And there is, in fact, a coherent group of philosophers writing about these issues and engaging each other in the process. Have you looked at the cited material? Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let’s not lose focus. These are the issues, as I see them:

Does this page describe a genuine and distinct phenomenon that is noteworthy? I have argued that it does. There are books written about it, special issues of philosophy journals, and it is commented on by historians. Though I think “philosophy of conspiracy theories” is a good label, I don’t particularly care what you call it.

Does the page represent a POV, rather than faithfully describing the content? No one has yet provided any evidence that it is anything less than a fair and accurate description of the field (at least up through 2007, it is not yet complete). If one wants a reasonably easy way to check, just look at the introductions to the books or special issues on the topic (note that only the second half of the essays in the special issue of Argumenta are by philosophers, and that the contrast with the first half is striking).

Is this material redundant? It has been suggested that there already exists something equivalent on the “conspiracy theory” page. But this does not seem to be true.

If the material is noteworthy, accurate, and not redundant, then the question becomes: Where should it be located? Regarding this question, I don’t really care. I thought it made sense as a stand-alone page, especially since the “conspiracy theory” page is already long, and I intend to add more to this page. At some point it makes sense to separate topics. And there are, as mentioned above, countless “philosophy of …” pages. But if it is thought best to incorporate this material into the main “conspiracy theory” page, that is fine with me. Indeed, one could argue that the philosophical discussion of the definition should be prominent, for reasons mentioned above. Knuteson (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. The recent influx of votes have appeared after a somewhat non-neutrally worded notification about this AFD posted at
WP:CANVASS. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Here's some actual
WP:CANVASSing to be considered: [7] - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep At least given the arguments so far. Seems to fairly plainly just summarize the sources cited. So whatever the POV in this "POVFORK", I'm not sure I see exactly what it is, unless it is the POV of the sources cited, which is the POV we're supposed to be presenting. As to the FORK bit: Philosophy of mind/Mind, Philosophy of education/Education, Philosophy of happiness/Happiness, Philosophy of religion/Religion, I could continue if anyone really needs me to. Seems we fairly regularly fork off examinations specifically of the philosophy of the subject from main articles dealing with the subject as a whole. GMG ^talk 15:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deacon Vorbis's note, User:Knuteson's responses to all the criticism raised above, and User:GreenMeansGo latest comments above, have all made me rethink my position regarding User:Knuteson's creation. I believe User:Knuteson does know the epistemological basis of the subject matter, and he has been able to weave a good enough WP article on it, which I've now added to my watchlist. He also knows how to write and how to argue on Wikipedia very well. Kudos! I now believe the article will be retained by Wikipedia in the end. I will change my "Delete" vote above, to a simple "Comment." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I have some reservations I think this topic could potentially be a worthwhile addition. I intend to read the extensive list of references and will try to address the concerns about the article. --mikeu ^talk 17:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a good start to an article on an interesting topic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two additional notes: 1 - I found about the RfC through
WP:FRINGE/N and not through the method mentioned by Deacon Vorbis. 2 - I would also support a move of this content to the principal article; however I believe there is probably enough novel content in the article as it stands to support a stand-alone article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The issue is that articles like this, however well they may begin, are in danger of being taken over by POV edits over a longer period. But as long as enough people are interested in this topic - and I think there are - to keep an eye on it, it should be possible to even it out into something acceptable. Deb (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic, POV can be edited out. From
^{(open talk page)} 19:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (Merge anything useful) Other "philosophy of" articles describe an actual field of study. They describe the history of schools of thought on the topic, the describe how different movements among philosophers have held different amounts of academic sway over time. In short, they are articles about the significant history of the scholarship itself. Not so with this article. There's no real discussion about the philosophy as its own thing or the philosophy's impact on society. It's is just a handful of "A specific academic once said this", which is the sort of thing that should be rolled into the main article as ordinary citations. ApLundell (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) The existence of other articles is not particularly relevant to a deletion discussion. 2) We are discussing the topic of this article, not its content. From
^{(open talk page)} 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

1)I am familiar with
WP:OTHERSTUFF
, but as OTHERSTUFF arguments are being made by "keep" !voters, I think it's valid to point out that those articles are very different than the article under discussion.

2)Some relevant policies, such as
WP:COATRACK, involve comparing an article's content to its nominal topic. ApLundell (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

"Very different" in what regard? Do you mean to say that a work entitled "An Introduction to the Philosophical Debate about Conspiracy Theories" is about something other than the philosophy of conspiracy theories? GMG ^talk 01:23, 2 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Kumar Marut

Pawan Kumar Marut (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)

A notable film and television producer? That's rare. I don't see anything at Google News that would make this guy qualify as meeting our
WP:GNG. He is the co-founder of an Indian production company called Rashmi Sharma Telefilms Limited, whose article, I notice, was deleted as the result of this AFD. So if his company is not deemed notable, he certainly wouldn't be by default. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You could make an argument for him meeting
WP:GNG and, given this is a BLP and needs to be meticulously sourced, there simply isn't enough to support an article. Hug^syrup 09:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There just aren't any good sources out there on Pawan Kumar Marut (although there are on the films he has worked on). We can't make an article on a topic that just isn't covered anywhere. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 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,
WP:SNOW, should not have been nominated--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Andriy Karimov

Andriy Karimov (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)

Lacks necessity and is kind of insignificant. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Sounds like a
talk) 00:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A quick - nay, even cursory - glance at the Ukrainian-language page shows plenty of
WP:GNG coverage. Needs to be expanded, not deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 02:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Giant Snowman 09:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:37, 23 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Barzegar

Aria Barzegar (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify. He has just been signed by
talk) 12:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify Persepolis are a major club (2018 AFC runners up) so he is likely (but not certainly) notable if he's on their squad. SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i agree with both of users above.the player and the article must be remain.when footballer sign with popular team at age 17,he can be notable.he's also be known of iran's national team,he played and scored in 2018_AFC_U-16_Championship#Group_C and you can see the squad here with number 18.if it will be deleted,it will be created soon! so keep the article like many youth player in this range and case.-- Mojtaba2361 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:FPL but due to the fact that he hasn't played in a professional game yet, the best cause of action would be either to delete or at least move it to draft. HawkAussie (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Draftify- fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. If he becomes notable later for future activities the article can always be recreated.4meter4 (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftiy - Signed for
WP:FPL. But because he hasn't played in a league match yet, it's best if this was moved to a draft until we see him play in a professional league game. HawkAussie (talk) 00:13, 1 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. The discussion of them being a predatory publisher or other negative allegations are irrelevant at AfD. While promotionalism is a reason that an article may be deleted at AfD that is not the argument here. Instead there seems to be general consensus that this article is about a notable company and there is no policy based explanation for deletion of a notable topic advanced. As such there is a clear keep consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kowsar Publishing

Kowsar Publishing (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 publishing company without significant coverage. De-PRODd. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Half the references are sourced to the organisation's own website, and the remainder are primary sources (an open access and copyright policy as a source? Really?). Not a single one would qualify as a
reliable source. Likewise, I cannot find any better sources from my own searching. Hug^syrup 09:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I have no opinion as yet on keeping or deleting, but must note that this publisher has been listed as possibly predatory at
Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - As above, not notable, poorly sourced and little SIGCOV. Note: previously deleted CSD A7 here. Seems little, if any, improvement... I came across this as a draft and although I tried to find more sources, I could not do so. I noted it, but it slipped down my list of tasks and the next I saw, it had been accepted, which surprised me and brought here. Eagleash (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it was accepted by @DGG: - courtesy ping in case they have a different perspective on this. Hug^syrup 13:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They publish 17 journals that are in web of science or scopus, which is notability for those journals. This doesn't imply it for the company, but 17 out of its 49 that meet those standards is characteristic of a notable publisher. it is so extrordinarily difficult to find sources that meet our standards for publishers of all sorts especially those who are not trade publishers, that I tend to be quite liberal in interpretation here. This is especially true of those not in the major science-article-producing countries. This company is in Iran, and most of its journalsspecialize in that region. So we also need to consider systematic bias, (FWIW, the standard for accepting at AfC isn't that it is certain to pass AfD, but that it probably will; this does not mean a bare 51%, but most reviewers use somewhere around 80% chance of passing.). DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting - it’s useful to understand better why you accepted the draft. FWIW, I’m sticking with delete. I’m afraid I don’t quite buy the argument that we should lower our standards for a topic simply because it’s too difficult to find sources. They’re almost certainly hard to find because they don’t exist (unless anyone can convince me that they are actually out there, which doesn’t seem to be your argument), and if they don’t exist then it’s not notable by our standard. One could equally argue that it’s extraordinarily difficult to find sources for ‘garage bands that have never released an album’, or ‘new actors with only a single credit to their name’, or any of the other categories of article that are regularly deleted as non-notable. Hug^syrup 06:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it's been flagged as predatory by Beall, btw.
b} 06:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm enclined to keep per DGG though.
b} 06:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, per DGG, as the subject is notable as a publisher of scientific journals. The article, however, could use some improvement. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This publisher is notable because of predatory claims and for a high retraction rate. It also publishes multiple indexed journals. Indexed journals are generally considered notable. I appreciate that notability is not inherited but also appreciate
WP:GEOLAND, for instance) that don't tend to get the mass-media attention that would give them the internet search hits. ~Kvng (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, per DGG. And, yes, we do have independent sources. Beall's blog is not online any more, but still accessible in the Internet Archive and can be used as a reference and the same goes for the RetractionWatch mentioned by Kvng. It's not ideal, but it's two independent sources all the same. Given that they now have multiple journals in the Science Citation Index Expanded and Scopus, it looks like they are cleaning up their act. If Beall still maintained his list, he might have removed them by now (no way to know for certain, of course). But thanks to Frontiers Media, Beall's list is not updated any more (and Frontiers shot themselves in the foot big time, because now there never will be a mention in their article that Beall took them off his list...) --Randykitty (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are they a
predatory publisher and have they been named in Beall's List? If so, I'd argue for speedy delete. Otherwise, my vote is indifferent to keep or delete. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

What would be your
justification for speedy deletion? ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Kvng, you beat me to it, I had the same question for Dmehus. Since when is the quality (or lack thereof) of a subject a reason to keep or delete? If we do away with this one because it's a bad publisher, then why not also do away with Charles Manson, because he's a bad person? --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the same, or similar, way in which we purge non-notable companies. If the publisher is not a credible publisher of academic journals, does not complete any peer review, or the like, how is it any better than, say, a quasi-spammy blog like BuzzFeed? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But we do have an article on BuzzFeed... We should base our !votes on policy, not opinions. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
reliable sources to write more than a permastub with a second, possibly a third, short paragraph on the publisher's apparent lack of editorial control. --Doug Mehus (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Draftify without prejudice to re-creation in the future. The factual accuracy of this article is in question, including whether the fact this publisher's journals undergo
puffery, there is nothing worth salvaging in this article. If someone wants to work on this article, I wouldn't be opposed to Draftify, but as written, it's a delete. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

"Puffery" is a reason to clean up an article, not to delete it. Beall's list is a source, as is the fact that several of their journals are in Scopus and Clarivate Analytics databases. I urge you to get more familiar with how AfD is supposed to work. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think
puffery can be used to explain that an article is written like an advertisement, which is a reason to delete. Nevertheless, it's not the main argument for deleting this. I think many people on here argue for keeping articles to preserve editing history and contributions, but Wikipedia does not have bylines. We're unattributed poor slugs who edit anonymously (well, some of us use our real names, like me, but what I mean is, attribution is not to us). Like I said, I see your point that an illegitimate journal publisher can still be notable, so that's why I suggested deleting without prejudice to re-creation in the future or to draftifying the article for someone to take action on. A lot of companies use Wikipedia for SEO purposes and our "no time limit" policy, with respect, is a mistake, because companies can essentially let editor inattention work in their favour. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:IMPERFECT. Sure there are those inside and outside Wikipedia who take advantage of this chill for their gain. I understand that can emotionally upsetting to someone with a zero-sum outlook. I understand (but don't buy into) the arguments that it reflects poorly on Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 11:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per DGG and Kvng.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Opposition to using
WP:CORPDEPTH, I feel compelled to make this important observation re: Web of Science (a corporate product) and Clarivate. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Sorry, but this must rank among the weirdest rationales that I've ever seen at an AfD debate. Clarivate's finances have absolutely nothing to do with whether we consider its indexes reliable sources (note that WoS is not an index, it's only a platform to access Clarivate's indexes, a perhaps subtle but nonetheless important distinction). --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORPDEPTH is a potential delete reason. Trying to say their journals are listed in a corporate knowledge platform for the sciences is not a keep reason, in my view. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The indexing is in the Science Citation Index Expanded (accessible through WoS), which is one of the more selective indexes around. Inclusion in the SCIE is generally accepted as evidence that a journal is notable, because such an inclusion only comes after a commission of specialists has evaluated the journal. It is also significant coverage, because inclusion in the SCIE means also inclusion in the Journal Citation Reports, which publishes detailed yearly evaluations of a journal's citation history. --Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty, I, for one, welcome the day when Crossref, ORCID, Google Scholar, and Microsoft Academic are collectively the preeminent sources for journal citations. It seems overly anachronistic and stodgy to rely, in a migratory trend of scholarly journals to migrate to digital-first or digital-only, on a printed scholarly journal which publishes citation statistics. Nevertheless, I appreciate your reply and expanded commentary. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are selective indices. Those aim to be comprenhensive.
b} 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - in addition to the rationale given by DGG, Headbomb has expanded the article and generally cleaned it up to an acceptable shape. I don't really see why something being a load of rubbish is a reason per se to delete an article, otherwise we wouldn't have a page on Plan 9 from Outer Space. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, lack of sourcing is the reason why I nominated this article for deletion, and the improvements to the article do not include enough sourcing in my opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPDEPTH. We should not be aiming for mediocrity on Wikipedia. Every article should have potential to become, at minimum, a C-class article (that is, not, start- or stub-class articles). Doug Mehus (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Doug, your interpretation of
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:CORPDEPTH and be kept. Others will fail both (the strongest deletes, arguably). Doug Mehus (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
As I said, the fact, not just my opinion, is that
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:PRIMARY-sourced material, to wrote more than a stub-class article. I added start-class because, in my view, start-class is a variant on stub-class and the two are not demonstrably different. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_October_23&oldid=1142224900"