Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 21

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 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Karley

Alexander Karley (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 indication of satisfying

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable person. Barca (talk) 22:45, 25 September 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.

Assured Compliance Assessment Solution

Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There's no coverage of this suggesting it would be notable and there's no reason it would be. The US Department of Defense licenses a small package of cybersecurity products that it makes available for use by its computer network operations, and refers to them internally as the "Assured Compliance Assessment Solution". It's explained here. It's just an internal name for this internally downloadable suite of retail products. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet
  WP:NSOFTWARE as it has not been discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field - Epinoia (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Comment I've just wikified this stub for encyclopedic tone and re-written. ACAS is extensively used within DoD, but not widely reported in the media. Some additional sources have been cited, however, including the U.S. Army news article, to meet GNG. NSOFTWARE is just an essay, by the way.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the sources in the most recent version at this moment,

• Reference 1 smells very much like Segue Technologies suggesting that it can offer auxiliary services to organizations in the military wanting to implement ACAS. Advertising.
• Reference 2 is to a website sponsored by the manufacturer of the software that currently constitutes ACAS, essentially an advertisement, not coverage by an independent source.
• Reference 3 is from Business Wire, so it's already given that it's a press release. In this case, it's a press release by the manufacturer, Tenable. Not an independent source.
• The sole mention of ACAS in Reference 4 is in the caption to a photo, identifying the subject of the photo. Not significant coverage of this topic.
• Reference 5 is DISA, the organization that supplies ACAS to military users, supplying ACAS to military users. Not an independent source.
• Reference 6 is by the US Army, another instance of the military communicating to its members about its own offering. Not an independent source.
• Reference 7 alone appears to contribute to
  WP:GNG
  .

Largoplazo (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your dismissal of refs 5 and 6: these are official statements published by the Federal government and, as such, are certainly reliable sources. To say they are not "independent" is akin to saying the National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey are not "independent" of, say, their extensive use as refs in Yellowstone National Park, a FA.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing verifiably and notably. An NPS publication can be a good source to back up assertions about Yellowstone but has no role in establishing its notability under

WP:GNG. If my company's IT department has built a system for recording time worked called TimeWatch that all employees are to use, then an announcement of the release of the product by the CEO, instructions and rules from the HR department for using TimeWatch, and an article highlighting TimeWatch in the internal company newsletter produced by the Communications department are reliable sources for information about TimeWatch, but they aren't independent sources establishing the notability of it. Largoplazo (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

We have different opinions about what constitutes notability. In my view, an infosec program that is mandated by the Department of Defense, the U.S. largest employer, is notable on its face and has reference value for the reader.  JGHowes  ^talk 14:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia supplies no guideline for finding a topic notable based on an arbitrary set of characteristics that seem to make it so on its face. The whole point of

WP:GNG is that if independent sources haven't taken note of something, it isn't for us to declare it worthy of note. Right now it appears to be an internal US military detail that's obscure to the rest of the world. Largoplazo (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Passes
  Risk_management_framework. Jeremycec —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Re "being ... obscure to the rest of the world ... is not, in and of itself, a reason to exclude Wikipedia content": On the contrary: it's the very essence of the Wikipedia:Notability policy with which every article topic must comply, and resonates throughout this project's guidelines on that topic.

That software's users use it and even its actual importance don't make it notable under Wikipedia's definition of that word, which differs from its ordinary usage. "NotED" would be closer. Largoplazo (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes
  WP:GNG
  . My university library system pulled up 29 published references on this topis. Here is a small selection of sources:

1. "Tenable Network Security Selected for DISA Assured Compliance Assessment Solution", Professional Services Close - Up, Apr 29, 2012 ("Agency (DISA) as the Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS). In a release on April 23, the company said tenable products will be available to the...")
2. "Cybersecurity Software protects data across multiple platforms.(SAIC Introduces CyberSecurity Edge(TM))", Product News Network, Sept 3, 2014 ("Security's Assured Compliance Assessment Solution for the Defense Information Systems Agency -- Operation of multiple security operations centers...")
3. "Defense Information Systems Agency Selects HP to Assess Networks for Vulnerabilities", Wireless News, April 25, 2012 ("terms of the contract, the Assured Compliance Assessment Solution will be available for implementation across the DoD as the compliance solution. HP will")
4. "Department of Defense Selects Tenable Network Security", Wireless News, Oct 10, 2011, ("Tenable Network Security, a provider of Unified Security Monitoring, announced that it has been selected for the Department of Defense Assured Compliance Assessment Solution...")
5. "DoD Cyber IA Range open and ready for customers", Gaudreau, Neil ; Combs, Jeffrey, CHIPS, July-Sept, 2012, Vol.30(3), p.22(5) ("Securify * DoD Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS) * IPSonar *")
6. "Enterprise security system deployment", Salmon, Scott A., Army Communicator, Summer, 2014, Vol.39(2), p.51(2 ("vulnerabilities that impact mission readiness and the ability to command and control. The Assured Compliance Assessment Solution..")
7. "Press Release: SAIC Introduces CyberSecurity Edge(TM)", Dow Jones Institutional News, Aug 26, 2014, ("Assured Compliance Assessment Solution for the Defense Information Systems Agency -- Operation of multiple security operations centers, network operations...")

Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you check that each of these sources counts under
  WP:GNG? I'm thinking not because at least three of them (including, explicitly, the last), are press releases, which don't count. Largoplazo (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Largoplazo, enough of these are not press releases to satisfy
  WP:GNG. Source 5 was tagged as peer reviewed journal article. I just copy pasted the first seven of 29 publications without cherry picking the best of the bunch.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 29 September 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 03:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Watt Beveridge

Alexander Watt Beveridge (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 indication of satisfying

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know a couple who named their child "Beveridge" -- an eyebrow-raiser. No more than ordinary life in this article, tho, so delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sign of notability Alex-h (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't find anything in RS apart from passing mentions, also found someone of same name who may be related to him, but otherwise nothing. There is nothing in the article that suggests notability, failed
  WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 09:37, 27 September 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 03:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cinematographic Score: GTA5

The Cinematographic Score: GTA5 (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)

Unnotable album, only sources are Discogs (not reliable) and some personal blog (also unreliable).

Note: This discussion has been included in the

✉) 21:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

✉) 21:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Already covered at Music of Grand Theft Auto V. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Soundtrack is notable enough for its own article, it is the soundtrack by a major band with over 100 albums, Tangerine Dream, from one of the biggest video games of all time. Full disclosure, I'm the creator of this article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is

  ✉) 10:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Trident, you just copy and pasted the information from Music of Grand Theft Auto V, with no additional sources establish any notability for an independent article. Just because the album is from a well-know band doesn't automatically means it notable for its own article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly does not meet either
  WP:GNG or any SNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not notable enough to have its own article, Merge to Music of Grand Theft Auto VSpy-cicle (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article somehow has even less information than the listing at Music of Grand Theft Auto V—all of the information should be covered there. – Rhain ☔ 06:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Barca (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 02:42, 29 September 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.

Ashu

Ashu (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)

very poor

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldnpeace (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Begs the question whether winning awards makes notability in a field. Would have to depend on the award, but it would need to be sourced somewhere other than the person's own website, or that of the award-giver. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The claimed facts in the article probably support notability. However, if the claimed facts were true, it is hard to believe that we could not achieve
  WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I wonder if the mononym is preventing discovery of content.-
  WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 26 September 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 03:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mand Munda

Mand Munda (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)

Described as a village with "a total number of 2 houses and the population of 2 of which 2 are males while 0 are females". Hardly a village; less than a city block even. Seems part of an autocreated run with little attention given to what was generated. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The source in the article has gone dead. Searching the live Indian census site draws a blank.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The place appears to be officially recognised [3][4]. Although it is not much of a village with only 2 persons, per
  WP:GEOLAND, it is presumed to be notable even if the population is very low or has been abandoned unless it can be shown that it is just a census tract. Hzh (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Make this Keep for now for the reason given unless the nominator can show that this is merely a census tract. Hzh (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:GEOLAND. Recognised settlement as confirmed by Hzh. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 27 September 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 Elders of the Universe. History is available if anyone wants to merge additional details. RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possessor (comics)

Possessor (comics) (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 fictional character TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Elders of the Universe. BOZ (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No sources. No keep. All
  WP:SYNTH. Rockphed (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:CHEAP and already there. Starting to feel like a broken record. -2pou (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Elders of the Universe per 2pou. No sources to indicate any independent notability, however as the character is already present on the main "Elders" page with a basic description, a redirect there would be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 15:13, 28 September 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: M. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Magnum

Moses Magnum (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 fictional character TTN (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Significant coverage in scholarly literature.[5] StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One source is not significant. That source itself is good, but not on its own. TTN (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M. BOZ (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While StAnselm found a good source, I am afraid it is the only notability conferring source I can find. Rockphed (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M. While there are not enough sources to justify an individual article, the one good source identified by StAnselm puts it above 99 percent of all the other characters on the bloated Marvel Character lists, and shows that he is one of the few characters that actually have justification to be included in them. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 28 September 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 03:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Virgin

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

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

This low-budget b-movie is far from notable, per guidelines set in

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 02:29, 28 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 20:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Abutbul (politician)

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

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

Non-notable mayor. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Member of the Israeli parliament (Knesset) all of the 120 members have articles in multiple langaudges. Also was in a very well known mayoral race and am astonished you put up this afd. IsraeliIdan (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IsraeliIdan. Mccapra (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:NPOL as a member of the Knesset. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep Just been elected to the Knesset. Nominator needs a good trouting. Number 57 18:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as described above. --Enos733 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Tajali

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

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

Article deleted by PROD in 2010, and then recreated, deleted again, and recreated again a few days later. PROD reason: "Footballer who fails NFOOTY and GNG". I concur. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hold up, this guy hasn't played a single match as a pro? This is a clear failure of
  WP:NFOOTY, and I'm surprised the article has existed for nearly a decade in mainsapce. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. Only spent one season with Persopolis (2010–2011) with no apperances, per this. GiantSnowman 13:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete ,Per above, Not much coverage in reliable independent sources, not a professional player, not notable Alex-h (talk) 13:04, 24 September 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) 18:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zaman Ali (philosopher)

Zaman Ali (philosopher) (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 subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If these article is for delete then what about all of these articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Khaliq_(philosopher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._A._Qadir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalim_Siddiqui https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaheen_Shah_Taji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intisar-ul-Haque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saifuddin_Bohra

They don't have even one single good reference and don't have any identifiers from prominent identifiers. so you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Bolingbroke what you say about all of this because u know nothing.

and Zaman ali world cat entry will be here in few days then what? then you have to accept this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyl8901 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: See Zaman Ali, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaman Ali 01 and c:User:Achim55/Sockpuppet investigations/Zaman Ali. --Achim (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:N criteria. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, so he doesn't pass
  WP:WAX if they think their ability to find other articles that aren't better sourced than this means this has to be kept: more likely those other articles need to be deleted too, and just hadn't been noticed by a responsible editor until Dany pointed them out. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KeepSo where is your criteria that many articles are on Wikipedia from years and not deleted despite having bad sources. that mean wikipedia is total fraud, and any admin can delete any article whenever he want and no check and balance on all those articles that are here. and i could show you thousands of worse articles and they all are on wikipedia. so how can we say you guys are doing better work here. that's why wikipedia is losing it's credibility. if you want to delete this then delete all those articles. and i know many paid admin who works for others and make fake articles and because they are admins and know how fake bad sources into good one and then articles don't get deleted. what about them? answer me with valid argument then delete this article. and if you don't have any valid argument then you are wasting your time here. because fake but expert people are making articles here with not any good sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyl8901 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Danyl8901, you did create your account on 25 June. Just that day Zaman Ali's d:Q42709759 has been deleted. And - surprise! - just that day you created a new one d:Q64826519. So you shouldn't be surprised, if someone starts an SPI against you. --Achim (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Achim watch out man you have some wrong agenda here, you are fake and not the right person here, wikipedia is about putting articles with references but you fake shit you are here to make and delete articles on your personal likes and dislikes, wikipedia should ban you from here. and yes i created articles but with citations and sources and not without that if you have problem with sources and citation then talk otherwise do some right work in life and not waste others time. you are not the only one to delete this, let votes here and if people think article doesn't have right citations or not good enough then delete it on that basis. but your opinion here is fake one and doesn't matter because you are here with wrong intention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyl8901 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:MILL - this is a twenty-something writer without major publications. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:NAUTHOR, subject wasn't notable the first time the article was deleted and isn't notable now. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom but also per G4 and G5. This is obvious sock puppetry and vanity spamming. Praxidicae (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Danyl8901 okay delete it, looks alike you are in consensus for deleting it. —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NAUTHOR and isn't notable now. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EndChan

EndChan (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 really seeing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Bærum mosque shooting has covered all that matters about this website, which amounts to on sentence. I have no prejudice against a merger or redirection verdict, but deletion appears the most appropriate. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Outside of a sea of passing mentions, I found one [6], but that's about it. I'm switching to delete unless any more can be found. ミラP 01:18, 30 September 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 G5: created by a sock of User:Cuty Pie Sweetu. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Classic

Zee Classic (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 article was speedy deleted three times as non notable. The new version, recreated today, contains some sources, which, in my opinion, are not sufficient to establish notability. Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Classic is a popular television channel in India. There were no pages for it. That's why created this page with following all guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitra Saha (talk • contribs)

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) 18:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of the third-party content in Super Smash Bros.

List of the third-party content in Super Smash Bros. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this page by just copy/pasting (and formating) content from List of crossovers in video games to improve visual clarity of the page. This is not the only version of the page which is overloaded with Super Smash Bros. content, it is rather final version. You can check version history of that Page to confirm that. If we delete this page, original author will undo one of the older versions of List of crossovers in video games, and I am not sure do we want that. If you can prevent that or have any other solution, I am fine with deletion. EchoBlu (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That list is entirely unsourced and also seems to violate

WP:VGSCOPE. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete then. I hope List of crossovers in video games won't start to grow again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoBlu (talk • contribs) 10:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We have the list of playable fighters from third-parties on the series page, and from that, it is infered that those characters bring along stages, music, and other facets from those games. To list those all out would be improper. Listing out all the third-party content that comes from non-playable characters (like Assist Trophies, Mii costumes, and the Spirits thing in SSBU) is definitely GAMEGUIDE. However, on those games' pages, where the inclusion of a character or similar has been added to Smash as noted by third-parties, that can be included (eg: Shovel Knight, Sans/Undertale). But there's so many as to list them out from the context of SSBU would be wrong. --Masem (t) 16:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:GAMECRUFT. Any notable content is already covered in the game and series articles anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  talk) 22:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Super Smash Bros. Spy-cicle (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every one else has said it best.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:08, 28 September 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 for recreation of deleted material. Article has also been salted. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Michael

Emmanuel Michael (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)

Biography of a person who does not pass GNG or any other notability criteria. Tagishsimon (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt This is the fourth AfD for this biography. The article was speedy deleted as NN whilst AFD1 was going on -
  WP:WDAFD). Whatever. Time to sort this matter out once and for all. I herewith ping everyone who has been involved in the series of AfDs to date, and ask that we let this AfD run to a decision, rather than speedying or withdrawing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @Hugsyrup:, @SimonWright.au:, @RHaworth:, @Nnadigoodluck:, @Wakowako:, @Beasteggs:, @Praxidicae:, @AntiCompositeNumber:, @Ceethekreator:, @DGG:, @CAPTAIN RAJU:, @Mustapha dare:, @Ohnoitsjamie: --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt Wikipedia is not an extension of LinkedIn. Time to refund your client and move on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 21 September 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) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Dixon-Green

Martin Dixon-Green (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 player does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Playing in the
  WP:NBASKETBALL. I found this press release that mentions Dixon-Greene re-signed with the London Lightning for the 2018–19 season, but like nom I couldn't find any independent sources that would establish notability. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, as nominated, doesn't meet notability guidelines.......PKT(alk) 17:22, 25 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mira_Gonzalez

Mira_Gonzalez (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 person, does not pass

• Delete - Per nomination, does not seem notable and author seems to promote her own Wikipedia page via social media, suggesting the page may be a vanity piece. Saget53 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article fits the criteria for notability. In particular, the bio receives significant coverage from independent sources that do not come from and are not directly related to the subject of the bio. The sources are reliable mainstream publications such as the Guardian. I agree with what was stated above - this article should just be updated to reflect more recent info about the subject. I should also point out that there is considerable new interest in deletion after comments the subject made against a well-known personality, so arguments favoring deletion may come from a biased intent against the subject rather than an impartial evaluation of the article itself. MindPrism (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per two previous Keep discussions. Notable poet, reviews in reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. 71.103.224.224 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I’ve seen articles on less notable people survive AfDs. I agree that the article now looks like a vanity page. However, the better response is to correct the article, as opposed to delete it. I already tried to do that by deleting all puffery that was supported by ñon-existing articles, but that got reverted. I’ll leave it to other users now. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: appears to be notable: notability is not temporary so "does not appear to be active" is irrelevant, and she is no less notable than when passing two previous AfDs. PamD 11:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: She meets notability, but the article needs a serious edit - it is a shining, A+ example of puffery. JSFarman (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of sources talking about her in depth. Current activity is irrelevant. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 26 September 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.

Natalie Ortega

Natalie Ortega (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)

Purely undisclosed COI. Beasteggs (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 21 September 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. Consensus is to draftify. Article will be moved to Draft:International Relations Lecture Series for further work. Note that at least one of the "draftify" !voters has indicated a willingness to review the updated article before it is moved back to mainspace. ST47 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations Lecture Series

International Relations Lecture Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems like a notice-board announcement of a series of lectures. The only reference is not independent and I could find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source citation has been added to the article, so there is now an independent reference. The article is not a notice board post--it purposes to document this speaker series and to present the results of research into its 90-year history. I prefer to build the article in a sandbox, but I'm already working on a major edit of the Deb Lavender/living person/MO State Representative wiki page in my sandbox and do not know how to fork a sandbox so I can work on two articles at once. More boxes of MO Historical Society records are being shipped to UMSL for me to dig through next week. I believe the article should be expanded, not deleted, because it defines and explains an historical St. Louis women's event.PatriciaBishop (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD

.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's a lecture series which has apparently been running since 1929 so it doesn't seem like they need Wikipedia's help in terms of promotion. Mccapra (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Hello, thank you for your message. As soon as possible I will add reference sources and facts to further build this article--what I really need is to move it to a sandbox until I can complete it, but I don't know how to do this. On notable coverage by local news sources: Last year local St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Tony Messenger mentioned this speaker series in one of his articles because Dr. Jeffrey Winters was one of the visiting speakers. Dr. Winters is an internationally renowned expert on income inequality and professor at Northwestern University, department chair. Dr. Winters' work has been cited in Plutocrats by Chrystia Freeland (who is also internationally famous as a business reporter, member of the Canadian parliament, and because she was the point person for her government explaining to President Trump why there is no trade imbalance) and Dark Money by Jane Mayer. Further, the article is a part of women's history in St. Louis. The event series has been the work of two women's groups for almost 90 years, which is notable for many reasons I won't go into within this format. PatriciaBishop (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)The series has never been for-profit. PatriciaBishop (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC) This article now has a recent source citation from the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, Tony Messenger of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Tony interviewed one of the Series speakers because the speaker, Dr. Jeffrey Winters, is a world-renowned expert in international finance and how it relates to power and government. Dr. Winters traveled from Chicago to speak at the Series.PatriciaBishop (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The article is just blatant advertising at the moment and will need a complete re-write to be acceptable and as for the comment above, it is irrelevant that a "Pulitzer Prize winning reporter" interviewed one of the speakers. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being held to an unreasonable standard. It is difficult to present women's history that is well documented. This subject matter happens to be very well documented in the mainstream press and in Missouri Historical Society records. That this Series ever happened at all--and has endured--is amazing. Women in history were usually birthing, child rearing, cooking, cleaning, sewing, and working on farms & in factories with absolutely nothing notable happening to get them into history books. Everyone seems to want to know what the white men were doing and record their work for history--or give the white men credit for the work others actually performed. This article is about women interested in solving world problems, in seeing and understanding multiple points of view on tough issues. This is far, far more interesting and impressive than Imo's Pizza, HOK, Oldani's, and many other popular subjects that are even less notable--yet somehow are approved for Wikipedia. If this article is deleted, articles

• - see
  Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - Epinoia (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Theroadislong Hi, I see a point in re-ordering the information, putting an historical overview in the first paragraph. Maybe I should leave out the current day event details; they really aren't necessary. I put the details there originally because I only had the website as a source as I waited for documents to be transferred to St. Louis from Historical Society's main storage in Columbia, MO. Thursday of this week I'll have a chance to dig into the records again, so the results of that dig will change the direction/organization of the article, I'm sure.PatriciaBishop (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC) I put Tony Messenger's interview of one of the speakers in the article because in the Wiki notability guidelines, there's mention of significant news coverage. The other place I'm going with this is that historically the Series has attracted expert speakers who are giants in their fields, and this is part of what makes the Series notable. And, I still maintain if the Series had been produced by white men since 1929--it would already be a Wikipedia page. Women's history tends to get a short shrift.PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify to allow time for sources to be found per
  WP:SUSTAINED, that the lecture series has attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time, but there are no obvious sources, possibly because the series pre-dates the internet, but there may be newspaper archives, etc., that provide writeups on the lecture series from the past - the notability of individual lecturers has no bearing as notability cannot be inherited, the lecture series itself must be notable as evidenced by significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - another approach would be
  WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS says, "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus", so there's that - Epinoia (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hello, Thank you for your comment and suggesting more time for research. I'm going back to Missouri Historical Society at UMSL in St. Louis to piece more of the history together, and have found newspaper articles in St. Louis Post-Dispatch archives, but need to pull together these items now into a cohesive article. I'm also struggling with the idea that a lecture series is quintessentially the speakers it is able to attract and the intellectual purpose & vision its organizers have had to invite certain speakers. Also the presentation topics are weighty, and have tended to be prescient. So I'm kind of going in this direction to establish notability--yet the struggle comes in because, logical as this approach is, it doesn't fit exactly with Wikipedia notability guidelines.PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Further research reveals this lecture series was chaired at least twice by Edna Gellhorn, the famous St. Louis suffragette who organized the Golden Lane demonstration at the 1916 Democratic National Convention, and later went on to co-found the National League of Women Voters. This discovery speaks to two issues. First, the notability of the Lecture Series is boosted by the fact that historically important people have been associated with it. Secondly, it furthers my previous argument about how difficult it is to document women's history. Facts and events don't make it into recorded history unless, at the time, someone thinks these things were important. Women's activities were not generally considered important. Gellhorn was a particularly good publicist. See her Wiki page.PatriciaBishop (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify the editor who created this has said that they are prepared to do extensive further work on it and it sounds as though further sources can be found to improve it. Mccapra (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per Mccapra.4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I nominated this article for deletion. I am happy for it to be draftified, but that will not actually solve the problem of whether the lecture series is notable or not. Having well-known speakers does not of itself demonstrate notability. The creator needs to find sufficient reliable, independent sources to demonstrate notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @PatriciaBishop: if this goes to draft and you want help reviewing it before sending it back to mainspace, contact me on my talk page. Mccapra (talk) 05:15, 30 September 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.

Before Jerusalem Fell

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

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

No evidence that the book meets

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the book is notable as the most cited support for Preterism and Postmillennialism, contrary to the majority view, but nonetheless giving a balance of view. The article needs major expansion. JohnThorne (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Tough call. I couldn't find reviews in the conventional sources but the article links to an article which discusses the book's arguments at great length.[7] There are 82 citations to the book on Google Scholar which is not amazing but not nothing either. For Gentry's own compilation of comments on it see here: [8] Some of those look like they might go to reviews or other usable coverage. This is as far as I've got. Haukur (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This will be a controversial topic. However the fact that this book has reached a third edition suggests to me that it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What notability standard uses number of editions as the criteria? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet
  WP:BOOKCRIT which requires two or more non-trivial reviews (only one review is linked in the article), has not won any awards, etc. - notablility not established - Epinoia (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It looks like this review was published in Bibliotheca Sacra, so that would be the second one, as required. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found one from the The Journal of Theological Studies.[9] StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes
  WP:BOOKCRIT #1 as demonstrated above. StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, meets
  WP:NBOOK, 3 reviews are enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 25 September 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 03:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abeil

Abeil (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 stub article about a little-known fictional species. I couldn't find any mention of them in any reliable independent sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or merge' to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the proposed target for the merge is also being considered for deletion.
    talk) 12:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I think this could be redirected to Abiel, as it's a likely mispelling 46.132.187.159 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Very unnotable fictional creature, with nothing in the way of reliable, secondary sources indicating any sort of real world notability. The proposed merge/redirect target is already a bloated, border-line unnotable list, so I don't recommend any sort of redirection there. The IP user's suggestion of using this as a redirect as a potential misspelling of Abiel is not a bad one, and can be done after this is deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:08, 29 September 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.

Ellen Lee Zhou

Ellen Lee Zhou (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)

Unelected politician, passing coverage, seems to fail both

Keep. @

WP:COI. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• The fact that they tried to make it even more like an ad is not helping, no. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In what way is anything I wrote an endorsement of Zhou? Certainly I'm helping her campaign by reporting her belief in conspiracy theories and her endorsement of a Trump wall in a city as Democratic as SF? Is it not our aim to feature more women in politics? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, I am not going to argue you wrote an ad, again, the version I reviewed initially was the one rewritten by the SPA, yours is certainly more neutral. My main concern here is not neutrality, but notability, which we discuss below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the way, editors should be aware that Piotrus is trying to get even the image File:Ellen Lee Zhou.jpg deleted completely without merit. Per commons:COM:YT the image is clearly allowed to be on Commons regardless of the outcome of this AfD. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image is free, I've withdrawn the nomination for it. It is in either case mostly irrelevant to this topic, through it is worth noting that currently, the article at the point of its nomination did not use that more neutral image, but instead an explicit election poster... Now, I see that there is an edit war there between the SPA and the creator (Psiĥedelisto), through I expect the SPA will just get blocked soon for edit warring, solving one problem. I concur that the Psiĥedelisto's version is more neutral, through I still don't believe it passes NBIO.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:POLITICIAN states Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Zhou has been covered in World Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate, Mission Local, San Francisco Examiner, National Review (!!!), and extensively in The Epoch Times, which I realize is a problematic source. There is more than enough coverage for an article Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Getting a paragraph or a single sentence quote is very much 'not' extensive coverage. Instead, it is the very definition of passing, minor coverage that is not sufficient for NBIO. Did any of those sources dedicate at least several paragraphs to her? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all there in the article. National Review wrote three paragraphs about her. The Epoch Times has covered her extensively. World Journal wrote an article entirely about her. Mission Local wrote a long piece about a protest Zhou organized. KTSF wrote a long piece as well, and regularly covers her in Chinese. SFGate wrote a long piece about her before she was even a politician. The article has 14 sources and I haven't even found everything yet. Did you even check them? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of this in in-depth, but I have stricter criteria than some, and this is a borderline type of an entry, in my experience this AfD can swing 50/50. Let's leave this to others and see what they think about this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you will not withdraw, there's nothing else I can do, is there? You've moved the goalpost from "three paragraphs" to "in-depth", whatever that means. There is tons of in-depth coverage in both English and Chinese. I think you opened this against a vandalized article, failed to check the history, and now when faced with overwhelming evidence that I attempted to write this article in a NPOV way with now 15 sources, you can't admit your error. So yes, let's see what others say. 50/50 is being very optimistic on your end. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 23:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Pray4america (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC) I agree that the original picture should be deleted. This is 2019, and Piotrus was still using 2018 picture (out of thousands currently public available pictures, he used that ugly one on purpose). Please remove that picture, and use a latest one. Also, please remove all the unfair labeling words, it's not your role to judge a person to be a far right or leftist, so do not do it! I will for sure add some more neutral materials after this is settled down. Of course your advice will be put into consideration. A simple revert to the last year version doesn't help the world to know a candidate what she is, it was a very politically skewed one. Thanks.[reply]

Hello

assume good faith here on Wikipedia unless you have a good reason to believe the image was purposefully chosen. I don't think Ms. Zhou looks bad in the 2018 image at all. In fact, I purposefully chose a timestamp where Ms. Zhou had a neutral expression. I could have easily chosen one with Zhou having an open mouth, or closed eyes, or any other wacky expression as happens when people are talking. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Pray4america (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)::Hello Psiĥedelisto I am not Ellen Lee Zhou, and I do not work for her. I only wanted to help her to appear the way she should be. Ellen Lee Zhou is still alive, and she has a 2019 campaign site with a lot of pictures. Also she has social media account where you can easily use to contact her directly. For all the personal life, professional experience and media coverage. Yet you didn't do any of these, and you removed all the social media info I put into this page. I understand as the original author of this page, you felt a little at loss when somebody else came and modify it with so much enrichment. Yet I ask you to also understand that this page does not belong to you, and it's not your property. When you contributed to wikipedia, it belongs to the world, and it should be tested by all sides of all the social/potitical/ethnic issues. Yes, that's true that you could easily choose a much worse picture, but you do know that if it's across the boundary, it's not neutral any more even on the looking. Please be open to other people's contribution. Only after hearing more inputs, this page can start to be neutral. The content right now, it very much skewed. And my goal here is to help wikipedia to be true source of truth, and prevent it from being hijacked by a few political views. Thanks.[reply]

@Pray4america: If you aren't Ms. Zhou, and you don't work for Ms. Zhou, did you take the photo File:Ellen Lee Zhou New Profile Pic.png? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pray4america (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Psiĥedelisto I got this email directly from her. It was simple I just wrote her an email. Do you want to see our email exchange?[reply]

@Pray4america: So you emailed Ms. Zhou, she agreed to license her image under the CC 4.0 license, and then you forwarded that email to OTRS? I don't have a problem with the new image if it is properly licensed. You're under no obligation to show me the exchange (that's what OTRS is for), but if you'd like you can send it to me at Special:EmailUser/Psiĥedelisto and I can tell you if what she wrote to you is enough, and if it wasn't, what you need to get her to tell you instead. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pray4america (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Psiĥedelisto Since this picture is from herself, Ellen Lee can give any license you need. That's why I put the license part as: can provide when requested. Thanks.[reply]

Did you email OTRS? I don't tend to make contact with the people I write about. I am not obligated to do so, and if they want to change the photo in their article, they can join the project and upload an image themselves, then let me know on my talk page (or just change the image). I will not be emailing Ms. Zhou. Did Ms. Zhou license File:Ellen Lee Zhou New Profile Pic.png under the terms of the CC 4.0 or not? Or have you uploaded it just on the assumption such license would be provided on request? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems well sourced with 3rd party sources to me, I'm not seeing the election advertising that the AFD originally claims in the current version. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they have not won; a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to clear
  reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about her, the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and the context of what she's getting coverage for, and the sources here all fail one or more of those tests. Running for mayor is not an inherently notable context that would get her over GNG just because some election coverage exists in the city's local media, because every candidate for mayor of anywhere can always show that. Obviously she'll qualify for an article on or after November 5 if she wins, but nothing here adds up to a reason why she would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Bearcat: She is very well known in the Chinese-American community in San Francisco and is always protesting something or another. We have articles about quite a few perennial candidates who became notable just by running for office repeatedly. I cited a few primary sources but respected the guidelines around doing that. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that a person is well known in one city's local ethnic community is not a notability criterion in and of itself, and neither is "always protesting something or another". The notability test is not measured in terms of counting up how many people in one city you think have heard of her; there are lots of notable people in the world you probably haven't heard of, and lots of non-notable people you probably have. The notability test is measured by whether she has a credible claim of nationalized significance (i.e. a reason why she might be just as important for people in Portland, Maine to read about as for San Franciscans) that can be supported by a nationalized range of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: World Journal and National Review are certainly national publications. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking for nationalized sources that mention Ellen Lee Zhou in the process of being about something else — we're looking for nationalized sources in which Ellen Lee Zhou is the subject. Y'ain't shown none of that. Being asked to give soundbite to the media in an article about something or somebody else is not the same thing as notability-supporting sources about her. Bearcat (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think that's necessary, I don't see anything in the relevant policy pages to support that being a necessity. Can you point out to me where this requirement comes from? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's right in the basic definition of notability: a source supports a subject's notability if it is substantively about said subject, and does not support notability if it merely mentions the subject's name in passing in the process of being about something else. For an example, this newspaper article is valid support for the notability of novelist Rachel Cusk. It is not valid support for the notability of Nathan Whitlock as its author, and it is not relevant to the notability of William Shatner, D.H. Lawrence, Edith Wharton, Natalia Ginzburg or Elizabeth Gilbert even though their names are all mentioned in it too — because it isn't about any of those people, it is about Rachel Cusk. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete candidates for election will have news coverage. We have decided not all candidates are notable. We either need truly significant news coverage or non-election related coverage, both of which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: At least one source dates from before she ran for office. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need a lot more than just one piece of pre-campaign coverage to establish that she was already notable enough for an article before being a candidate. GNG is not just "anybody who's ever gotten their name into their local newspaper"; it requires a lot more than that. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apart from what has already been elucidated regarding articles about election candidates, I have concerns about such an article being published during an election campaign - it compromises the perception of Wikipedia's neutrality. I am referring to how it might be perceived; I'm not questioning the creator's intentions. Also, at least one source is not neutral and is clearly poking fun at the woman's inability to draw much support at a demonstration (Mission Local. Crowd of 4 show up). Felixkrater (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Felixkrater: Supposed effects on the perception of the project by outsiders is never a valid reason to delete. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you are a candidate who runs rallies that get less than 10 at a rally which is then the subject of a mocking article in a hyper local publication you are not fitting the definition of notable. We had way more people are the pro-religious freedom rally I attended in Ann Arbor, a rally that was specifically targetted at angst against the Obama birth-control mandates. We were at over 200 people, maybe even more than that. So yes, even in a bastion of liberalism like San Francisco or Ann Arobor you can get attendance at a conservative rally, doing a rally with less than 10 participants shows you have little pull or organizational leadership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable participant in San Francisco politics for many years. – Athaenara ✉ 02:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no evidence of that in the article. If she really was a notable political figure, it would have been possible to write a more substantial article about her and to find better sources. Note: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office" and "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage"
  WP:POLITICIAN. Someone who has never held office and who can muster only 4 to 8 people for a demo on the steps of city hall, during an election campaign, is not a major political figure. She does not fit the notability criteria.Felixkrater (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Felixkrater: She is a human being with a history, not merely a politician. I don't normally argue with people on Wikipedia because I consider it a colossal waste of time, particularly when it's treated as a political battleground. I'll just note this article about her fourteen years ago^[2]. (I live in San Francisco, by the way.) – Athaenara ✉ 08:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The existence of one 14-year-old article in her local newspaper is not enough coverage to demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons before becoming a candidate — and that's the same article that was already profferred and responded to above, so it isn't a new data point. If one piece of coverage in the local newspaper was enough to make a person encyclopedically notable, we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got into the local newspaper several years ago for finding a pig in her yard. GNG is not just "anybody who can show that their name has ever appeared in any newspaper for any reason whatsoever": as I already explained above, it requires a lot more than just the existence of an arbitrary number of footnotes. It also tests for the
  reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about her, the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and the context of what she's getting coverage for. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge to 2019 San Francisco mayoral election - Candidate is not inherently notable on her own outside of her candidacy for mayor. Move information about her campaign and the racist op-ed to the article about the election. Bkissin (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This has been a somewhat difficult decision, but on balance I think the concerns with GNG are justified. That there are sources that make reference to her with regards to her political ambitions is not in doubt, but the coverage is far too limited. The article hangs the notability squarely on her running for political office, but in the absence of her not yet having held any notable office, there is nothing beyond that. The article is a collection of her campaign work, policies and statements, which any campaigner in this election, or any other would be able to demonstrate, and that does not itself confer sufficiently notability to pass wikipedia policies.
  Spokoyni (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I've all but accepted at this point I'm going to need more sources to recreate this article. I'm not happy about it but I'll wait until after the election and see where things stand. Editors should be aware
  WP:COI/N. I will recreate the article after the election if it is deleted and if in that time a national newspaper profiles her, to meet the request of User:Bearcat, although I don't think that should be necessary. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User:Psiĥedelisto "User:Pray4america has admitted the COI I suspected", wow! Good job putting your words into other people's mouth. Getting permission with a publicly available email to contact the person in question, is COI according to your definition? And constantly smering a person with leftist idiologies is "neutral"? I do not understand it, and I do not understand if that's the way wikipedia is functioning. Pray4america (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psiĥedelisto, just to be clear, the thing you're being asked to understand is that every mayoral candidate in every city can always show some evidence of mayoral campaign coverage in the local media — just last year alone, the city I live in had 35 mayoral candidates, the city I grew up in had 11 and the city where I went to university had 12, and since all three of those cities have local media, every last one of those 58 people can be referenced to some evidence of campaign coverage — but Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that maintaining an article about everybody who ever ran for mayor of anywhere is not our role or mandate. A person has to win the election to clear NPOL, and otherwise candidates are accepted as notable only if they can credibly demonstrate that either (a) they were already notable under another Wikipedia notability criterion for other reasons independent of the candidacy, or (b) their candidacy is much more special than everybody else's candidacies for some nationally significant reason. That's why you need to show nationalized coverage: this article is not demonstrating that she was already notable enough for an article before running for mayor, so it has to show that her candidacy is somehow much more notable than Joel Ventresca's, Paul Ybarra Robertson's, Robert Jordan's or Wilma Pang's; somehow much more notable than the 34 people in my city who ran for mayor last year and didn't win; and on and so forth. And even if "a national newspaper profiles her" between now and November 5, that still won't be the magic ticket by itself: we would still need to see several such pieces, not just one, before the notability equation would start to shift here. If she wins, then yes, things will automatically change and an article will be justified — but if she doesn't, an article about her isn't justified unless you can show convincing evidence that either she was already notable for some other reason, or her candidacy was special. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be sufficient news coverage apart from the campaign-related matters. Of course, the natural stance for Wikipedians is to deny current candidates an advertising opportunity, rather than restoring to a neutral version and protecting it. If this was deleted and then re-created after the election I wouldn't be upset about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the article showing any coverage about her "apart" from the campaign-related matters? Nearly every single footnote here that's not campaign-specific is a glancing mention of her existence in a source whose primary subject is something or somebody else besides her, not notability-making coverage about her — and the only one that is about her in any non-trivial way has already been addressed at least twice in this discussion as not in and of itself enough to make her notable outside of the campaign itself if it's the only "both about her and predating the campaign" source that can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I can understand overlooking routine sources from campaign coverage but I don't think we have to discount all sources that mention the subject is a candidate, as if that doesn't matter. There are multiple citations about the crime perceived to be targeting the Chinese community, wherein Zhou is mentioned. That's not routine coverage. What puts me off from your rationale is the degree to which you argue with opposing views, which leads me to believe you're some sort of partisan. If you think sources from during a campaign don't count, then you need to re-read WP:GNG. This subject doesn't have to pass NPOL if she passes GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to reread anything. We have a long-established consensus that because all candidates in all elections can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, but all candidates in all elections are not always notable enough for Wikipedia, campaign coverage does not establish that a person passes GNG unless it explodes far, far out of scope with what every other candidate can also show. It's the same as the reason why we don't accept most city councillors as notable just because they have some coverage in their local media, and why we don't accept that every restaurant on earth is notable just because the local restaurant critic has reviewed it in the local newspaper — just because local coverage exists, in a context where local coverage is simply expected to exist, does not add up to a reason why the rest of the world needs an article to exist. GNG is not just "count up the media hits and keep anything that exceeds a certain arbitrary number" — it also tests for depth and geographic range and the context of what the person is getting covered for, and being an unelected candidate for mayor is not a notable context where the mere existence of the expected local campaign coverage is enough to make the candidate notable. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As stated on my user page, I am intermediate in Chinese. I've found some more sources in Chinese or by Chinese publications:

• 李愛晨力排眾議 嚴辭反注毒中心 [Ellen Lee Zhou denounces new anti-drug center], Sing Tao Daily, 12 April 2019
• 華人基督教領袖林修榮 挺李愛晨選市長 [Chinese Christian leader Lin Xiurong (林修榮) endorses Ellen Lee Zhou for mayor], World Journal, 22 May 2018 (please note that this is not the same World Journal piece I already linked)
• Asian Americans rally for better social security, crackdown on crime in San Francisco,
  Xinhua
  (national Chinese state run media), 9 July 2019
• 美国华裔李爱晨加入共和党籍 再战旧金山市长选举 , [American Chinese Li Aichen joins the Republican Party and fights for the San Francisco Mayor election], Overseas Chinese Network (中国侨网), 13 December 2018
• 加州2018選舉季候選人介紹, [California 2018 election season candidate introduction], this is a 30 minute interview with Ms. Zhou in Chinese on New Tang Dynasty Television

I ask that editors rethink their decisions in light of the multitude of Chinese sources. She is important in the Chinese-American community. I could keep going but let's stick with these. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been explained to you that campaign-specific coverage does not bolster the notability of a candidate who is not already established as having already been notable enough for an article independently of the candidacy — every candidate can always show campaign coverage, and you're still not showing any sources which demonstrate that her candidacy is more notable than Joel Ventresca's, Paul Ybarra Robertson's, Robert Jordan's or Wilma Pang's, or the 34 people in my city who ran for mayor last year without winning. So no, showing more articles about her mayoral campaign speeches doesn't change anything, articles which briefly mention her name in the process of being fundamentally about something other than her don't change anything, campaign endorsements from other people don't change anything, and Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person don't change anything either. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPOL says. That's just your standard, which I don't agree with. Furthermore, I don't know if you can read Chinese, but some of the sources are not even about the campaign, but rather about the rallies of Ms. Zhou, mostly for gun rights and against crime in San Francisco. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, you ask me, why is Mrs. Zhou special? Let me try to answer, but these are just my opinions, what motivated me to research her and write the article. For one thing, she's the only Republican running. For another, she's not ordinary—hanging around with far-right YouTubers like Stefan Molyneux (and making documentaries with them where she accosts homeless people and says they want to be homeless), spouting baseless conspiracy theories, and getting a lot of the Chinese community around her. She also says a lot of thinly veiled racist messages. This makes her interesting, she is like the mythical fed up Chinese–American so often in the right wing imagination, she even wants a border wall...as an immigrant herself! National Review and The Epoch Times love her for that. None of the other candidates are interesting at all. We all know she'll lose, but after she does the Chinese press will keep turning out new articles and I'm sure she'll keep holding rallies and doing whatever she can to advance right-wing politics in San Francisco. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is exactly what NPOL says, and is most certainly not just my personal standard. It's not sufficient to stand on just the letter of what you think a notability standard technically says — you also have to understand the established consensus around how notability standards are actually applied at AFD when differing interpretations have come up for consideration, because all of our notability standards can be read in self-serving ways by people who are trying to oversell their pet topics. Every candidate in every election can always claim that they've been exempted from having to pass NPOL because campaign coverage exists to get them over GNG, for example — so if that were how it worked, then NPOL would literally mean nothing anymore and Wikipedia would just be a database of campaign brochures rather than an encyclopedia. So we have an established consensus that candidates for municipal office are accepted as notable only if they can be properly demonstrated as already having been notable for other reasons prior to their candidacies, or if their candidacies can be demonstrated as much more special than other people's candidacies, and are not automatically deemed to pass GNG just because some campaign coverage happens to exist. And whatever you think the distinction between "campaign coverage" and "coverage of rallies" would be, it's undercut by the fact that the rallies are campaign rallies.

People are also not special just because of what political party they happen to be associated with, or who they happen to hang around with, or who thinks they're "interesting". It is not our role to keep an article about everybody who happens to pop up in the current news cycle; our role is to keep articles about people whose notability claims pass the

ten year test for enduring significance, and none of what you're saying constitutes strong evidence that she has attained that: nothing here suggests that people will still be looking for an article about her in 2029 even if she loses the election and fades away. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I know your position, and your interpretation of the current consensus. I disagree, I think even if Mrs. Zhou, God forbid, dropped dead tomorrow, San Franciscans will be interested in her mark on American history in 2029. I don't think you can be convinced, and I don't wish to argue with you further. I understand you think I'm not interpreting the guidelines right, and you understand I don't think you're right about the current consensus (even not assuming

WP:Consensus can change). I don't see any point in further argument; you're likely to win anyway as I already pointed out in a previous comment. It's up to the closer what happens now, and other editors to consider my evidence. I knew when I posted it you would not accept it, but you're not the only one that's pro-deletion here. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Since when is getting less than 5% of the vote notable? This is ridiculous. And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! Nor is it an incubator for what we want people to be one day. Trillfendi (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: The percentage of votes gotten has absolutely nothing to do with notability. Vermin Supreme never even gets that much of the vote, he's lucky to receive half of a percent. See perennial candidate for a long list of other notable people who are lucky to get even 1% of the vote in their elections. Zhou is notable whether or not she becomes mayor, that's my position—if anything, her ability to get 5% of the vote bolsters her notability as it shows she has more support than her fellow perennial candidates. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vermin Supreme's article is demonstrating notability for much more than just being a losing candidate. In actual fact, even most perennial candidates are not kept either, unless they can demonstrate notability for much more significant reasons than just being a perennial candidate per se —

verifiably named to the Guinness Book of Records as the single most perennially losing candidate in the entire worldwide history of politics. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Psiĥedelisto: The point is, if it wasn’t obvious, that she isn’t a notable politician, having lost her initial attempt at political office so disastrously. Is she notable in other areas? From what I’ve seen, no. Not enough for an article. If by an act of God she wins something then refund, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Trillfendi (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteand then REDIRECT or Merge to
  WP:NPOL and isn't inherently notable outside the election. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• FWIW the user who made the article has been blocked w/o TPA for using WP for promotion.
  talk) 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • One of the two users, the one who was a SPA. I think the other author is safe and sound, as he is an established Wikipedian who did nothing wrong :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet
  WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, does not meet
  WP:NOTPROMOTION.4meter4 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom and others above.
  G. ツ 14:31, 29 September 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 03:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Belgian F-16 crash

2019 Belgian F-16 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not particularly noteworthy, military aircraft regulary crash and only if they hit something important or kill somebody important would make them worth considering, which doesnt appear to be the case here. About 650 F-16s have crashed since the type was introduced 99% of them are not noteworthy for a stand-alone article. No reason why it cant be added to
  List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). MilborneOne (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable per
  WP:AIRCRASH. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Try and avoid invoking WP:AIRCRASH as it is only an essay and not a proper guideline, though it is more or less exactly what is required to assess if articles are noteworthy.--Petebutt (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I disagree. In Belgium and France especially in the region where it got hit is it a really important event. Local news claimed that there was a casualty, okay yes it was denied that the victim was killed during the event. As I can tell it was a major hit in the region and 15 residents were even evacuated. If this article should be in added in the
  List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) then every incident should be included. It is notable the police even established a "crisiscel" and a no-go zone and a no-fly zone were established due to the explosions and the fire. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  (Sad, sympathetic look) It definitely should be added to the

  WP:AIRCRASH

  , which says:

Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly

List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft

. For accidents involving light aircraft (maximum gross weight of 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) or less) or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:

• the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
• the accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).

I concur with

WP:AIRCRASH is only an advice essay, and not a formal policy or guideline, and that there may be other reasons why a crash is notable, but I'm not seeing any here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete – Run-of-the-mill crash of a jet fighter like countless others, without even a fatality (thankfully). This is unlike for example the 1989 Belgium MiG-23 crash, in which there was a fatality and the circumstances of the accident were quite extraordinary, which makes it notable. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable military aviation incident.
  WP:NOTNEWS also applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 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 03:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Atta

Roshan Atta (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 references found in google about Roshan Atta

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Offline 08:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are no notability guidelines that require google search results. This actress had obituaries in two major newspapers,
  WP:ACTOR for several reasons, including that the romanised titles of the films she appeared in are spelled differently in this article from the List of Sindhi-language films, and there are very few WP articles as yet (in any language Wikipedia) about the individual films - which is not evidence that they are not notable, just that no-one has yet written the articles. Also, while there are indeed few search results on Google for "Roshan Atta", the reasons for that could include that contemporary sources (in English or other languages) have not been digitised, or that a different romanised spelling is used. I will search in other databases, but at the moment, I would be reluctant to delete a pre-internet actor with two obituaries just for lack of other online sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - In addition to the long list of film credits in the second obit, it is noted that she received a "life Achievement Award by the PTV, besides a number of awards by some private organiosations." It would be helpful to see if the first citation is archived somewhere. Netherzone (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]