Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 21 September 23 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created using editorial discretion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMIT FC

RMIT FC (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)

Editors have been engaging in low-key edit warring (nothing sanctionable) over whether this article should redirect to

RMIT University#Sports
or not, so it's best that we resolve this at AfD.

My own opinion is that this does not meet

Victorian State League Division 5, not even 1/6 of the teams listed there have articles (and none of the other teams in the North conference have articles) signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:31, 22 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 08:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Doyle (character)

Tommy Doyle (character) (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)

Zero real world notability. All sourcing is simple announcements. Was deprodded without rationale (simply citing DEPROD isn't a rationale, since that clearly states "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.") or improvement. Onel5969 TT me 21:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:02, 22 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. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Venezuela

Tourism in Venezuela (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)

An enormous article with only a handful of references, this is basically a tourism ad rather than an encyclopedia article. I came here because someone had added that Caracas was a murder capital - I wanted to revert that, but once I saw that almost the whole article is uncited, I found myself asking why should one opinion go while others stay? From the head tag, it appears that this has been the state of the article since its beginning, so I think we should get rid of it. ubiquity (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 21:00, 22 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. Sandstein 08:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Freed

Richard Freed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't appear to have been covered in significant depth in reliable, independent sources, so fails

WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the book can be borrowed online for two weeks at Internet Archive… Genium. 01:24, Sep 26, 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated the article as a result of a request we received at the Volunteer Response Team (VRTS ticket # 2019091210000283), from someone claiming to be the article subject (I haven't verified this, but have no reason to disbelieve it). In a follow-up e-mail, the person wrote "I appreciate Wiki's energetic research, but in this case what it all came down to--what is shown on your site--is simply inaccurate and strikes me as unrelated to the stated subject. If you should decide simply to delete it, that would strike me as an acceptable solution". Apologies for only mentioning this now, but I needed to get the person's permission to do so first. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is written badly in parts and needs work. However, we can't act on an anonymous request for deletion, and in this case, even a courtesy deletion based on a request by the verified subject, should that be offered, would stumble at the hurdle of other reputable sources having covered the person. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard advice from OTRS when article subjects request deletion is for them to start an AfD, specifying that they are the article subject, that they regard themself as a non-notable, private person, and that they want the article to be deleted. I take the point that Freed now seems notable though. I think we need to focus on making sure that the content of the article is accurate if it is kept, though. I can always ask for confirmation of this by e-mail. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 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. No prejudice against restoring to draftspace if desired per

WP:REFUND. czar 02:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ray Turney

Ray Turney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that has to be one of strangest Career sections I have ever read - but that's not the reason for deletion - does not meet
    WP:BASIC; has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 22 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. We have - essentially - the nominator !voting delete, two votes to merge, four to keep, and one comment that seems to be leaning merge. Epinoia, FULBERT, and 4meter4 note that this article has sufficient references to meet the GNG - Epinoia lists three, including several that Uncle G (who did not cast a vote) noted, and 4meter4 notes an additional tertiary source that covers the topic. These effectively counter the nominator's arguments for deletion - there isn't much debate here on how significant this coverage is, but it does appear to be independent, and sufficiently numerous to demonstrate notability. So in my judgment, the consensus is to keep. ST47 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kemetic Orthodoxy

Kemetic Orthodoxy (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)

Appears to be a small religion with narrow geographic interest. Many contributions are by SPAs and references are not independent of the topic. Definite COI issues, the lack of significant independent coverage, verifiablility concerns, and no real indication or claim of notability argue for deletion. Sandals1 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I’m just astounded that this has survived since 2006. I can’t see anything that would make me want to keep it. Mccapra (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning those. However, I don't think multiple books by the same authors can count as more than 1 source and virtually all of the mentions of this subject in Profane Egyptologists consists of quoting the founder's writings. I must also admit to cringing at the mention in Krogh & Pillifant of the founder's "semi-devine status" even though I know they're just quoting KO's writings.Sandals1 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was trickier than I expected. It turns out there are two things for this search term. One is the religious sect in Illinois and one is the academic topic of ancient Egyptian religions (Kemet is a term for ancient Egypt). I even found a source that included both--it talked about how the current sect differed in multiple significant ways from the original. Since the article is about the group in Illinois, all of the sources in the body of article are non-independent or minor. It appears that the founder of the sect decided to create her own religion and make herself the leader, using parts of the ancient Egyptian beliefs and I don't think that is any more notable than anyone else creating their own religion. Claims of divinity (or near divinity) should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism and require significant independent coverage (even more than usual). Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all that, I find it hard to vote to keep the article, the overwhelming bulk of which has no independent sources. On the other hand, there is some academic coverage. I'm not sure it's enough to meet
WP:GNG, but a merge or redirect to Kemetism seems reasonable. If the article is to be kept, I think it would need a severe trimming and rewrite to remove the COI issues. Papaursa (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge very sparingly to Kemetism. I still think it’s dire but having considered what other editors have said here I have struck my earlier !vote as I think a merge is possible. Mccapra (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article needs some work, and while there are a number of self-references, the solid reliable references are sufficient enough to establish enough notability that this article should exist. To this point, we should keep it and revise it. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The four Wikiprojects which contain this article were not notified about this AfD process. I just posted to their discussion pages to notify their members. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sparingly in line with Mccapra's comments above. There are none to few secondary sources that can be utilized that would resolve the main issues. It is not notable enough to have its own independent article and would be much better served as a section of
    talk) (contrib) 18:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Pluzhnik

Evgeny Pluzhnik (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)

With an h-index 12, that's a fails

b} 20:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
b} 20:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:53, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Official Policies from Medical Organizations on Transgender People

List of Official Policies from Medical Organizations on Transgender People (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 page is not a Wikipedia article, nor do I see any prospect if it ever becoming one. It consists entirely of material copied from the publications of various organisations in the United States; this was initially plain and simple copyright violation, but it's now been supplied with quotation marks so its just an abuse of our

WP:NFCCEG: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:16, 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 redirect to List of Futurama characters. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes Conrad

AfDs for this article:
Hermes Conrad (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)

Clearly does not meet

WP:GNG as there is not significant coverage independent of the subject. The only reference that is not directly from the TV show is a video interview of the voice actor from Comedy Central [7]. In the last AfD the article was redirected to List of Futurama characters but was undone by @WuTang94: [8]. Unless sufficient reliable sources independent from the show can be found to establish notability this article should be deleted or redirected back to List of Futurama characters. Spy-cicle (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle (talk) 20:38, 22 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 per

WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Francis Nigel Lee

Francis Nigel Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me explain it again: (1) you assert that the biography is likely to be self-published. (2) I have shown that Lee himself wrote an autobiography. That means that your argument about it being self-published is unlikely to be correct. It does go to notability, because, as StAnselm asserted, it shows there is an independent third-party source that covers his life in some detail. Bookscale (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:58, 22 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. The clear consensus here is to keep, with multiple references to

WP:NPOSSIBLE. ST47 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Kenneth Gentry

Kenneth Gentry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Writing a lot of non-notable books or contributing to non-notable articles doesn't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Writing a lot of non-notable books or contributing to non-notable articles doesn't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say he is notable as a supporter. SHOW he is notable via significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 15 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]
  • Delete - there are no sources whatsoever in the article so it does not meet
    WP:BASIC, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources - a search revealed no reviews of his books, discussions of his work or his contribution to theology - non-notable due to lack of reliable sources - Epinoia (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreed, it may, however, indicate possible notableness ie. work or works significant or well-known with multiple reviews (see point 3 of
    WP:NAUTHOR) note: i am not saying that Gentry necessarily meets this hence my "Comment" above. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 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. Sandstein 09:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary DeMar

Gary DeMar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Non-notable 10 minute podcasts and a string of non-notable books/articles don't add up to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:56, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get Rude

Get Rude (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)

Great band, but this cassette was self-released and obscure. Details pertinent to Exhorder's musical development should be discussed in the article about the band. Geschichte (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Storch

Adam Storch (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 SIGCOV. Notable for only one event - being appointed to SEC after working at Goldman Sachs - and covered in a total of two sec.gov press releases (one on hiring, one on leaving), one Bloomberg piece, a Business Insider piece referencing the Bloomberg piece, and a Business Insider piece mentioning his now deleted photo. Also note, it was created by an editor with only three other edits, two of which where immediately reverted. Hydromania (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 18:17, 22 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.

- talk 14:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Adolf Sturmthal

Adolf Sturmthal (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)

Few citations, and little evidence to suggest subject meets

WP:NPROF Curt 内蒙 17:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curt 内蒙 17:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 22 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. Sandstein 09:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Identity

Ping Identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't passes general company notability guidelines and has been recreated after being deleted previously. Zinzhanglee (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I came across reports that Ping was going public and thought they were notable enough. This would be my first page getting deleted. And I'm fine with that. But would it be better for me to provide more information on them? retiredprogrammers (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, somewhat reluctantly as this is a significant company in its niche marketplace. However the reality is that there is a lack of independent in-depth coverage. There are lots of product announcements, blog articles, and in the last few days a lot of news relating to the IPO, but these don't help meet the
    WP:NCORP criteria. I am sure there will be an article about Ping in time, but right now there's just not enough to meet the criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have struck my !vote based on the additional sources that have since been identified. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:36, 22 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.

  • Merge
    2019_US_Open_–_Boys'_Singles
  • Merge
    2019_US_Open_–_Girls'_Singles
Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying

2019 US Open – Boys' Singles Qualifying (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)
2019 US Open – Girls' Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The junior qualifying sections to the Grand Slam tennis tournaments do not pass

WP:NTENNIS doesn't apply either as neither the participants nor the qualifiers pass NTENNIS (winning the overall title is required for that). Iffy★Chat -- 09:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly no stand alone article should be allowed here. No GNG at all. Usually, even on the main ATP Tour, qualification draws are placed at the bottom of the main draw article as opposed to a stand alone article. This is stated in the Tennis Project Guidelines. The minor league ATP Challenger Tour qualifications are not notable. Obviously the Grand Slam tournaments are a bit of an anomaly as to importance for everything that touches them, but Jr qualifying draws "at best" would be put at the bottom of the Jr draws, not as a separate entity. So delete or merge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that the outcome of this AfD will have some further implications, thus relisting to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 18:06, 22 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

List of Batman Family enemies#Mobsters and plainclothes criminals. There's consensus that there's not enough in terms of sourcing for a standalone article. It's up to editors to decide whether and what to merge from the history into the target list. Sandstein 09:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

James Gordon Jr.

James Gordon Jr. (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 usual fictional character biography with references limited to primary sources. No hint of any impact, reception, influences, etc. Sources are all

WP:NFICTION. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Porterfield (2009) A Review of The Dark Knight, A Rorschach of the American Psyche, Psychological Perspectives, 52:2, 271-275, DOI: 10.1080/0033292090288128
  • Timothy D Peters (2015) Beyond the limits of the law: a Christological reading of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, Griffith Law Review, 24:3, 418-445, DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2015.1096985
  • Gabriel Huddleston (2016) A Dark Knight for public education: Using Batman as an apparatus of diffraction with neoliberal education reform, Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 38:5, 468-489, DOI: 10.1080/10714413.2016.1221713
I found those sources, using
"Dark Knight"
as search term. I readily admit the mention of Junior is only passing. But, really, what is to be expected for this character, the son of another Batman fictional character, who, at times, interact with the Batman superhero himself. Passing mention in these journals is a VERY high bar to pass. If passing mention in such journals were required for stand-alone WP articles, the WP project would have its number of articles reduced by orders of magnitude.
There is good coverage of James Gordon Junior here: Thigpen AF (2007). Batman as Monomyth [..] the Hero’s Journey to Gotham. MA thesis
See text pp63-65, which examines Junior's importance for the psychological plot. In the story, Dick faces a supervillain that symbolizes Dick’s opposite: the psychopathic James Gordon, Jr. While Dick is empathetic and emotionally healthy, James, Jr. completely lacks empathy […] James, Jr., a clinically diagnosed psychopath, who wants to destroy Dick Grayson. Junior believes that “Gotham City is a city of nightmares... […] ... James, Jr. embodies what Vogler calls, “the archetype of the Shadow” [etc.]
While this of course not is the kind of scholarly work that is published in reputable scientific journals with double-blind peer review, it undermines your claim that he is a "super niche family member, unknown to all but the biggest Batman fans", i.e. the obvious conclusion is that this is not
WP:CRUFT
.
Content deletion is therefore not the right course of action here. The essential WP question is then if a stand-alone article is warranted or if content should be merged into the
James Gordon (comics)
article (you also suggest this). I would argue against, as it would make that article even more messy than it already is. I might also frustrate people there and drive good editors away from that project. That's why I stand by my Keep. The surprisingly (to me at least) broad scholarly interest in the fictional Batman universe may warrant a generalization of this position for all the Batman characters.
Taking a step back, we should ask ourselves about the extent to which the efforts put into this AfD actually improves Wikipedia. I have spent far more time on this immensely silly subject than I really like to admit – time I could have spent providing content or doing far more rewarding stuff in real life. Same situation for you, I presume. What an incredible waste of time. I was bored one evening and it was a most regrettable mistake of mine to open the AfD pages. I will now resume my Wikipedia hibernation. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We do need some in-depth coverage, but more sources for review are appreciated, I will try to look at them if we have time. If we can save this article, great. And if not, I do believe that keeping spam/fancruft of this project has merits on its own. Some levels of quality have to be maintained. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC) PS. I did look at the MT, but the discussion of Jr. does not go beyond the few sentences you quote. I think you really quoted 100% of what the author says about him. It is a good and reliable analysis, but I don't think three or so sentences in a single master thesis are sufficient to argue the subject received significant and in-depth analysis, and this is a treshold you'll notice in NFICTION and GNG in general. At the same time, I strongly encourage you to add this source with a sentence of two to the article; even if this ends up in merger, this will give us a reliable source to merge, besides unreferenced and mostly unimportant (batman wikia does it better...) stuff on character history and powers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The above sources don't seem to be enough to hold the character on its own. They'd be better served added to articles about whatever storylines in which they're relevant. TTN (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a purely personal opinion, not supported in
WP:GNG
does not require definitive proof, only that it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found.
Your suggestion to move content "to articles about whatever storylines in which they're relevant" is completely bogus as no such article is likely to meet
WP:GNG. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There's like two things in the above that qualify as proper real world information. That in itself is not enough to build an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTN (talk • contribs) 00:43, September 21, 2019 (UTC)
Dear MrCleanOut, you still have to show us that the articles you've found contain any in-depth discussion. I did not have the time to look at them outside of the MT you linked, but the first example you found was, as shown, a mention in passing. We cannot use google hits, even in scholar or books, as an argument. Mentions in passing are mentions in passing regardless of the type of the source. Now, did your read those academic articles and can you tell us whether the discussion of the subject in those texts is in-depth? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: You still have to show us that the articles you've found contain any in-depth discussion. Is this a
    WP:SOURCES
    , academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most reliable sources of all. Passing mention in diverse academic work is a clear indication of notability.
  • Yes, I did bother to download and read those articles that Google scholar located. If fact many more articles, as search results were diluted with hits for his more famous father. It was a quite laborious task, as Jr. is mentioned in various ways, James Jr. or "his son", so I actually had to quick-read the stuff. My search was limited. You yourself found the "Newsarama" source, which you say is
    WP:RS. I have no opinion on that, I didn't check it. Also, I stopped searching after finding one MA thesis - more may exist, who knows. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You misread the guideline.
WP:RS sources provided in this AfD. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice towards draftification if MrCleanOut believes that the article has reliable sources. In it's current state it is totally lacking in reliable secondary sources. However, let it pass through AfC first rather than giving the benefit of the doubt.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment is not supported by any reference to policy or guideline, it is
    WP:ATD: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. ATD is a Wikipedia POLICY, not merely a guideline. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You have nominated 1,500+ articles for deletion, mostly within the fictional universe. Your own article creation history is nil. With this edit history, it is unsurprising that you are unhappy with a stand-alone article. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You’re simply refusing to accept that other people may not share your low standard of acceptable sources. We can certainly agree to disagree, but claiming that anyone who disagrees with you simply dislikes the article is disingenuous. TTN (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything that MrCleanOut added recently to
    List of Batman Family enemies and redirect. If this is all MrCleanOut could find about this character through hard work, then this character seems rather trivial and should best be covered in a list of characters. – sgeureka t•c 16:30, 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. It's up to editors to decide whether to redirect this to somewhere. Sandstein 09:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Maker

Ghost Maker (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) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:38, 22 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. It's up to editors to decide whether to redirect this to somewhere. Sandstein 09:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ferocia

Ferocia (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) 15:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:36, 22 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. This debate really covers two separate things. First, is the subject notable. Second, what to do about the improper way this article was created.

Starting with notability, I am going to review the comments that directly reference notability or some sort of notability guideline, including GNG or NACTOR. To delete: 3 and to keep: 6. (There is also a delete "per Narky Blert" and a keep "per above" that I didn’t count, they would cancel out anyway. The other comments are the nominator (who only links a previous AfD) and two users who suggest speedy deletion on grounds unrelated to notability.) One side says they pass NACTOR the other side says they fail GNG. Both sides raise valid policy-based arguments, so we have a rough consensus that the article subject is notable.

The second matter to consider is what to do about the recreation – there are several users expressing that the article should be speedy deleted, and one voting to draftify. Ultimately there is no policy reason why this article can be speedy deleted, or it would have happened at some point in the last two weeks. With only one person suggesting to draftify, which presumably the keep !voters would oppose, there is no consensus for that outcome either.

So in my judgment, the consensus is to Keep. I will move the article to the correct title after processing the AfD close. ST47 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VaniBhojan

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vani Bhojan Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am voting 'weak delete' only because
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in reverse: it seems unfair to single out for deletion this particular biography from the many others of subcontinental actors and actresses which are at least as thin. The whole area of film and TV on the Subcontinent in English Wikipedia is an undrained swamp. Narky Blert (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify the citation(s) on which you rely. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes the subject specific guideline for actors.
    WP:NOTABILITY clearly states you have to pass EITHER the general notability guidelines OR one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. Not sure why some still get that confused. Dream Focus 02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Please specify the citation(s) on which you rely. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean
WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." She had significant roles to be eligible for best actress award. Dream Focus 22:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I would also not be opposed to draftifying and salting the current title like the last two titles (with the additional reason that this is perhaps not even useful as a redirect). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: So ... you advocate sneaking around creation protection and violating BLP in the process (Google now thinks she is mononymous because of our current article title!) just because the subject may be notable enough to merit a separate article? That's great, and I would support you or anyone else creating a new article on her and putting it through AFC so an admin can review it and move it into the mainspace, but what happened here was a gross violation of our standard procedure, and you surely recognize that fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR. I really wasn't doing anything in my review but commenting in that capacity. I didn't realize there was some sort of unusual history with this article. I hadn't even read Pharaoh of the Wizards' comments until just now. I often just look at the article in it's current state and start hunting for sources to prove SIGCOV and GNG or not without reading others comments first. I like to form my own impressions.4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you not notice the title that was deliberately misspelled to game the system? The fact that the article had been recreated against consensus about a half-dozen times under different titles? In cases like this, notability doesn't really matter; an admin's express permission is needed to recreate the article at its proper title, and that was not done. And I wasn't referring to PotW's comment -- I said pretty much the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't until you just pointed it out. I assumed it was just needing a page move due to innocent human error. My usefulness at AFD is usually in finding good independent references which is what is needed in most cases. And occassionally I clean up articles. I wasn't aware of the drama at work in this case until you pinged me. I stopped reading after Narky Blert (because I went into article rescue mode to find better sources), so I missed your comment as well.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer All of the "keep" !votes except Hyperbolic (who didn't provide a rationale), and even some of the "delete" !votes, have been focused on the notability of this topic. Assuming good faith on their part, it would seem that there is something of a consensus that this topic is notable. However, the bigger issue here is the repeated disruptive recreation and attempting to get around creation protection by using a deliberately misspelled title. When I Google this actress's name, the first result now is English Wikipedia with its claim that her name is "VaniBhojan", which is borderline BLP-violation in that some Wikipedia editor has effectively changed the way this person's name appears on search engines in order to get around the previous salting. It seems highly likely that the creator of the current page is related to the creators of the 2014, 2015, and January 2019 pages. This kind of disruptive editing is, in my view and no doubt the view of most Wikipedians, totally unacceptable and of far greater short-term importance than GNG and NACTOR (both of which are guidelines, not policies). I would therefore urge you to weigh "notability-based" arguments in relation to the other issues of gaming the system through deliberate mistitling, violating previous consensus and administrative action, and even potential sockpuppetry. I for one, and probably several of the other "delete" !votes, would be happy to support recreating this page based on the apparent consensus that the topic is notable, but that is really not what is at issue in this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 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 keep. There is clear consensus that this topic should be documented somewhere - the answer to where can be debated outside AfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KPXH-LD

KPXH-LD (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)

Low power station which meets neither

WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 TT me 17:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to those: Why do you have to delete KPXH-LD or redirect to Daystar? CentralTime301 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: But for reasons specified by Mlaffs. I believe keeping the article as/is is better than redirecting it and it getting forgetten about. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20 on September 8, 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 22 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Imogen Waterhouse

Imogen Waterhouse (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 reality is, notability is not inherited from the more famous sister. Any- and everything about "Immy" is always about being related to Suki. Nothing more than a blurb. I have yet to see independent notability. I have yet to see significant coverage without them talking about Suki foremost. "Suki's sister this" or "another Waterhouse that" (there are 4 of them altogether) don't give indication of notability. So for that reason, I am proposing deletion of the article. Trillfendi (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but i'm getting the impression you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, Imogen pursued a career path similar to her sister and her sister probably helped her out. But so so what? That has no bearing on assessing her notability.
For an actor/actress you look whether they have appeared in several notable works. Which is true for Imogen who works as an actress now for 5 years and has appeared as a guest star or in supporting role in several notable TV shows and 2 movies. In addition she has a leading role in current tv series out and a had a leading role in a 2018 movie. None of those have anything to do with her sister btw.. So as far as I can see notability as an actress is passed.
In addition she probably also passes the notability for models as she had her own vogue cover (without her sister).
There have been press reports about her (with and without her sister) for 5 years now and even in non-English languages.
All of that you can get more or less from the current WP stub, if you read more than the first two lines or do some research on your own.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been making articles on this website for years now—over 130 as a matter of fact, and yes some happen to be a family member—so I do know what I’m talking about when I see an apparent lack of independent notability. I’ve been knowing about Suki Waterhouse since 2013; I’ve been editing, and fighting for BLP on her article since 2015, (it was I who resolved the ridiculous dispute about her birthday which happens to be the same day as a certain guy from Philadelphia, for instance). It was I who added names with sources about her siblings, albeit one is now on the blacklist, 3 years ago. So no you can’t say I’ve never “done my research” into Imogen. I added the Tatler source as you can see, as a citation for the names of Suki’s relatives. Not for notability. They give 2 trivial sentences to each family member! And Appearance doesn’t equal notability according to the countless page reviewers and administrators who have said that. And no, she doesn’t have a Vogue cover. An editorial is not a cover. And Even covers are debatable notability for some reason, but that’s another story. If “notability” for an actress is simply appearance in a role to you no wonder there are actor articles in the AfD everyday. Trillfendi (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above, I suggest you read more than the first 2 lines of the lead. The stub tells you where she grew up, where she got her training as an actress and shortly describes her career as an actress.
And yes it is currently only a stub, but notability is not about requiring lengthy articles. You're free to add further details about her acting roles or modeling jobs or her private life. However I didn't set out to create a lenghy article but i changed a dysfunctional Redirect (linking to a non-existing section in Suki Waterhouse, which has almost no information on Imogen anyhow) into a short article that can grow overtime. The rather unfriendly reaction that this triggered (from a speedy deletion request without informing the author for something that is at best AFD case to getting lectured on draft space) strikes somewhat kafkaesque - note that i'm editing WP for good three years longer than you.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have been, over the years, both a Deletionist and an Inclusionist. Quite frankly, there are merits to both. Here, there is ample reason for inclusion of the person's article to remain. She is an actor and has appeared in several television programs and at least one film. That in itself is notable. That she is young and will likely expand on her acting career seems likely. She is not her sister, and tying her article as a redirect to her sister's article seems...rude, as if her accomplishments were subsidiary to, or dependent upon her sister. Which of course is wrong. I say leave the article alone, and seek to improve and expand the article. Removing it just means someone else will recreate it when Ms. Waterhouse is cast in something new. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the "
let's keep it wait to see if her career actually develops" fallacy is criteria for keeping. Trillfendi (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, that's a mistake I made earlier in my editing career – I've created a couple of articles on the basis of "they're "new" and will likely keep working..." fallacy, and have come to regret it... Bottom line: Waterhouse does not currently have enough coverage to be considered "notable" – she clearly fails
WP:TOOSOON for an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
My God, you've been here more than long enough to know better. By now you should know what type of sources quantify notability. For you to think just any website mentioning her name is usable or acceptable (including the BANNED Daily Mail) is egregious and quite frankly, nonsensical. The German Wikipedia article's only references given are Famousbirthdays.com for fuck's sake, not even remotely a reliable source, and "Suki's sister follows her in the fashion industry", an article that focuses on Suki's accomplishments only saying Imogen "dreams of one day modeling for Topshop" (which she has yet to do) and that she is signed to the same agency, which isn't an accomplishment. And no, she's not a notable model having only done 12 jobs in the past 4 years. I'm still trying to figure out how the uncredited appearance of "daughter" in The Last Photograph or one line in Nocturnal Animals are "significant". As for The CW's "The Outpost", I neither see what routine listing of Waterhouse in parentheses for playing a character does for notability. Trillfendi (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I'm long enough around to know that your argument is not correct and it doesn't become any more correct via repetition.
  • a) The Daily Mail is not banned as such, but her use as a source is discouraged (I actually participated in the discussion that got it "banned"). I listed it above merely to show a somewhat regular press coverage over the last 6 year (as the sentence states). All the links listed above are media/press publications rather than merely arbitrary sites mentioning her name, some of them you used yourself as a source before if I'm not mistaken.
  • b) I'm not arguing she is notable as a model (as such) but as an actress.
  • c) Notability is not about "accomplishments" or a reward WP bestows for such "accomplishments". The basic motivation behind the notability of the article's topic is the (potential) interest to readers and Wikipedia can provide information on the subject in an encyclopedic fashion.
  • d) Yes, the article on the German Wikipedia uses famousbirthdays.com to verify her date of birth, which is probably a mistake by whoever editor did that. However it does not use it to determine the notability, the notability for actresses is determined by
    WP:NACTOR
    .
  • e) As far as her roles in Nocturnal Animals and The Last Photograph is concerned, I don't know more specific details and haven't seen the films myself, I took the information the according IMDB entries and news articles mentioning her participation.
  • d) As far as her role in the Outpost is concerned, I've no idea what you exactly mean by "routine listing in parenthesis". Yes, films and shows (and their descriptions in sources) routinely list their actors/actresses - so?. As far as it connection to notability is concerned, I'd thought it is rather obvious, that a leading role in tv series contributes to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" (WP:NACTOR). Or is it that you are not clear about the exact scope of her role? In this case let me assure you her role is significant and central to series (This one I've actually seen myself rather then just compiling it from sources). So for arguments sake, let's discount her roles in Nocturnal Animal and The Last Photograph due to potentially not being significant enough, then you still have her as a guest star in several notable tv shows, as a lead in a movie (Braid) and as a regular in a leading role on the Outpost. That still passes
    WP:NACTOR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Last I checked when someone tries to add the Daily Mail as a source the action is blocked. For acting, I don't see how a few "small parts" contribute to notability as an actor. That would make anybody with a SAG card notable and 160,000 useless articles of people who did things such as appear in a Reese's Puffs commercial or as an extra on Modern Family–obviously that's not how it works. Mere appearance in a show that can't crack a million viewers is now notability? The bar has become that low to y'all? That's sad. What happened to performance. Is that not how an actor gets recognition? Trillfendi (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking the Daily Mail is not blocked but deprecated, meaning if you try to use it in an article you get a warning/strong advice not to use it short of certain exceptions, you are however not blocked/banned from using it. The Daily Mail has repeatedly not to say endlessly been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (see archives). The (temporary) decision of the discussion I vaguely recalled on top of my head was to discourage the use of the Daily Mail, albeit with different template than the one for deprecated sources you currently see.
As far as notability of actors is concerned significant roles in multiple notable shows/films is the criteria not any appearance in any show or commercials. And yes that potentially allows still for large number articles (as notability for most subjects/topics does). Formal arguments aside it is imho somewhat fair to assume that actors being regulars in notable tv series or in movies are of interest to readers. In fact that is exactly how I ended up creating the stub in the first place: I looked up the Outpost on Wikipedia and clicked on the linked actors and in the case of Imogen Waterhouse I ended up with that somewhat unfortunate Redirect (this) linking to a non-existing section in the article for Suki Waterhouse.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn’t have been redirected in the first place, but there goes what I’ve been saying this whole time: the belief that Imogen’s notability has been contingent upon Suki’s. Trillfendi (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead role in what movie? None. Trillfendi (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained that several times now including in an earlier discussion we had above, she had a lead role in the 2018 horror movie Braid.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What was “notable” about the virtually unknown VOD film that undoubtedly you never heard of until a week ago perusing her IMDb, because if you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel, existence of a film isn’t notability of it. Trillfendi (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of film does not depend on you or me having heard of it. The notability of a film can be due to variety of reasons but first and foremost of course for getting reviewed in news outlets, film magazines and review site of well known movie critics. The probably best known general film review site
Braid is not "just" a VOD film, but it was shown on several film festivals and had a limited theatrical release as well. That aside a theatrical release is of course no requirement for a movie to be notable. Many tv movies or streamed movies are considered notable (in a general sense as well as in the wikipedia notability for an article sense).--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Because
WP:BASIC, which demands significant (and in-depth) independent coverage which this subject has not received. So, no – it's a very serious question in this case, and the benchmark has not been met. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
And very serendipitous how all of a sudden an article for the film has materialized out of almost thin air. Trillfendi (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    Wireless News, July 29, 2017 and "Aldo celebrates individuality and love through its fall 2017 campaign", PR Newswire Europe, July 24, 2017. She also headlined an international campaign for British Airways (see "Imogen the Possibilities This Winter, with British Airways, New Winter Schedule", India Aviation News, Oct 31, 2017 and "BA celebrates 80 years of Hong Kong service with VIP gala", TradeArabia, Apr 12, 2016) 4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Once again, people truly fail to understand the ever-debated NMODEL criteria (then again this is the same website that where just months ago editors who know scrap about fashion really tried to claim avowed supermodel Birgit Kos "wasn’t notable" because reliable sources were "name dropping" designers she walked for. Complete ignorance but what else is new). This certainly isn’t it. A "notable" model yet hasn’t modeled in years? And only did a handful of jobs in a 2 year span? An Aldo shoe ad and a British Airways ad is all you could muster up? That’s not how any of this works. You have to even be a working model to become a notable model, for one. (Exhibit A) And that Vogue piece by Guiducci goes back to exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time—this brief blurb only talked about Suki, and comparisons to Cara Delevinge’s model sisters. Nothing about her own career! Trillfendi (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trillfendi, I think you are missing the point about sustained coverage over the length of time in the entertainment field as a whole. On a side note, I find your interaction with other editors in this discussion to be condescending and rude. You won't convince other people you are right by insulting their intelligence.4meter4 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t change the fact of all this “coverage” being about
perceived inherited notability of being Suki’s sister (...following in the footsteps of her sister Suki, Suki’s little sister... [a headline that doesn’t even mention her name]; the common motif.) with any of it barely even bothering to note what she has done with her own career exploits. Nor does it change what is NMODEL. And if she were actually a notable model why does this article make no mention of it? Now if I cared about being a sweetheart maybe I would become a kindergarten teacher. Trillfendi (talk) 18:37, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices with an IR blaster

List of devices with an IR blaster (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 is a list of products with a particular feature. The list is large, so that feature is clearly not particularly notable or an novel differentiator among products. I don't think there's encyclopedic value in such a list, so this seems to only serve for promotion of the individual products. Many non-links, so the products themselves often aren't notable. Very few references. This very broad list will never be current and will be quite difficult to support. Fails

WP:RAWDATA. Mikeblas (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:04, 22 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. Note: the AFD was created 22 September but the nomination was not signed until 28th so it has had a week.

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

David Thomas Roberts

David Thomas Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notable guidelines for Musician, strictly promotional, resume in structure, unable to find secondary sources, not enough content to warrant an article at WP Maineartists (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree this seems promotional, but he was interviewed on All Things Considered which is more legit than many RS that pass muster in these musician AfD's, but it appears to be the only thing so it's probably not enough. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good to know. Then it's just a very poorly written article about a rather significant BLP. Will adjust accordingly to update content. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 11:32, 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 keep. The arguments to keep are persuasive; the argument to delete is weakened by the fact that the over promotion has been cleaned out. A merger would have consensus here, but in the absence of a viable target, this is a "keep". Vanamonde (Talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Douglas Smith

John Douglas Smith (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 article is sourced to a link that leads nowhere, and an IMDB page. I searched for better sourcing, but drew a blank - can't see how this passes

NCREATIVE. GirthSummit (blether) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 22:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Smith has been nominated for and won significant awards so meets
    WP:ANYBIO, but the article is not encyclopedic, no more than a list of award nominations, more like a promotional résumé - notablility is not based on content, but there is so little information and material of substance here that I don't think it would be missed if it were gone - Epinoia (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - winner of a Prime time Emmy. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Emmy winner seems good enough to justify notability. However usable sources on film staff other than actors and directors tend to be rather rare so the likelihood of acquiring any to turn the article into more that a one or two liners we currently have seems rather low and hence one might argue that this case might be better suited as list entry (on emmy winners) rather than its own article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Changed my opinion/assessment to neutral due to Girth Summit's last comment.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article has been greatly improved by the removal of all the spam - thanks Kmhkmh. With regard to notability, I note that the award was not given to the subject as an individual, but to a team of professionals: "Marina Adam, Foley Artist; Rob Bertola, Sound Editor; Tom Bjelic, Supervising Sound Editor; Anthony Currie, Sound Editor; Allan Fung, Sound Editor; Garrett Kerr, Sound Editor; Craig Pettigrew, Music Editor; Donna G. Powell, Foley Artist; Paul Shikata, Sound Editor; John Douglas Smith, Supervising Sound Editor". Other than that one mention in a list of a team that won an Emmy, we seem to be devoid of sources; if the consensus is that this is enough to establish notability, then I'll be happy to go with that, but it seems weak to me. GirthSummit (blether) 19:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that I've essentially just returned the article to its original state, the list spam was added by some IP later rather than by the original author/creator.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Bearian and Epinoia - I just wanted to check whether, when you !voted, you recognised that the Emmy was awarded to an entire team, rather than individually to the subject of the article. Apologies for the intrusion if you'd already factored that into your decision, just wanted to make sure. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. No, I had not seen it was a team effort, but as the "Supervising Sound Editor" he should still get credit. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, FWIW, note that he isn't the only 'supervising sound editor' on the list of recipients - I still think this is weak, but I'll stop badgering you now! GirthSummit (blether) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearian.4meter4 (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keep - Is there a place we can merge? If not I guess I'm at delete. He's one of 10 people for a miniseries Emmy win. TEN. For one show. A miniseries at that. If there are not reliable sources then we are either left with a BLP that lacks RS to do more than Verify or we're left with a place that someone can use for promotional purposes. The latter has already happened - will it stay in its current form over time or will it turn back into an IMDB listing? This guy has doubtless done real work - including on projects of note - but that doesn't mean he's notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I'd be happy with a merge of some sort. I'm not sure all the content would be a good fit for Hitler: The Rise of Evil, which doesn't include biographical info about any other of the sound editors who won the award, but we could for example list the names of the sound design team who won the Emmy for that show? GirthSummit (blether) 06:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Pono (digital music service). Or the other way round as proposed below. Sandstein 09:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PonoMusic

PonoMusic (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)

Same subject as Pono (digital music service) Rathfelder (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Article creator here - thanks for the ping
PonoMusic (the company). We could have a player and service section in the company article. That seems more elegant. I'll revisit when I have more time and after others have had time to chime in. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:38, 22 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 Guntur. Mz7 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guntur City Police

Guntur City Police (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)

City-level law enforcement agencies fails

WP:GNG to have stand-alone article, has been without any citations since 2014. KCVelaga (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:05, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Rising Sons

New Rising Sons (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 a notable band. It's founders are also not independently notable and nothing afaict that would meet nmusic. Praxidicae (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 22 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.

- talk 14:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Nigel Griggs

Nigel Griggs (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)

Another former

WP:NMUSIC. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:07, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gillies (musician)

Robert Gillies (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google search could not verify the subject is notable. Gilles did play in band Split Enz, but other than that there aren't any RSs that confirm Gillies is notable on his own. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 22 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 and redirect to Allies of World War II. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Western Allies

Western Allies (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 article is unsourced

Western Allied, an equally ambiguous redirect, be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:07, 22 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. Mz7 (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Pirie (mathematician)

George Pirie (mathematician) (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

WP:NACADEMIC. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Am now content that notability is satisfied, at the very least technically. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:07, 22 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. Considering the new sources and the removal of promotional content after the AfD, in addition to the consensus towards keep after those sources are added, I am closing as keep.

talk) 21:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Somoy TV

Somoy TV (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 notability, no secondary sources, the article is still written like an advertisement despite being tagged for years, it is supported by spammers, COI editors and sock puppets. Google does not show significant coverage in reliable sources, only passing mentions, press releases, blogs etc. J. M. (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The citations do nothing for establishing
notability. First, all of them come from a single source. Second, they do do not discuss Somoy TV in any significant way, they're just passing, trivial mentions.—J. M. (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. TVU Networks Integrates TVUPack Solutions with Somoy TV, Wireless News, Jul 20, 2013
  2. Somoy TV uses AP ENPS in South Asia, Broadcast Engineering, Mar 3, 2011
  3. [Somoy Tv's] Zafrullah apologises for remarks on Army chief, The Financial Express, Oct 14, 2018

In addition the BBC, The Times of India and The Wall Street Journal have used their footage and reporting in their articles on occasion. For example:

  1. "Bangladesh Ferry Carrying 200 People Capsizes; Scores Are Missing and Feared Dead in Padma River" Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2014
  2. "Journalist injured during Bangladesh garment workers protest", BBC Monitoring South Asia, Jan 9, 2019

4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 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 keep. Noting the nom's final comments (essentially withdrawing the nom), there's clear consensus to keep, but there's also a fair amount of agreement this this needs major rewriting, perhaps turning it into a set index or stub. Nobody explicitly mentioned

WP:TNT, but it sounds like that's what we're talking about. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Digital empathy

Digital empathy (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 essay comprises a great deal of

synthesis
. A GSearch of "Digital empathy" returns one reliable source in the form of a paper in the medical field from 2015 with 18 citations, the remaining results being the name of an unrelated veterinarian clinic, a Medium.com entry, a Wix site, a Forbes.com contributor article, this article, and a couple of articles of like ilk. (LinkedIn, etc.)

The paper is Terry & Cain, 2015 located here. If the concept described therein is notable (and it doesn't seem to be related to the stuff in the Medium and Forbes.com articles), and this article is kept, then the article will have to be cleaned up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the sources I can find on the Internet, I am not convinced that "Digital Empathy" is a concrete enough idea to write an article on. Of the 2 reliable sources I found that even mention "digital empathy", one is a scholarly paper that uses the definition this article currently espouses. The other is the "Handbook of Research on Media Literacy in the Digital Age", which has an entire chapter on "Digital Empathy", but uses such to mean "The cognitive and emotional ability to be reflective and socially responsible while strategically using digital media" with a cite to "Friesem, 2015". Add that those are the only even semi-reliable sources, and I don't think this concept exists in the public sphere. A more extensive look at scholarly literature might yield an article, but I am not sure it wouldn't be a
    WP:FRANKENSTEIN. Rockphed (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here are a list of published peer reviewed journal articles on the topic:
  1. "The emerging issue of digital empathy.(SPECIAL ARTICLE)(Report)", Terry, Christopher ; Cain, Jeff, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, May, 2016, Vol.80(4)
  2. "Situational determinants of cognitive, affective, and compassionate empathy in naturalistic digital interactions", Powell, Philip A ; Roberts, Jennifer, Computers in Human Behavior, March 2017, Vol.68, pp.137-148
  3. "For an inclusive innovation. Healing the fracture between the human and the technological in the hypercomplex society", Dominici, Piero, European Journal of Futures Research, Jan 2018, Vol.6(1), pp.1-10 ("also a refer- ence, with an approach that absolutely fails to convince me – to “critical thinking”, where the oxymoronic term “digital empathy” is actually")
  4. "The need for digital intelligence",Chawla, Dalmeet, Nature, Oct 4, 2018, Vol.562(7725), pp.S15-S16 ("importance of their digital identity, privacy management, their online footprint, critical thinking, digital empathy, cybersecurity, cyberbullying")
  5. "Smart Humanitarianism: Re-imagining Human Rights in the Age of Enterprise", Dale, John ; Kyle, David, Critical Sociology, September 2016, Vol.42(6), pp.783-797 ("spawning an increase in compassionate empathy. New projects to cultivate ‘digital empathy’ seek to develop ways of transforming our electronically mediated...")
  6. "Psychopathic traits and social anxiety in cyber-space: A context-dependent theoretical framework explaining online disinhibition", Antoniadou, Nafsika ; Kokkinos, Constantinos M ; Markos, Angelos, Computers in Human Behavior, October 2019, Vol.99, pp.228-234
And here is a list of other publications:
  1. Emotions, Technology, and Behaviors, Yonty Friesem, Boston : Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, 2016, the entire second chapter is devoted to Digital Empathy pages 21-45
  2. "Digital empathy is key to tackling the robo adviser question", Wise, John, FTAdviser.com, Dec 11, 2018
  3. "Aurorasa Coaching launches Project Empathy Social Skills Training, the first holistic digital empathy training with Dr. Mark Goulston". M2 Presswire, Aug 17, 2018
  4. "Digital Empathy and Fetchit Announce Partnership", PR Newswire, Feb 19, 2019
  5. "Empathy: A must-have in digital marketing!", Point-of-Purchase, August 16, 2012
  6. "Forget IQ. Digital intelligence will be what matters in the future", Claudio Cocorocchia, Pakistan & Gulf Economist, Feb 18, 2018, Vol.37(7) ("different countries, found that over half were exposed to at least one online-related threat. Such threats include reduced digital empathy - leading to...")
  7. "Artificial Intelligence-Changing Lives", Cynthia John, Open Source FOR You, March 4, 2019 ("we are doing or what we intend to do with the given a suggestion. The time is not far when machines will have empathy too, digital empathy."}

These are just a selection of sources I found in my university library's database. Passes

WP:GNG. Stubify but not delete if needed.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advance HE

Advance HE (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 organization. Sources don't prove its notability. Zinzhanglee (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zinzhanglee (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No current source is independent of the subject. While I have not done a complete search of the internet, most of the results I have seen so far are places where Advance and HE are separated by some punctuation (e.g. He went for dinner after orderinging the advance; he ate chicken while his men died by the thousands). Everything else I am seeing is either press release, vanity press, or passing mention. Rockphed (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Source search doesn't show anything notable. Just because its connected to notable orgs doesn't grant it auto-notability. Clear delete. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. MER-C 16:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a few more comments; two deletes, one blocked sockpuppet and one comment on the latter are not enough consensus for anything.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 22 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HD 209142

HD 209142 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NASTRO. No specific coverage of this object in journal papers. Some mentions in popular coverage as appearing near IC 5152, possibly redirect to IC 5152. Lithopsian (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 22 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shelillon dog

Shelillon dog (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 recognised as a breed by any major kennel club. References consist of a single dead link. CountessCobra (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 22 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

OFC Nations Cup. Can always be restored as a standalone article once more is available on the competition. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

2020 OFC Nations Cup

2020 OFC Nations Cup (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 information is available for this competition. Possible

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete
    WP:TOOSOON --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Redirect is fine by me as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect to
    OFC Nations Cup. I'm not sure the point of deleting this three-year old article with dozens of edits, only months before the tournament. It will inevitably be quickly recreated once tournament details are published. This is the kind of stuff that just wastes everyone's time. The article was unreferenced, so I referenced some recent easy-to-find articles confirming the timing of the tournament. While I think keep is the best approach at this point, no prejudice against redirecting until there is further information. It's standard practice when the article for a regular tournament is created too early, to redirect to the main article to the tournament. I don't know why the nominator couldn't have simply tried this first, rather than a more dramatic process. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:44, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie Silva

AfDs for this article:
Sylvie Silva (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)

Apparently same page as one deleted, as evinced by

(open talk page) 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 22 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 Cosmopolitan Soccer League. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KidSuper Samba AC

KidSuper Samba AC (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)

Nowhere near meeting

WP:GNG, coverage is either trivial or not independent, and even the trivial coverage is in sources of unclear reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are you continually targeting this article for deletion? There are sources cited, far more than some articles like Manhattan SC, and there will only continue to be more as time passes. As user Willbb234 said, if this article were to be deleted then there are others that would need to be deleted as well. Everything in the article is factually correct, has citations, and can also be confirmed by the league's website. The club exists, and having a wikipedia page adds to its credibility, furthering the opportunities for the players at the club. To delete the article would actively harm real people's lives and future possibilities, as the club is a benevolent entity helping people in difficult life circumstances through the sport of soccer. Furthermore, by not allowing the club to have an active wikipedia page, you are hindering the reputation and development of the sport of soccer in the United States. Most clubs operating this high up in a nations league system will have a wikipedia page, and it is important for international player transfers coming from KidSuper Samba that the club has a legitimate web presence. Furthermore, there are clubs playing in the lower divisions of the Cosmopolitan Soccer League that have fewer sources and less professionally maintained article pages, such as Williamsburg International FC. There's no reason to target this harmless article for deletion, please move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trallazo4567 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, no objection to redirect per the above vote. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 23 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Katashinskaia

Ekaterina Katashinskaia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply doesn't meet either

WP:NSKATE. Onel5969 TT me 02:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:37, 22 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. Fenix down (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City F.C. 8–0 Watford F.C.

Manchester City F.C. 8–0 Watford F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:RECENTISM. It's not even the highest-scoring Premier League match or really a memorable one. There have been five other matches were a team won by 8 goals in the Premier League. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing especially remarkable about this game in the grand scheme of things. Not a Premier League scoring record, not a club scoring record - the only possible claim to significance is that it set a new record for the earliest point at which a team had been 5-0 up, but that's so trivial that I don't think it merits an article. Definitely don't merge -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and a severe
    WP:TROUTing for the article creator (10 years on Wikipedia!) for wasting our time with this. Number 57 12:06, 23 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 and redirect to Bisexuality. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Innate bisexuality

AfDs for this article:
Innate bisexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that "Innate bisexuality" is actually the name of a specific "psychoanalytic theory", as the article claims. The article is completely lacking in citations, except for a single citation to Freud's "Three Essays on the Theory of Sex", and it could be considered an

original research interpretation of that one source. Essentially the article is about one narrow aspect of Freud's views on bisexuality: there is no evidence that this specific aspect of Freud's views is notable as a separate subject. There is almost no worthwhile content and no reason for it to exist as a separate article. Any relevant content (which would at most be a sentence or two) could be shifted to the article on Bisexuality. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:03, 22 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

- talk 14:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Damn You Auto Correct

Damn You Auto Correct (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)

Seeing very little independent coverage with little news coverage since 2013. Fails

WP:WEB. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Autocorrection#Humour, where it is already mentioned. The NPR, CNN, and ABC sources in the article are pretty significant coverage for a website—it isn't that often that a website started by a single individual gets attention from national media. The Autocorrection article also cites The Daily Telegraph. However, in terms of long-term significance, it is interesting how the website faded into obscurity until it quietly shut down without fanfare. I suspect autocorrect mistakes were a short-lived novelty that was interesting to people only when autocorrect was still a new feature—nowadays smartphones and autocorrect are so commonplace that a whole website devoted to autocorrect mistakes doesn't have the attention needed for a permanent standalone encyclopedia article. I do think, however, that owing to the bit of national media coverage when the website was still around and alive, it should have a place in our Autocorrection article. Mz7 (talk) 09:56, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Area Secular Humanists

Washington Area Secular Humanists (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)

Local branch of national society. We do not usually make articles for these; the references, obviously enough, are local announcements of local events. Even the material about their bus ads is already in the main article. All the main article needs is an indication that there are state chapters, and where to find a listing of them on the main national site. DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless a local chapter is very, very notable in its own right, it does not get a separate article. This chapter does not seem even modestly notable. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:49, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_September_22&oldid=1142224955"