Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 26

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monteverdi & Cavalli Arias

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 all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. note that it also fails
  WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright. While I was at it, I also changed the title of the article to accurately reflect its subject.Smerus (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:NALBUM The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed, and the reviews will be reworked in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per criteria 1 of
  WP:NALBUM. The album has an entry on pages 361-365 of the reference work American Opera Singers and Their Recordings: Critical Commentaries and Discographies, Clyde T. McCants, 2004, McFarland Press. It's also reviewed in The Penguin guide to compact discs, cassettes, and LPs, 1986, Page 547, Edward Greenfield, ‎Robert Layton, ‎Ivan March. The album was also reviewed in High Performance Review, 1984, Volumes 3-4 - Page 167. The critical review in Gramophone can be viewed here, and a critical review in The New York Times can be viewed here.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment For further coverage, see The New Records, Vol. 52-53, 1984, p. cxiii; Peter Gammond's Opera on Compact Disc, 1987, p. 41; Opernwelt, Vol. 26, 1985, p. 142.Niggle1892 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pet Niggle1982. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per 4meter4 and Niggle1892. Daask (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahler Symphony No. 4 (Yoel Levi recording)

Mahler Symphony No. 4 (Yoel Levi recording) (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 all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. note that it also fails
  WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of a long paraphrases of a critic's review - this is certainly violation of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per
  WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed, and brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. For further coverage, see Classic CD, Issue 107-113, 1999, p. 25; Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 45, Issues 1-6, 2000, p. 101; Donald Carl Meyer and Jay D. Zorn's Critical Review Guide, 2003, p. 54.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per criteria 1 at
  Stereo Review, 1996, Volume 61, Page 80. The work is also critically reviewed on page 120 of Gustav Mahler's Symphonies: Critical Commentary on Recordings Since 1986 By Lewis M. Smoley, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996 which can be viewed here at google books. One of the two reviews in Gramophone cited in the article is available for viewing online here.4meter4 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Niggle1892 and 4meter4. Daask (talk) 20:33, 3 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.

Mozart Mass K. 139 (Claudio Abbado recording)

Mozart Mass K. 139 (Claudio Abbado recording) (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 all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. note that it also fails
  WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per
  WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. For further coverage, please see Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 122, Issues 1-6, 1977, p. 4; Fanfare, Vol. 5, Issues 1-3, 1981, p. 204; American Record Guide, Vol. 40, Issues 8-11, 1977, p. 20; La Civiltà cattolica, Issues 3163-3168, 1982, p. 208; The New Records, Vol. 44-45, 1976, p. 65; The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, 1999, p. 906. Niggle1892 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per criteria 1 of
  WP:NALBUM. The work was reviewed in multiple publications, including: Gramophone (see here); The Choral Journal (professional journal of the American Choral Directors Association) "A Select Annotated Discography of the Choral Works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart", April 1991, ([see here); Records and Recording: Classical Guide, Ateş Orga, Josephine Orga, Midas Books, 1978, page 302; and High Fidelity, Volume 23, 1978, Page 237.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment I think the multiplicity of reviews is enough to prove notability.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:43, 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 Keep.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cendrillon (Julius Rudel recording)

Cendrillon (Julius Rudel recording) (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 all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per
  WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. As the first recording of this opera, the album is of fundamental importance in the history of the work. See Notes, March 2013, pp. 607-608; William Schoell's The Opera of the Twentieth Century, 2015, p. 277; Opera, September 1979, p. 880; Charles Osborne's The Opera Lover's Companion, 2007, p. 221; High Fidelity/Musical America, Vol. 29, Issue 2, 1979, p. 81; and Horizon, Vol. 22, 1979, p. 26.Niggle1892 (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. note that it also fails
  WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per criteria 1 of
  WP:NALBUM. According to Gramophone this is the only existing recording of this opera (see here). Niccolai Gedda discussed recording the album in The New York Times (here), and the recording was discussed critically in relation to the work's later performance with the Washington National Opera in this NYT review: see here. The work also has it's own entry in the reference work The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera, Paul Gruber, W. W. Norton & Company, New York City, 1993, page 246 (viewable in google books here) Additionally, I located reviews offline in High Fidelity, Volume 30, Issues 7-12, Page 191, 1980; and Fanfare, Volume 5, Issues 4-6, Page 297.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment That this is the world premiere recording of a Massenet opera makes it ipso facto notable - Massenet is regularly performed in all the world's top opera houses.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:50, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chérubin (Pinchas Steinberg recording)

Chérubin (Pinchas Steinberg recording) (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 all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. As the first modern recording of the opera, the album is of fundamental importance in the history of the work. See Opera, February 1994, p. 247; Opernwelt, Vol. 35, 1994, p. 35.Niggle1892 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. note that it also fails
  WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per criteria 1 of
  WP:NALBUM. The work has been critically reviewed in multiple publications, including Gramophone (see here) and The New York Times (see here) in addition to the offline references cited in the article. Additional offline references I have located include a review in International Record Review, Volume 7, Issue 1, Page 278. The work also has an entry in the reference work The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, Ivan March, Edward Greenfield, Robert Layton, Penguin, 2001, page 797. If other reference works cover this content, wikipedia should too.4meter4 (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment Chérubin, initially a popular opera, was one that gradually slipped into obscurity. It was this recording that brought it back from the dead. Chérubin is now available on DVD, and has once again become familiar internationally. A premiere recording of a work by a composer as eminent as Massenet is notable ipso facto.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per criteria 1 of
  WP:NALBUM. Coyvio has been addressed. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - The article is particularly well written. Barca (talk) 13:49, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pearce Robinson

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

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

Complete vanity page of a non-notable politician. Article is

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think ‘vanity page’ is quite a kind description. Mccapra (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’Don't Delete’’’ instead of deleting the article, perhaps you can edit and or remove the material that you consider ‘vanity’. Please see more notable links from the BBC and UK House of Lords: International Relations in the 21st Century, UK House of Lords Debate, Pearce Robinson speech transcript: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2018/20946%20HoL%20Chamber%20Event%20Transcript%202017%20WEB%20SPREADS.PDF please also reference UK Parliament Channel for the debate. Pearce Robinson on Britain’s role post Brexit

BBC Documentary: Truth & The Commonwealth, BBC Panelist https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csxg9y

Commentary on the racism of Caribbean Next Top Model https://atlantablackstar.com/2018/09/26/caribbeans-next-top-model-contestant-wants-apology-for-being-forced-to-relax-hair/

BBC One: Britain’s Secret Charity Cheats. Journalist on the case of Nadia Chase-Ali https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005jj5 Capture2015 —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are actually about Robinson (you?). The whole thing is vanity and neither

WP:NPOL are passed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Capture2015 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't though, Robinson is not the focus of any of these references. The (you?) is because it reads like an

WP:COI with the subject at the least. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass
  reliable and about him. And no, people are also not notable just because you can provide transcripts of their own speeches, or video clips of them talking on the news — a person does not become notable by doing the speaking in a source, they become notable by being the thing that other people are speaking about. So no, none of these sources are sufficient at all, and the article doesn't indicate that he's done anything "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Can you ‘move’ this article to draft. I will re-work it. Thanks for your guidance. Talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be opposed to moving to the draftspace given that A) the subject does not appear to meet our notability standards and B) this is already a remake of an article that was deleted and both AfDs made note of the promotional aspects of the article. I'd say there's a better argument for

WP:SALTing it that draftifying. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our Last Crusade or the Rise of a New World

Our Last Crusade or the Rise of a New World (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 good sources on this one; Google points to weak passing mentions. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk · contribs) 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk · contribs) 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk · contribs) 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - From what I am reading in Japanese sources, this appears to be a popular series.[1], [2], [3]. I also linked to ja:wiki [4] that indicates its also an ongoing anime series. With all due respect, more research should be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Knowledgekid87.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. No editor suggested that coverage received confers notability while delete !voters argue it does not. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Jacobs Grodnick

Melinda Jacobs Grodnick (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 Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a
  talk) 21:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Thanks Taewangkorea. These three on their own don’t demonstrate notability. The first one is about her but lacks any depth and does not support any of the specific content in the Wikipedia article. The second source in its entirety offers this about her:

The third source isn’t about her, it’s a quote from her. Again nothing in it can be used to substantiate anything in the article about her. I don’t think that what you’ve found adds up to a good case for notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for
  her possible divorce taking over this stub. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. There's a lot of articles mentioning her under the name "Melinda Jacobs" in the Star Tribune. She seems to be somewhat of a local celebrity, and in gossip like articles. Not sure what to think.4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 3 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.

Jason Clarke (ice hockey)

Jason Clarke (ice hockey) (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 fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Does not meet the requirements at
  WP:NHOCKEY.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep meets
  WP:SPORTBASIC by playing in the highest level of professional roller hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdraw Per above, I request the nomination be withdrawn. I honestly did not take roller hockey into account and I apologise for my ignorance towards it. Tay87 (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm going to repeat what I said at
  WP:NSPORT requires. The Roller Hockey World Cup, which started in 1936, is the internationally recognized world championship for roller hockey and there's no evidence that he ever played in it. Playing in the only pro league in North America does not mean he played at the highest level--especially when the average pay was $314 a week [5] for maybe 10 weeks and the players were predominantly minor league ice hockey players trying to stay in shape over summer. Papaursa Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Papaursa: I've said all I needed to say on the other nomination. When I got that message, I felt bad for ignoring roller hockey and I felt at the time the least I could do was withdraw my nomination. But I'll certainly keep it in mind for future that after one delete vote it's out of my hands. Tay87 (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out the Roller Hockey World Cup is actually for a different sport. That is for Roller hockey (quad) and not Roller in-line hockey which he played. -DJSasso (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did he ever compete at the

WP:NSPORT and will readily change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Based on my comment above, there's no evidence he ever played at the roller hockey world championships, the highest level of the sport, so
  WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:SPORTBASIC defines the highest level of the sport also as the highest professional league. Which Roller Hockey International was and which he played in, and which received a lot of press as well as primetime sports coverage while it existed. -DJSasso (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

So you're claiming that everyone who played in a short-lived, now defunct, roller hockey league is automatically notable? Do you have any evidence this was the highest level of pro roller hockey in the world? I can see high school football players on primetime TV but that doesn't make them all notable. And they're pro in the sense of making money, not in earning a living. Some organizations/sports differentiate. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Djsasso. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice In order to help clarify the status of RHI players, I have opened a discussion at
  WT:NSPORTS#Notability of Roller Hockey International players. I'm hoping to get more opinions about whether or not RHI players should be considered automatically notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This league (RHI) had a brief period of notable coverage, which did not last. It has been argued before that it was the highest level of the sport, which would imply the top players gravitating to it. There is no evidence of that; top players from Europe stayed in Europe. Inline skating and play existed since at least 1972. There is only evidence that some ice hockey players enjoyed it, some of them notable, some not. The players other accomplishments do not satisfy any measure of notability either.
  18abruce (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete Fails to meet the GNG or
  WP:NSPORT. Sandals1 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: I reject the assertion that SPORTSBASIC grants presumptive notability to the "highest level" of any sport, no matter how obscure. The pertinent sentence is "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." This sets a pretty high bar, and as it happens, we have a pretty good notion of the notability of roller hockey players, almost all of whom were ice hockey minor-leaguers and not many of whom could meet the GNG. Ravenswing 01:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Except it doesn't matter how good they were at a different sport. That is like saying Michael Jordan isn't a notable basketball player because he was only a minor-league baseball player. Two different sports. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:HOCKEY. The roller hockey notability auto-notability argument is silly when no sources are available to support his play in the league. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Does not meet
  WP:SPORTSBASIC is met. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).: Here, the "guidelines" being described are the sport-specific guidelines that proceed under "Professional sports people". It does not make sense for it to be a catch-all for the "highest level" of sports for which significant coverage of its players have not been demonstrated. (e.g. obscure sports/leagues)—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Except that it was intended to be a catch all, that section was a hold over from
  WP:ATHLETE to cover the professional sports which didn't get their own section with more specific details when the switch from ATHLETE to NSPORTS happened. The presumption is that if the sport is big enough to be able to have a professional level then it is not obscure. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sure, but
  consensus can change (witness WP:PORNBIO). I'm not comfortable with blindly green-lighting players from say the National Dodgeball League with a catch all. It needs to be demonstrated that they receive significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Daum

Nik Daum (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)

Tagged for notability 2014. I have not found any sources to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, tagged for notability for 5 years without improvement. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have been unable to find any independent, reliable sources that offer more than a brief mention. There is an interview https://creativemornings.com/blog/nik-daum, but as a primary source, that's not helpful. His own bio is, let's say, of dubious veracity. http://www.nikdaum.com/about/ It changes as you reload the page. Vexations (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not pass notability criteria. Was an "emerging artist" in 2007 (as the article states) and has not achieved emergence. Netherzone (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly. Search returns almost nothing in RS.
  talk) 04:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Need more reliable source to show notability. Barca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found one substantial independent ref through my university library. He was profiled in "The Best Creatives You Don't Know", 2007, Adweek; New York, Vol. 48, Iss. 38, (Oct 22, 2007): 30.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was No consensus. Initially, the discussion tended towards deletion, but following considerable editing, it is now evident that the bio subject's counterfeiting crime has had more than passing mention by independent, reliable sources. Beyond that, however, there is little else to make the case for notability and the BLP1E concerns expressed by others prevent a clear-cut consensus.  JGHowes  ^talk 04:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)‎[reply]

Wesley Weber

Wesley Weber (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)

Most of the information Lacks of references and also person seems does not have reliable sources just known for one thing which 100$ bill. AakashJetli (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AakashJetli (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  WP:Before. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I am unsure about notability and
  WP:G10 territory. Some of the versions in the page history are even worse (here is a sample[6] from Dec 2008). If the page is ultimately kept, even under a different title, I think that portions of the page history log would need to be revdel-ed or oversighted. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do much, much better than this. More than half the footnotes here are
  WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any subject-specific notability criteria. We don't just indiscriminately keep an article about every person who's ever been convicted of just any random crime — the crime itself still has to be legally, culturally and socially significant, not just technically verifiable, before an article is warranted. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

*Delete without prejudice per Bearcat.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hello @
  WP:GNG
  states that:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Any reliable sources with non trivial coverage that are independent do contribute towards establishing GNG, even if they are not included in the article at this time. As I said above a google search reveals plenty of reliable sources that do fit that criteria, for example from news like:

-Who's really behind Toronto's chain of illegal pot shops that won't quit? extensive coverage

-CBC News program coverage form minute 1:30 - 2:23 labels him as a legendary counterfeiter

-Counterfeiting: Notes on a scandal one sentence about how he crippled Canada's $100 bill by using techniques he found on websites

-The worlds most notorious counterfeiters who made a fortune page 6 and 7

-Cannabis Canada: Is a white knight for CannTrust in 'everyone’s interest'? labels him "one of the country’s most prominent counterfeiters."

Books besides the one currently used as a reference in the article:

-The end of money More than a page on Weber

-Workplace Privacy: Proceedings of the New York University 58th Annual Conference on Labor a paragraph on Weber

Besides this, he was even featured in the 59th episode of the tv show Masterminds: titled Money Maker it can be watched here (the person appearing and talking as Weber is an actor, not the subject himself)

the show, as well as many reliable sources, label him as the most notorious counterfeiter. There are also international reliable sources in other languages like the one included in the article and this one from Spain: Grandes falsificadores. Also 25 hits in Google Scholar: see here

To me, the subject clearly meets our GNG. I agree that the article can and should be improved, but as I said before Deletion is not cleanup. It is not my area of interest, but I think the subject is notable enough to be in our encyclopedia, so I will try to improve it once this AfD ends. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not just automatically passed by everybody who can show an arbitrary number of media hits; for instance, notability is not demonstrated by one-line mentons of his name in sources about something else, image galleries, IMDb, DailyMotion or YouTube content. Sure, we take the number of hits under advisement, but that's not the only thing we take into account: we also consider the reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what he's getting covered for. Not all possible sources are created equal, and not all possible sources contribute +1 to a person's GNG tally — some sources are better than others, and some sources fail to count as GNG support at all. There are people in the world who can show twice as many sources as that but still not be notable, if their sourcing still fails any of the range, depth or context tests. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an arbitrary number of hits, just in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Did you review the sources I posted? please let me know if you think any of this three books does not contribute towards establishing notability: [7], The end of money, Workplace Privacy: Proceedings of the New York University 58th Annual Conference on Labor. do you think that this article with extensive coverage is a one line mention? do you think that the

WP:WHATABOUTX and the opposite argument (also not valid) could be easily made by looking at the subjects included in Category:American_counterfeiters. Please do review the sources. GNG is clearly met. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

LoveMoney is the image gallery, and is not a

reliable source in the first place — so LoveMoney counts for nothing no matter how many times you hammer on it. Book the first is simply a reprint in a compilation of previously published content of one of the articles you've already brought to bear, so is not a new data point that increases his notability score by +1. "The End of Money" just links to a directory entry for the book itself, failing to verify that Weber is actually the subject of any content in it — he might be, sure, but I can't assess whether it constitutes substantive content or not since the link you've shown fails to prove that there's any content at all. "Workplace Privacy" is just a transcript of a conference, not a notability-building piece of written work. Being the subject of an episode of a TV series is not a notability claim in and of itself; such sources go toward notability only if the actual content of the episode is used to support content about Weber as a person, and not if they're being used solely to metaverify their own existence as TV episodes. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

LoveMoney meets

WP:RS is a financial news publication subject to editorial control as you can see here: About us - meet the lovemoney team their publications have been used as references in at least 14 other Wikipedia articles. The images in the article titled the world's most notorious counterfiters who made a fortune are the least relevant part of the content. What is clearly in-depth coverage is the two pages about Weber (page 6 and 7). A book reprinting previously printed content is clearly RS and if you do read both the article and the book you will see that they are not by any means the same. they just talk about the same subject but each provide unique information. Clearly one is not a reprint of the other. The end of money is a link to google books where you can read a bit more than one page about the subject. Please try again to access it through the link in my previous comment or the reference in the article. The description of the book by Kluwer Law International is a "collection of essays by outstanding scholars and practitioners in U.S. labour law and practice" why does it not meet RS? The TV episode obviously has in depth coverage of the subject that can be used to source content of the article. I am still improving the article, so I will also be able to use it as a reference. Are the references from Spain or Indonesia or the article from CBC news not RS? I feel that they also meet the requirements for GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete basically per Bearcat above. The article has been from the start and remains one giant
  WP:BLP compliant article (rather than a list of arrests, charges and convictions), go right ahead. But there is nothing in the current page worth keeping. Nsk92 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The subject is without a doubt notable since it has received the required in depth coverage to meet

WP:GNG there is plenty of source content to create an encyclopedic article so I will start doing it now to prevent it from being deleted. You claim that the article is promotional while another editor claimed just the oposite to justify the !vote. I will try to write a neutral stub to save this notable subject. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I meant

WP:G10 (an attack page). Nsk92 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for clarifying. Timeline section has been removed and all claims are sourced by RS so I do not think

WP:RS and the coverage has been in depth and persistent in time (latest sources are from a few months ago). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. The current version is better, but it is still essentially entirely focused on a single crime. For a BLP bio article, there would need to be at least a modest amount of non-negative biographical information, such as family background, early life, education or something similar. Or, if the main claim to fame here is the counterfeiting of the $100 bill episode, it may be better to create an article specifically about that event/crime instead of a bio article about Weber. Nsk92 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am planing on adding an early life section next, also a section to expand on the counterfeiting (reducing the lead), and another to cover his other activities, trading activities and Marihuana cafes owner/activist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete i too agree with
  WP:GNG as there is not much notable resources available online, the individual's activities can figure prominently in the section of the act for which he is known for, in this case counterfeit; but to create a bio based on one topic, with not enough supporting online source available is a bit tall ask. Joydeep ghosh (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I have removed all primary sources from the article as well as the timeline section and changed the article into a referenced stub. I added three sections that can be expanded with the content from the available sources. I still have not included information about his co-ownership of the marijuana cafes or his expertise and business with cryptocurrencies which is also covered by the cited sources. I feel it is now a valid stub, but will continue to improve it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With the improved sourcing on the counterfeit topic, and the removal of some blp concerning content, and the addition of his coverage by the cbc in cannabis advocacy (although running illegal cannabis stores is also criminal however you spin it), I have decided to withdraw my delete nomination. However, I am not certain if the articles really demonstrates

Hello

WP:OR. The guideline expressly clarifies that being the main subject of the articles is not a requirement. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The abilities of the subject with computers and the fact that he called himself a computer nerd was found notable enough to be included in multiple reliable sources, it introduces his ability to be able to perform the complicated task of counterfeiting one of the most secured bills at the time. The luxury is also covered by at least three of the sources and is another important part of a chapter of the biography as they were purchased with the profits from the counterfeiting. The relationship of his wife with the chain of cannabis stores is also covered by a reliable source and helps establish his own relation with the business.

I fully disagree with your analysis of this article with regards to

WP:BLP1E

. Point 1 is not met as the subject has received non trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources in relation to various individual events; Counterfeiting, Marijuana, and trading. Point 2 is also not met, as coverage has been persistent in time. the article now includes references from 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018 and various from 2019.

I ask you to please review

WP:BLP1E

again, because even if the first two would have been met, which is not the case, it clearly states that all three conditions must be met ("We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:") Bold mine. the third one is:

3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

According to this point alone inclusion criteria is clearly met, as the event is clearly significant since it affected more than ten percent of retailers in Canada and prompted the creation of a new 100 dollar bill and clearly his role as mastermind was both substantial and very well documented.

On top of that I think I have shown that the requirement of having received in-depth coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources outlined in our

WP:ISNOT after my extensive rewrite, I don't think that we can recommend deletion based on our policies. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. To those arguing
  WP:BLP1E, I don't think this argument can be made on the first criteria. The subject has been covered in the context of two different events: counterfeiting and later his work within the cannabis industry. That said, I do think both the 2nd and 3rd critera for that rationale are accurate which is why I am on the fence.4meter4 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hello @

WP:BLP1E does not apply? Thank you for taking the time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not convinced that either event in which he was involved is that significant. I would be much more likely to support the article if one of the events he was involved with satisfied wikipedia's notability guidelines for

wikipedia is not the news.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello @

events

. The first mentions enduring historical significance and lasting effect. It had clearly rippling effects. The History channel made a documentary about the subject and the event. Between 10 and 19 percent of all retailers stopped accepting the 100 dolar bill in the whole country and many continued not accepting them even after he was caught. Countries like the US and others were also affected. Canada changed its currency to incorporate new security features. the event has been used as a case study on various papers and cited by multiple books. Depth of coverage is clearly met, enduring of coverage also (article now includes references from 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018 and various from 2019) and diversity of sources is also met Geographically it has received coverage at national level in Canada and from various other countries as far as Indonesia.

But also finally

WP:BLP1E does not apply to subjects who have been covered in the context of more than one event as it specifically states that each and not some of the 3 points must be met. Would you agree with me that BLP1E can not be applied here? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. I am still on the fence with this article. @DGG:, what do you think about this one?4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @

WP:BLP1E does not apply since, as you said, the subject has received coverage for multiple events?. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I've already been clear, and I am avoiding being explicit on purpose until I make up my mind. Ultimately, it gets down to a question of failing

WP:SIGCOV or not which is evaluating where "Wesley Weber" himself was actually the primary coverage of the sources, or whether the events/businesses were the main subject and Wesley Weber was just tangentially a part of those events. It's somewhat subjective, and in this case I could see an argument being made either way.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

All the content of the article is sourced by reliable sources that directly mention the subject. He was the "mastermind" of the counterfeiting and the subject of the trading and marijuana sections. Let me insist that

WP:SIGCOV

explicitly states that

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Bold mine. So even if you could argue that he was not main subject of the sources (with which I disagree), that is clearly excluded as a valid reason in the current wording of the policy (in bold) as long as there is more than trivial mentions by multiple reliable sources so that no

WP:OR is needed to extract the content. So I am still asking for a single policy based reason to not !vote to keep the article after all the changes I had to do to try to save it. You at least removed your delete !vote. I think other editors in this AfD need to provide valid policy based reasons to justify their !vote after those changes, as requested by the admin that relisted the discussion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I have noticed that many bios of people in either cryptocurrency or cannabis or some genres of music or self-help or professional speakers or life coaches seem to be very willing to acknowledge their earlier misdeeds, as if it in some way validates their later accomplishments It for many centuries has been customary for religious figures to emphasise their sinful earlier life to emphasise the power of their salvation. . G10 does not apply here--the intent of many such bios is self-advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DGG: I agree with you about not meeting G10 but disagree with the comparison with other bios which could imply that the current version of the article is self-advertising. I stumbled on this article while patrolling for new changes and reverted multiple IP's that were "trimming" sourced information, it seemed strange, so I added it to my watchlist. Then a new user with very few edits opened this AfD, that to me is suspicious. Because of this AfD I found myself forced to improve the article. As you can see by the comments of the relisting admin, If I hadn't done so it would have been deleted. The article has been completely overhauled, so I am responsible for most of its content, and it was me that created those sections. I highly doubt that the subject would be interested in keeping them for the reasons you pointed out, probably the opposite, As you can see in the link to his webpage included in the infobox, he continues to offer cryptocurrency services, something that various independent reliable sources found notable that he did without a license. So I think it is clearly not promotional. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and trim per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Blegen & Frederica von Stade: Songs, Arias & Duets

Judith Blegen & Frederica von Stade: Songs, Arias & Duets (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 all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. note that it also fails
  WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• copyvio concerns can be removed, this has happened. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, although technically meeting no. 1 of
  WP:NALBUM - "subject of multiple [ie. 2 or more], non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." as article (now after possible copyvio being removed) lists reviews by Gramophone and Sound & Vision, past consensus amongst classical album wikieditors appears to require more. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:NALBUM The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be added in due course. See Opera, July 2011, p. 670 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per criteria 1 of
  WP:NALBUM. The work has received critic reviews in several offline publications, including High Fidelity, Volume 25, Issues 7-12, Page 91, 1975; Records in Review, 1976, Volume 21, Page 415; and Opera, 1976, Volume 27, Issues 7-12 , Page 875 in addition to the Gramophone and Stero Review articles cited in the article. The album was also reviewed in The New York Times (see here) You can also see that the work charted at number 9 on the Classical Billboard charts here.4meter4 (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment For further coverage, see Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 21, Issues 1-6, 1976, p. 103; The New Records, Vol. 53, Issue 4, 1985, p. 12; Fanfare, Vol, 9, Issue 1-7, 1985, p. 91; Esquire, Vol. 84, 1975, p. 32; Time, Vol. 107, 1976, p. cxli. (Source: Google Books.) Any classical record reviewed in both Esquire and Time had to be very high-profile indeed. (The Esquire reviewer was William S. Burroughs!)Niggle1892 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NALBUM. Note that the mentioned extensive quotes from reviews were added after the article's author was advised to include them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, demonstrably meets
  WP:NALBUM with the reviews in the article and those listed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iuliia Savushkina

Iuliia Savushkina (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 notability criteria - Wikipedia is not "LinkedIn". Doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There appear to be zero GS cites to her published work and little to suppoprt GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment A publication record that only goes back to 2015 suggests that there has not been enough time to build up wiki-notability by
  becoming highly cited. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not notable at either as a scientist or as a politician. AfD in ruwiki found nothing worth mentioning. Wikisaurus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails

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.

Shahryar (singer)

Shahryar (singer) (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)

Spammy, promotional article since its creation. Relies entirely on

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very promotional and a copyvio, have added G11 and G12. The earlier and earliest versions are still very promo, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable; couldn't find references in Persian either.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:33, 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 no consensus. The closest thing to a consensus that has arisen in this discussion is to merge the article somewhere, perhaps to Paris' law - this can be deliberated on outside AfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha-beta model

Alpha-beta model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge This is similar to
  WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete All the papers are written by a small group of people, with two names that are common to each, apart from one entry. That is the very definition of
  WP:OR. It is not verifiable. Perhaps in 5 years when it is well known, but not at the moment. I can't find anything on it either. There way to verify it. scope_creep^Talk 18:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: Needs to prove
  third-party sources. --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Selective merge to Paris' law, where it can be briefly treated as a generalization. XOR'easter (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Paris' law.4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jadin Gould

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

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

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 20:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete when you are best known for a bit part with no importance to a film that only gets even name checked because of the role in a much larger mythos, a role that was not even hinted at in the film, than you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minor character actress. Hasn't worked in 5 years with no independent significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geophysical Planet Definition

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

)

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

Page was de-PRODed.

This page serves no clear purpose that is not already covered in

This page serves the same purpose as the IAU Planet Planet Definition wikipedia page. Also, this page DOES serve a purpose in that it clearly articulates the definition that many planetary scientists use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasaman58 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move or Merge This page should either be at
  Geophysical Planet Definition is about planets as defined by planetary scientists, not about the process of defining planets by geophysics. Either way, this article does not really fit the criteria for deletion since there are 6 references (of varying quality) in the article that could potentially be merged into planet. Rockphed (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The IAU definition of planet has its own page so the geophysical definition should also have its own page. Fdfexoex (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article. I strongly disagree with the statement that "This page serves no purpose that is not already covered in Planet." There is disagreement in the planetary science and astronomy communities about the definition of a planet. The IAU voted in 2006 for a particular definition but the vote was split and geoscientists have continued to argue for a different definition than the one the IAU voted for. It is important for readers of Wikipedia to have information about this alternative definition. Planetary scientists have continued using this geophysical definition at odds with the IAU definition. It is not a fringe definition but is actually mainstream among a large segment of the planetary science community and is the historic definition that has existed since Galileo. The modern uses of this geophysical definition are in published papers in science journals. There was a recent paper arguing that the IAU definition was based upon arguments that are now shown to be historically incorrect in the scientific literature (Metzger, Philip T., Mark V. Sykes, Alan Stern, and Kirby Runyon. "The reclassification of asteroids from planets to non-planets." Icarus 319 (2019): 21-32.). A recent debate occurred between a leading planetary scientist and the astronomer who was president of the IAU leading up to its vote, and the IAU past president stated that planetary scientists could developed other definitions than the one the IAU created (https://vimeo.com/333420664). This is that alternative definition, but it is not new because it is the prevailing definition that existed historically and is still the only once consistent with scientific usage among geoscientists. Therefore it is important for readers of Wikipedia to know about it. There is also, already, a Wikipedia article on the IAU definition of planet which is separate from the article on Planet, and therefore it is important for readers of Wikipedia to have access to information about the definition of Planet that planetary scientists are using and debating about in contrast to this IAU definition. This is especially important since the geophysical definition is the historic definition that has been used since Galileo. Galileo effectively replaced the previous dynamical definition that existed since pre-scientific times. The discussions about definitions is a taxonomical matter that is distinct from the content of the Planet article, because that article is dealing with planets themselves as objects, not with taxonomy. Taxonomy of planets is a different thing than planets themselves. This is exactly why the IAU definition of planet article exists in addition to the Planet article, because the definition is a taxonomical question and that is a thing distinct from the planets themselves. However, including just the IAU definition in this taxonomical information is incomplete because it leaves out the historic and still prominent geophysical definition as a taxonomical system, and this omission does not serve the readers of Wikipedia.Sanddune777 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not merge into Definition of planet unless IAU definition of planet is also merged. It is notable because there are recent news articles and scientific papers on it. Instead, this article should be kept separate and expanded because there is a large amount of material that should be added including the wealth of references both historic and recent. I will begin adding this material immediately, so please hold judgement until you see this material. A paragraph should be added to Definition of planet with a link to this as the main article. This is exactly how IAU definition of planet was handled, as a separate article with a paragraph in Definition of planet and a link back to the main article. Including all the new material in Definition of planet would overwhelm it, exactly as including all the material from IAU definition of planet would have overwhelmed it.Sanddune777 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Geophysical Planet Definition page should not be deleted, as it does NOT serve the same function as the IAU planet definition page. The IAU planet definition page presents just one view of an ongoing debate regarding definition of the word planet. The IAU planet definition was adopted by just four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, and was rejected by an equal number of planetary scientists in a formal petition. Unfortunately, the mainstream media reported only the IAU decision and completely ignored the strong scientific opposition to it in the planetary science community. This one-sided reporting is a genuine disservice to the public. The reality is there is no consensus among the broader scientific community as to how to define the term planet, and many planetary scientists rightfully object to the notion of science being done by decree of "authority."

• Many planetary scientists see the IAU definition as flawed for numerous reasons, primarily the fact that it gives primacy to an object's location over its intrinsic properties. The New Horizons mission found active geological and atmospheric planetary processes on Pluto that are very similar to those that occur on Earth and Mars. Yet the IAU definition ignores this data and defines Pluto and other dwarf planets solely by their location. It also controversially claims dwarf planets are not planets at all, which runs contrary to the intent of the scientist who initially coined the term, Alan Stern, and is not borne out by the New Horizons findings. Planetary scientists who prefer the geophysical planet definition hold that dwarf planets are a subclass of planets, just as dwarf stars are a subclass of stars, and dwarf galaxies are a subclass of galaxies.

• Keeping this page rather than folding it into a general planet definition page will provide awareness to readers that there is more than one legitimate, scientific planet definition in use by scientists today. It is an important step toward providing fair and balanced coverage of this ongoing debate.Princesslaurel (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I will admit that despite preliminary research, did not realize that there are apparently 'dueling' definitions, to a certain extent, or that there was an article for the IAU definition. I really thought this was just definition page. Based upon what I have been told, the page should be kept and moved to
  Geophysical planet definition and otherwise I have no prejudice against keeping this article. I'm essentially withdrawing but since there is discussion I'll let someone uninvolved close. Plus, I always break things when I close AfDs. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:FRINGE. Basically someone is campaigning. Admittedly, there are many people unhappy about the IAU (change of) definition, but the "geophysical" one is worse (how many planets, did you say?). You were right to question the article and I hope that if it stays that it is appropriately caveated and not presented as some sort of equally-valid-alternative to the eight-planet version. Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There is nothing wrong with having many objects qualifying as planets just as there is nothing wrong with having many objects that are stars (100s of billions) or galaxies (also 100s of billions). Because professional planetary scientists use this definition, it is more valid than the IAU definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:146:300:1A80:91A6:2719:59EC:2325 (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is why I suggested merging this article into a section of planet (and rewriting planet to be less focused on the IAU definition). Having looked at IAU planet definition, it is more about the controversy and process by which the IAU arrived at a definition for planets than about planets as defined by the IAU. We could possibly build a similar article to the one on the IAU definition, but I don't think that the geophysicists have had nearly as much controversy as the astronomers. Rockphed (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Princesslaurel and
  WP:SIGCOV. Discussions of merging and/or balanced coverage should not be had here at AFD but on the article's talk page.4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Move or Merge While many planetary scientists do use this definition, the article is simply a talking point of Alan Stern's inability to let go of his ego and grasp that his mission did not go to a planet by IAU's 2006 definition. He has been battling the definition ever since, trying various propaganda. The information in this article is useful in that it is a definition geophysicists use when studying planets (including calling moons planets, as they are identical in many cases; e.g.some Jovian and Saturnian moons are larger than Mercury), but can be instead added to the articles planet and Clearing_the_neighbourhood. 73.15.7.104 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical index of Toril

Geographical index of Toril (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)

List of places in a fictional world. Substantially no sourcing. The world is perhaps notable, but this list fails

• Delete per Nom. This is entirely just poorly-sourced plot information. The Forgotten Realms are certainly notable, however this level of detail on every fictional region within it is not. Rorshacma (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Completely non-notable, slightly game guide list. Might be worth putting up List of Forgotten Realms nations and List of regions in Faerûn. There's also Abeir-Toril, which would likely be the best article for the topic if there is potential to build a non-plot article based on the setting. TTN (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom.4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 3 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.

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

)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's no doubt that this article needs work - the plot summary is far too long, and there's very little else - but a lack of sources in the article isn't a valid reason for deletion, the sources need not to exist. A quick check on Google found, in addition to the usual IMDB/Rotten Tomato-type UGC coverage, this and this and this, all reviews of decent length by named staff reviewers at significant publications; I also came across a mention here, in what appears to be a scholarly work about Irish cinema. I think this film passes
  WP:NFILM quite easily; the article needs fixing, not deleting. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Girth Summit. The article definitely needs some substantial rewrites and some inline references added, however the reviews provided above show that it passed
  WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Reviews provide necessary notability; condition of the article is beside the point of this discussion. Re: that I've gone and fixed it up a bit anyhow. Daß Wölf 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as reliable sources coverage has been identified and added to the article as extra content and references so that
  WP:GNG is passed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onslaught (Transformers)

Onslaught (Transformers) (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) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - another character with no real world notability. Fails
  WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to List of Decepticons.4meter4 (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. A disambiguation can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cy-Kill

Cy-Kill (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) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: there might be a justification for splitting this article in three since there were characters with this name in the three competing properties of
  gobots, robo machine, and transformers, but the three characters are not together notable so none of them would be notable individually. A redirect is completely inappropriate since there are 3 places for it to go. Rockphed (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - This character is shared in 3 different areas, I feel that a redirect wont work here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @Rockphed:, what about a disambiguate page that could go to the three competing articles?4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 3 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.

Rick Chiarelli

Rick Chiarelli (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)

It is my understanding that being a local councilor is not, by itself, sufficient to warrant an article. Until very recently, there seems to be no substantial coverage of him, beyond a standard brief profile related to an election. There's obviously a bunch of recent coverage, but this is more of a single local news story. It's worthy of inclusion if we keep the article,but I don't think an article consisting of just this is worthy. Rob (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• • For Canada at least, major city councillors all have articles. Category:Ottawa_city_councillors, Category:Toronto_city_councillors, Category:Vancouver_city_councillors etc. - SimonP (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We've had this debate before, and Ottawa city councillors have passed the notability test. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Earl Andrew, a city councillor of a major city meets notability requirements. Jiffles1 (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article does need improvement, but city councillors in global cities are accepted as being inherently more notable than usual for most city councillors because of their city's more globalized level of importance, and consensus has always accepted Ottawa as one of the cities that practice applies to. (See also: Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, London, etc.) If you'd like to shoot for a new consensus that Ottawa should be removed from that list, then you're certainly allowed to try — there have been other cities where we used to accept city councillors as notable, and then withdrew that status later on — but you would need to do that by proposing a centralized discussion on a Wikipedia discussion board about whether Ottawa should retain its "city councillors are notable" status, not by proposing that one city councillor be treated differently than others while the existing consensus otherwise still stands. And until such time as a new consensus is established to deprecate Ottawa's status as a "city councillors are notable" city, the existing consensus still applies in the interim. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per the above, a city Councillor meets notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not appropriate to delete this entry. Subject is currently making national news headlines as a politician in a sex scandal (requiring female staff to wear sexy clothing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.83.166.251 (talk • contribs)
• Comment - Ok, obviously I was mistaken, and didn't realize the current rules. Hopefully an admin can close this early, since it's pretty overwhelming keep. --Rob (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am leery about saying that councilmembers in any city would be "inherently notable." However, I like how Bearcat phrased it, that in certain cities, a councilmember is being "inherently more notable" than usual. I do think that for any councilmember
  WP:GNG applies and the sourcing should be more than "they exist." I have no problem or concern with the article being questioned about whether the subject should be deleted according to our existing policies and guidelines. --Enos733 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise)#Transformers. RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers x Evangelion

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

)

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

Not notable. Only one ANN article; otherwise, this is nothing but a fancruft dump. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Neon Genesis Evangelion (franchise) crossovers section and summarize there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect, fails GNG. TTN (talk)
• Redirect to Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_(franchise)#Transformers, where it is already included. Merge any relevant information, if needed, though the poor sourcing makes this seem unlikely. Rorshacma (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per
  WP:CHEAP if it already exists. -2pou (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Net settlement

Net settlement (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)

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is a stub but the process of net settlement is not a dictionary definition. As
  WP:NOTDIC says, “[o]ne perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiachra10003 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  ordinary glossary term in banking. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect to Payment system. The topic is covered in more depth in books on payment systems and/or Settlement theory (article lacking; there are whole books on settlement theory for bankers). See these google books: [9], [10], [11], etc.4meter4 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Seems correct. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not a dictionary article as there's no focus upon grammar, particular words or other linguistic aspects. This is instead a stub about a notable matter of finance which covered in detail in numerous sources. There's perhaps a case for merger with a related topic such as
  WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Widely discussed in books on banking payment systems, such as Transforming Payment Systems: Meeting the Needs of Emerging Market Economies, Payment Systems: Principles, Practice, and Improvements, and The Payment System: Design, Management, and Supervision. Easily meets GNG. SpinningSpark 22:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some of the arguments for delete being put forward here are baffling;

• The idea that because this is a payment system, and is always discussed as a payment system, it should therefore be merged to payment system really does not hold any water. Everything is a part of something else. If we followed that principle we would merge all articles to Big Bang which would then read something like "there was a Big Bang which eventually led to things like the Roman Empire, uranium, and chickens."
• Interestingly, the payment system that net settlement is invariably compared to is real-time gross settlement. That article shows what this one could become with a bit of work.
• The criticism "not even wrong" implies that it can't be falsifiable, which is clearly false, and in any case, is not a valid deletion rationale. We have plenty of articles on things that are not falsifiable – Occam's razor for instance.
• "obscure, ordinary glossary term". Andrew has already adequately answered the glossary part of that (this article is not just a definition of a term). "Obscure" and "ordinary" are not policy-based reasons for deletion, and I'm pretty sure that the term is far from obscure in banking circles. In any case, Wikipedia is not just for articles on stuff everybody already knows.

SpinningSpark 23:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This seems like a reasonable stub, except for the fact that the in-article sourcing sucks, but SpinningSpark has found some good sources. Policy only requires that sources exist, not that they actually be in the article; I hope, however, that Spark actually does put in the effort to improve the article based on the research he's done. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Damush

Mohamad Damush (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)

Promotional article with no indication of notability. None of the sources are significant discussions of him in independent reliable sources, they just mention him (and some don't even mention him). Google search does not provide any other sign of notability (about 50 results). ... discospinster _talk 13:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Essentially PR. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Point Break. If somebody wants to mine the history for mergible material, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Utah (character)

Johnny Utah (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)

Not notable enough for an article and reads like a fan page on wikia.

This character was an original creation for the 1991 film so not spanning multiple media, and the character was completely remade with a different backstory for the 2015 remake, so there's not even consistent characterization between the two, just the name and the role of protagonist in the film called Point Break.

The article is not written to a Wikipedia standard and half of it is just the plot of the 1991 film. The rest of the content, while cited, are just as much about the pop culture legacy of the 1991 film (or Reeves himself) than they are about the character and all of this content could just as easily be expected to be found on those two pages. JesseRafe (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to first film. Cultural references to character are really to film. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Point Break per reasons stated in the nomination and by Hyperbolick. Its a valid search term, and merging can be performed in necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, funny enough
    Johnny Utah does already redirect to the film, and has since 2009, which the page creator maybe didn't notice but also didn't ask for a deletion of that name space for this article. Given the much more likely search term without the (character) disambiguation, I don't think this search would be as frequent. JesseRafe (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's a good point on this being the less likely search term, but since
      WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, and, as I mentioned, preserving the history would allow any potential mergers that people find appropriate, I don't see the harm of leaving this one as a redirect as well. I won't be overly torn up if the consensus decides on Deletion, though. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Redirect to Point Break per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move back to Draft (maybe even move on top of Johhy Utah, and then move to Draftspace--(character) is an unnecessary disambiguation at this point. I'm curious as to why the redirect wasn't just converted...)  Anyway, on top of the move, the aformentioned redirect would be good in the meantime with the Rcat with possibilities used to point to the Draft. This article is actually less than a month old, so I'm inclined to give time for proper adjustments in the draftspace, if they can be made... Although that was already done once here. Is there a way to lock it from Moves until a review is done?
  @JesseRafe: Thank you SO much for actually taking time to put a coherent argument when proposing this as opposed to just throwing out "not notable" with no additional explanation. It helps others to have context and places less unnecessary burden on reviewers. THANK YOU! -2pou (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per Hyperbolick. No need to draftify. It's unlikely that
  WP:SIGCOV can be achieved at a stand alone article for this character.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Rondelli

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

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is an important
  World Championships in Athletics. There are also several interwiki and the article in two other Wikipedia. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per Kasper2006: Rondelli is a guru in the Italian athletic panorama for long distance running. --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 19:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Kasper2006: Rondelli is very important in the Italian athletics.-Arorae (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has coached multiple global champions in a major sport and is among the foremost coaches in his field. SFB 00:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kasper2006.
  WP:SNOW close.4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 4 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.

MV Irene (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)

Pretty classic

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above, per
  WP:NOTNEWS. No recent mentions as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete without prejudice to re-creation - A ship of this size should be notable enough to sustain an article, subject to
  WP:RS. Not enough information available in article to enable expansion at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment The vessel may be Irene EM, IMO number: 7433593, per this source. Mjroots (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to
  WP:NOTNEWS.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cop-Tur

Cop-Tur (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) 11:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to a suitable list article. Zero real world notability. Fails
  WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• If consensus is to delete, retarget to
  List of Gobots characters as originating section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I normally would be okay with that, except the section is blank on that page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No notability established outside of its fictional universe. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too broad of a subject to redirect anywhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Edge (book)

Over the Edge (book) (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 lack

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reviewed by Publishers Weekly, Booklist and The Washington Post. This is enough for us to have an article,
  WP:NBOOK only requires two reviews. Haukur (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The other two links you posted, don't work. Sadly, I was only able to find the first one in my searches.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Pinging

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

They work but they require ProQuest access to read. I can send you the files if you'd like. Haukur (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they could be archived at archive.org as weblinks? Anyways, I found one of the 2 in the question, which makes this matter irrelevant now (Booklist found as well, but it is paywalled even on their official website so nothing there).

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Found
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment, Booklist review can be found here,
  WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the sources found by Haukurth (which I verified) and further found by Coolabhapple demonstrate notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Haukurth. Passes
  WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]