Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 28

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.

Quickmix (Transformers)

Quickmix (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) 21:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mostly a fancruft. Anatoliatheo (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing much info to support notability. Barca (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  List of Autobots.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 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. Tone 08:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone (Transformers)

Brimstone (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) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mostly a fancruft. Anatoliatheo (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable enough of a character for a redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  List of Transformers: Cybertron characters where it already is included.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 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. Lack of sources to show notability for this specific project. No prejudice against creating an article about the idea generally if there are sources for that, but I assume that would belong at Cooperative commons rather than the capitalization used for the name of this specific project. RL0919 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative Commons

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

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

This article seems to be about a specific business initiative by a specific organization. After searching via news, newspapers, books, scholar and JSTOR, nothing came up that I could leverage as an RS source about this topic. I did find something about Legacoop, but not this initiative. I also found that this is not the only cooperative commons, this is just a specific example of one that one organization was building. Did it come to fruition? Has it had impact in the community it intended to serve? I don't know because RS information hasn't appeared in my searches. It seems to be both an issue of notability and verifiability.

To be retained, the article should reasonably have some non-primary sources to back up the claims that are made. The sources provided either: are primary sources (3 of 5 sources, or do not mention Legacoop at all. The non primary sources mention "a group of teachers from Luiss" or "the coordinator of the Research Center on Information Systems at LUISS Guido Carli." Thus far, I have been unable to verify any claim in this article via the non-primary sources. Thoughts on this article? Should it be saved and improved or scrapped? My concern is that it may just be promotional on the part of Legacoop. Curdigirl (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Curdigirl (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on primary sources, with no evidence that anything much happened beyond the idea being launched. Mccapra (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG as written. However, I did find non-trivial coverage on this term as defined as an "ad hoc network in which all devices are required to communicate and carry each other's traffic, even when those devices are associated with different owners and different administrative domains." (see "Detecting Selfish Behavior in a Cooperative Commons", Hyun Jin Kim ; Peha, J.M, 2008 3rd IEEE Symposium on New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks, October 2008, pp.1-12) That's what a cooperative commons is, and this article is really about one specific example of a cooperative commons but not cooperative commons as a whole. The article could be rewritten as there are multiple peer reviewed journal articles on Cooperative Commons.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique Sina

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

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

This page was almost certainly created by the subject herself or at her behest. A Facebook search back when I placed the noncontroversial delete flag even showed her gloating about the entry (it’s apparently deleted or no longer public now).

The removal of the noncontroversial notability deletion flag did not address substantive concerns expressed in tag. “I think she’s notable” is a vacuous impression. Also, linking to the bias critiques of Wikipedia page isn’t an argument. The fact that there may in fact be some, mainly unconscious, bias in Wikipedia doesn’t mean we suddenly lower our standards just because the subject belongs to whatever group or category an editor may think (without spelling out) we’re biased against.

Most of the sources for the article are puff pieces, public relations pieces (including the subject’s probably paid-for wedding announcement!). Even the seemingly newspaper sources are from shady web-only publications with distinguished sounding names. So shady in fact that they don’t even qualify for a Wikipedia entry of their own.

When in 20 March, Stevey7788 wanted to decline the submission of the article, an anonymous editor requested on 12 April that the rejection be reviewed again saying: “‎Please review again, sources show significant coverage and includes neutral sources such as Baltimore Post.” However, the Baltimore Post isn’t referenced. What is referenced is the Baltimore Post-Examiner along with the LA Post-Examiner, both website-only publications for public relations placements and some third-tier reporting and not actual, editorially-significant news that would signal Wikipedia-level notability (maybe community-level notability at best).

From the text of the article itself, the subject has basically held a couple of entry-level to mid-level jobs at the IFC and World Bank. And later got appointed to a few charity or community boards of no particular saliency.

It’s not that she hasn’t gotten anything done in life, it’s that it’s not really all that remarkable. Half the population of Washington, DC would qualify for a Wikipedia bio entry if this subject qualifies at this point. Deletion should have been uncontroversial.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TopDomino (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the awards she has received as a young leader provide her notability. MurielMary (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There's really only a couple independent refs providing coverage of the subject, and they are both published interviews which makes them more primary sources. The rest is all paid for PR. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MYNA

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

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

This is a very promotional article, which gives no indication that the subject meets GNG or MUSIC criteria. Nothing has charted, only a small Soundcloud following. It has been tagged for Notability since 3 September, so there has been plenty of opportunity to improve it if the material was there. Gronk Oz (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gronk Oz (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:MUSICBIO. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Per nom. No clear primary topic. Barca (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 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 redirect to List of DC Comics characters: E. RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echo (DC Comics)

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

)

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

Non-notable fictional characters TTN (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: E. Several very non-notable characters. Covered in target article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: E.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereal Darkness

Ethereal Darkness (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)

Per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 17:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - too soon maybe? I'm seeing some blips on some metal blogs, etc., but not much by way of significant coverage in better sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 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) 20:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Neuenschwander

Brody Neuenschwander (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)

While accomplished, doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I contested the prod on the suspicion that he could well be wiki-notable through his association with Peter Greenaway, a connection in which he is often mentioned [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Unfortunately, a substantial amount of the news coverage is not in English (he lives in Flanders, from what I can tell) [13][14][15] (and an entertaining mention here). At the moment, I think there's enough to write an article upon, though perhaps not a very long one. XOR'easter (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And remember that notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying that notability would be "inherited"; I'm saying that there's a good case he is notable for work done in a well-documented collaboration with someone who is also notable. XOR'easter (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ignoring the Greenaway coverage, other coverage appears to be minor or trivial. The article has been puffed up. For example I corrected the statement "he was appointed Princeton University's University Scholar" to something that more closely reflects reality: he was named a university scholar while he studied there. I can't really find much about him other than he is a reasonably successful calligrapher. My conclusions match the nomination exactly:While accomplished, doesn't meet WP:GNG or any of the SNG's.
  talk) 02:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - There is a lot of material out there on this artist. Yes the tone and content of the article can be improved, as can the references, but that is not cause for deletion. Calligraphy is a niche area of the arts, and it seems that he has been called a "master" for contributions that have moved the field forward from the traditional craft to innovative architectural installations and other experimental large-scale calligraphic installations. His work with Greenaway have been multiple collaborations, he is not simply notable-by-association. His career is based in Europe, and he has shown in museums there: Museum Correr Fondazione Musei Civici di Venezia, the Contemporary Museum of Calligraphy in Moscow, is in the permanent collection of the Berlin Calligraphy Collection of the Akademie der Kunste, and has been the subject of a 163-page monograph, Textasy: The Work of Brody Neuenschwander ISBN 9077362592. He clearly meets
  WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There might be a lot of mentions but there is not a lot of critical coverage. The shows are nice but a review would be the convincing document. (PS also see

talk) 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand your concern re: critical coverage,

ThatMontrealIP, and you are right, however as a niche genre one wonders if calligraphy critics exist. He is mentioned in a number of books including "Artist & Alphabet: Twentieth Century Calligraphy and Letter Art in America" and others. I respect your opinion but my !vote remains keep, at least for now. Netherzone (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Between what I found in my search and what Netherzone wrote, I'm persuaded. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I agree with Netherzone that there is enough coverage about him Alex-h (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep: borderline, but scrapes by on GNG &
  WP:ARTIST. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:NARTIST.4meter4 (talk) 19:10, 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Tone 08:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brynocki

Brynocki (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) 12:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics characters: B or Master of Kung Fu (comics). BOZ (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, very selectively, to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Not enough notability for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 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 redirect to Fifty Fifty (Pakistani TV series). RL0919 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salahuddin Toofani

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

)

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

Article is not notable no references in article , even no news in google or google news so the person isn't notable

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 18:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fifty Fifty (Pakistani TV series) until reliable sources are found which are better than a "Small photograph depicting Salahuddin Toofani standing with three actors" Mujinga (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added 2 more references and 3 external links to this article on 14 September 2019. Cleaned up and tried to improve it. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Fifty Fifty (comedy show) - Epinoia (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment
  WP:GNG etc does this subject passes, which has convinced you to vote Keep. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please relist the discussion and allow it more time. this may be barely notable. I am posting a note on Ngrewal1's talk page as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fifty Fifty (Pakistani TV series) per Mujinga (talk) - MA Javadi (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:SIGCOV is expected in Urdu media. The contributors (possibly local) above have not presented any links to urdu media and most of them favour a redirect. I would agree with them. If sources are found in future, the article can be recovered from the redirect history. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Fifty Fifty (Pakistani TV series).4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Samba

Patrick Samba (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)

PROD contested by article creator. Technically (maybe) passes

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep Patrick Samba has relatively high coverage in Bulgarian and Begian media, including a comprehensive interview. Also, it seems to me that articles that gat deleted for this reason are deleted because they use/show all their sources available, rather than just writing a few unsourced lines or have a profile as the only reference so viewers assume they are notable without doing any research. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article, too, meets the
  WP:NFOOTBALL as well but in first instance the GNG is met. Given the discussion here and the comments by nom, this item should not have been prodded. Prodding is for more obvious cases. gidonb (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Article about a semi-pro footballer who may have made a single substitute's appearance in a fully-pro league (if the Finnish top-tier was fully-pro back in 2006). There is plenty of routine coverage of this footballer in English-, Bulgarian-, Finnish- and French-language sources (match reports, transfer announcements, database entries). I can't find any significant coverage (including the sources cited in the article), although I cannot access the L'Avenir (Belgian newspaper) website to determine if any of those articles would meet SIGCOV. Without more, this article also fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jogurney.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Weak, only because I'm not an expert on sports, but this sure looks like somebody who's not notable. Things like, "Attempted to earn a contract", and the side job as a receptionist sure sounds like there's nothing else worth writing about him. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 22:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – lack of GNG sources. – Levivich 22:38, 6 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. Tone 08:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Atheists

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

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

Local branch of national society. We do not usually make articles for these; the references, obviously enough, are local announcements of local events. This is an excellent example of why that is a good policy. All the main article needs is an indication that there are state chapters, and where to find a listing of them on the main national site. DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it appears there's sufficient citation provided in the article to demonstrate some notability of this specific group called "Minnesota Atheists". But I'd like an explanation from the nom about his or her reasons stated - a) a chapter of a national organization and b) "we don't usually make articles for these". The wiki article on this group claims they are affiliated with other organizations but doesn't state that they are a "local branch" so that would need to be demonstrated, and then I'd like to see the specific Wikipedia guideline discourages article creation of local chapters. I'm not saying there is no such guideline, I'm just not familiar with it. I'm sure, for example, that each city's United Way chapter probably shouldn't have their own article, but then I would also want to hear arguments for and against. //// Regardless, a straight look at this article up for AfD appears to be a clear Keep to me without any additional information. -Markeer 20:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Delete citations are mostly
  WP:LOCAL, and nothing sets it apart from its parent organization. Some info from article could be put into the American Atheists Association article in future expansions, but this article is a delete. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

CommentI mentioned this in my note above yours, but is there a citation showing that this organization has a parent org? Their website lists some affiliations but otherwise seems to be presenting themselves an independent org. As I mention above, I'd really like some cited evidence of this being a client/child organization if that's a primary reason for deleting. -Markeer 18:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It clearly falls outside the ambit of
  Kablammo (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Local but has enough coverage to stand as an article Alex-h (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Statewide organizations are generally considered non-local per
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Coalition (United States)

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

)

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

This is a two-sentence article about a political action committee with no clear claim to notability. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve I've expanded the stub a bit, with references showing substantial coverage in multiple secondary RS per
  WP:GNG. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete (for now).
  Too soon to see evidence of their notability or accomplishments. Millions of people hate Trump, it's not worth an article if no action has been taken. Maybe next year. Trillfendi (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep covered in multiple unaffiliated (or independent) reliable sources which shows this article satisfies the criteria for inclusion per
  WP:ORG
  .

Merely reading through the references, I can see this topic is the subject of significant coverage in the Washington Post [16], Newsday [17], Mother Jones (you'll have to scroll down a bit), NBC News [18], The Science Christian Monitor [19], CNN [20] and the Daily Beast [21].---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  Too soon for notability SalmanZ (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Winter

Bitter Winter (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 significant coverage, promotional Feoffer (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into CESNUR seems the obvious thing to do. The issues with the sources can probably be fixed, but any notability of Bitter Winter probably comes on the back of the notability of CESNUR, therefore it makes more sense for Bitter Winter to be a section of the CESNUR article rather than an article in its own right. A1415 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 02:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge (as second choice). Hyperbolick (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while most of the sources deal with human rights issues, some (China Digital Times, EU Reporter, Human Rights Without Frontiers, Radio Free Asia, La Stampa) deal directly with Bitter Winter and its work - I believe that is enough to satisfy
  WP:GNG - if not, then merge to CESNUR - Epinoia (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge into CESNUR. I don't see in-depth coverage from third-party reliable sources, only passing mentions here and there. -Zanhe (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has enough coverage and meets
  WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Passes the requirements at
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:21, 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 redirect to Blue Origin. RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Smith (aerospace engineer)

Robert Smith (aerospace engineer) (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)

He may be notable, but this is promotional and incoherent to the extent it would need complete rewriting. Most of the material is about the company, not him. I tried to remove that material and arrange his career in chronological order, but this would amount to deleting the contents of the article and rewriting it from sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to
  WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to Blue Origin. It can always be recreated when/if significant coverage is found and a dedicated editor cares to create a better article.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 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. If somebody really wants to work on this, go research some better sources and then I'll be happy to restore this to draft for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Wilson (attorney)

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

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

De-Prod'ed with the statement "might meet wp:prof" but I'm not seeing that. The only part of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft. Not enough there, but give it the chance. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Hyperbolick, this article was created in 2008 about a guy who worked a case from 2004-2007. What would more time to work on this (beyond the seven day AfD course) accomplish? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Might give people a sense of urgency. Drafts not worked on drop out of existence on their own. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is Richard J. Wilson, a law professor specializing in human rights. There is definitely a common name problem in looking him up. A copy of his CV is online as well as a selection of his papers. He has been written about in terms of his work as a lawyer for Omar Khadr in Guantanamo, but I am not sure this is enough. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only source is a work he produced, this in no way shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With a common name like this, it's difficult to identify what sources are referring to him in his particular field. I couldn't find anything that was definitively about him. The article is sourced to a primary reference, and with the absence of any
  WP:GNG unless better referencing is found.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 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 Draftify. There appears to be a weak consensus to draftify this. If it is deleted from the draft space and eventually becomes notable it will not be difficult to recover. The page creator is also free to move the article to their user space if so inclined. But I don't like doing that w/o some indication of agreement from them beforehand as too many such pages just sit there for eternity. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makhmud Muradov

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

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

Subject is a mma fighter. Subject has yet to secure 3 fights in top tier promotion to pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Move to Draftspace/Week Keep my first impression was to move the article to draft space per
  WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. (1) Many fighters are the first to fight in their country and this is not a good reason for draftily for subject fails
  talk) 05:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I was going to suggest moving it to draftspace since he won his first UFC fight, which means he's likely (but not guaranteed) to get more. I didn't realize that drafts get removed after 6 months. Perhaps it could be put in the article creator's draft space so the work done so far doesn't get lost.Sandals1 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  talk) 05:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to Draftspace per Inter&#38.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  talk) 04:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I'm taking the other reviewer's judgement that the subject is not notable. My reason for commenting here is to point out that draftifying this is just throwing the problem over the wall to somebody else to clean up later, given that nobody has come forth and said they're going to work on it. If the subject becomes notable, a new article can be written about him, and anybody can ask at
  WP:REFUND to get the deleted version back to use as a starting point. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was speedy delete. Purely promotional. G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yogabugs

Yogabugs (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 seeing how this can pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Craig Logan

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

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

This person is not notable, except as a member of a pop-band. The article should be a redirect to Bros. Lmatt (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a number of sources, he seems to have received in-depth cover in multiple reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: None of the sources you added appear to demonstrate notability independant of the the inactive pop-band Bros^{[1][2][3][4][5]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - per
  WP:NARTIST, there does not have to be notability independent of the band, only sourcing. Which we have. The Nom appears to be using some personal definition of notability rather than Wikipedia's, which is more closely related to "independent verifiability" than it is to fame. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep – the article may be short, but he is clearly a notable person. There is currently evidence of notability outside being a member of Bros in the article, as it mentions he (as a songwriter and producer) was nominated for an Ivor Novello Award.Nqr9 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant reliable sources coverage now added to the article and has notability independent of the band for his songwriting, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuclear Powered Speedy Keep per everyone. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bros#Careers after Bros, where all this can be adequately summarized. --Michig (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC) He only co-wrote the song that was nominated for an Ivor Novello Award, and then had a few industry jobs after leaving Bros - can easily be covered by a few lines in the Bros article. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the nominator has been banned for one month. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Oblivion moss (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)

Extremely minor, non-notable fictional creature (or plant, I guess, in this case). The one non-primary source being used in the article, to a "Top Ten" style article, is not enough by itself to have this fictional being pass the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to
  Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to above list, since there is a list. If that list is ever deleted, then the redirect could be deleted at that time as well. Zero real world notability. Sourcing does not show they meet
  WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge,Has enough sign not to be deleted, merge to
  Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Alex-h (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 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. Whilst some sources have been presented, there is consensus that most of them are routine and there is not enough to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ishan Pandita

Ishan Pandita (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)

Pandita has not received significant coverage or played in a fully professional league, meaning the article fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Respectfully disagree with nom. about GNG, plenty of coverage out there: [22], [23], [24] -
  talk) 14:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A
  WP:NFOOTY-qualifying league. Article's also unsourced. SportingFlyer T·C 01:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Plenty of past cases show BLP1E is rarely enough for delete,
    talk) 03:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The Wayne Shaw was a non-admin close, probably should have been a no consensus. All of the coverage is routine transfer announcements from local sources which are playing him up. As I've said, he miserably fails
      WP:NFOOTY. The only coverage of him on Lorca, where he's currently playing, all I can find is a brief mention here. Clearly non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Coverage whilst with Leganés, Gimnàstic and Lorca across three years, that's fairly sustained. I get there is an argument here, but I feel GNG is satisfied. As mentioned at a different AfD, it's a shame GNG completely trumps NFOOTY - which I'd say is a better barometer for notability but hey, GNG tops all at Wikipedia so here we are.
        talk) 19:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per R96Skinner and have added references [29] ,[30] ,[31] ,[32] ,[33] ,[34] He is the first Indian player to join a Spanish club passes
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• With one possible exception all of those sources are
  WP:MILL about him joining Leganes or Nastic, two teams he never ultimately appeared for. SportingFlyer T·C 02:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:MILL is an
    talk) 19:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Yes, but
  WP:GNG, and while there are a couple sources here that come close, he is only notable for signing a contract with a La Liga side - he is not notable as a footballer, yet, just a routine fourth division player, and we should not be encouraging these types of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 01:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I respect where you're coming from, but I do disagree (evidently). To stop us going in circles, agree to disagree I'd say.
    talk) 02:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep Meets GNG with significant in-depth coverage documented above, since 2015. Some of the coverage is routine, however this and this certainly aren't. And as this notes, he created history as "the first Indian footballer to sign a professional contract with a Spanish La Liga club". Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there's three keep !votes because SportsKeeda is in-depth, but it's user-generated content, so not a reliable source with editorial control, and KashmirLife is written by the Secretary of the state sports council, so not really independent journalism, but rather promotional, like a press release. Every other link in the article and here looks like non-in-depth, routine coverage. Fails
  WP:GNG, and the fact that we're finding a lot of sources indicates it's not a lack-of-access-to-sources problem. I'm not persuaded that "first <ethnicity> to play in <country>" is something that would suggest there's significant coverage out there (unless it's really unique like first South Korean to play in North Korea or something). – Levivich 04:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per SportingFlyer and Levivich arguments. Frankly, he's not too different from Hendry Antonay, which was recently kept for having an 'in-depth coverage' of exactly one event in his career (being selected for U17 NT).--BlameRuiner (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TerryTheVoice

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

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

The subject of this article fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per norm. I tried checing out for independent coverage by reliable sources but no luck. Subject does not pass
  talk) 11:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju Air Flight 502

Jeju Air Flight 502 (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 source to prove that accident happen in the past plus this is not important article, this type of accident happen every year in every nation.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The incident did occur[35] but it isn't notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, this incident doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant mention in an article about the airline, the airport, or the aircraft type. Consequently, it probably isn't notable enough for an article of its own, even after getting past the fact that no news- or historical-type sources have been provided. (The source cited by William above is an entry in an aviation safety database.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The most notable things about this incident are that the aircraft had a rudder failure and it was damaged beyond repair so a mention at De Havilland Canada Dash 8 would be acceptable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents#Aircraft articles. However, a stand alone article is not necessary because of a lack on notability due to no loss of life and a small regional airliner. - Samf4u (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a lack of notability, unfortunately. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 11:55, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chulbul P Pandey

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

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

No evidence that Chulbul Pandey is known by this name. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of stand alone notability or passing
  WP:NFICTION, no content that is not a summary of his fictional biography in the three films. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Procedural closure. As everyone in this discussion, as well as 31.79.208.54 noticed, the correct venue for discussing this page is

CoolReader (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)

Empty page, previous revision which was a redirect is incorrect. Petilil (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, more specifically "A3. No content". LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really too much to ask for those commenting here to glance at the article history?

Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Phil Bridger: Believe me, I looked at the article history. Since it was blanked, I assumed that the redirect is no longer necessary and it should be removed. My mistake then, so I am changing my vote. It would have cost you nothing to point out the mistake. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

People calling for the speedy deletion of pages are expected to have a minimal level of knowledge of Wikipedia's procedures, which includes knowing that

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, procedural keep, that is. Please note that the article was blanked by the nom right before nomination. Blanking like this is not allowed. In fact the "article" was a redirect, so this should really be at redirects for discussion
  WP:RFD rather than AfD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep as this is the wrong venue. If you want this to be deleted then go to
  Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Changed vote. It was a mistake, should have voted "keep". Redirect should be discussed at
  WP:RFD. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

Another non-notable character. While he gets discussed in fan sites, no true in-depth coverage, and zero real world notability. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable character that definitely doesn't need his own page. Coverage of him is also not very convincing. The only source that the article uses that is actually about him is a dead link to a profile of his on IGN. [[36]] Even if that page was up, a profile of a tertiary character on a video game website doesn't mean that said character warrants a Wikipedia article. The fact that not even specialized websites have an article about him anymore seals it for me. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  List of Uncharted characters#Victor "Sully" Sullivan where the character is already discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per
  List of Uncharted characters#Victor "Sully" Sullivan as a direct target, but either is acceptable. -2pou (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]