Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 August	15 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Richie Rich (rapper)#Discography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Pryor Roundtree

)

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

AllMusic page is just a track listing and a handful of user-generated review [1]. Beyond that I've finding user-generated sources such as discogs and rateyourmusic, sales sites, download sites (including some that may be violating copyright). The information here is taken from Wikipedia. Not finding anything that would really indicate a

WP:NALBUM pass, although others may have better luck than me. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 12 years after this article was originally nominated for deletion, it still does not meet notability requirements, as per
WP:MUSIC. Pahiy (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete - Briefly reviewed in The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, assumption of The Source print coverage, but two RS are not enough. Caro7200 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richie Rich (rapper): Barely found any source other than the two mentioned above. It's best to briefly discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:CHEAP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nickelodeon crossovers

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

This article is yet another example of

WP:FANCRUFT dominating Wikipedia as this article also has had multiple issues dating back to March 2016 that, if fixed, wouldn’t be enough to save this article from deletion. Pahiy (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly support deletion. This has been sitting on my watchlist a long time, and it's clear to me that this is not a topic that has ever gotten enough independent coverage to become a viable standalone topic article. (The examples with enough sourcing belong at the topic-specific articles on those subjects.) And, worse, IPs keep trying to add more unsourced, and trivial, content to it. I don't believe this one will ever pass
WP:GNG on its own. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - zero evidence of notability and original research Spiderone 13:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2020 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart achievements by decade

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

Extraneous, long list of trivia per

WP:IINFO. Almost all sources are simply taken from the artists' chart history pages on Billboard, the primary source for such information. I have concerns with List of Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart achievements and milestones, too, but this is taking what amounts to chart trivia for a secondary chart too far. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator on
WP:IINFO. The more comprehensive article at List of Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart achievements and milestones can deliver some useful knowledge to the reader as it covers the top songs of all time, etc., and that article can also show some historical development in trends over time. But this decade-by-decade article is just taking it too far. I will also point out that this type of segmented article creates the problem of duplication when more and more of them are split off the original. When someone discovers interesting chart data from the past, it will have to be added to multiple articles and they will become inconsistent. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I can see an article about the chart, and maybe a spinout for its number ones, but there’s no way it needs two spinout articles about “achievements”, let alone one. Delete them both, and mention any notable achievements at the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another trivial list. desmay (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per

(non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Café Allegro

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

~~NCORP fail.~~ Withdrawn, see comment below.

talk) 21:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

keep I started this article and added more sources. The sources say
This is the oldest coffeehouse in Seattle, see also Coffee in Seattle

This is the single coffeehouse which Starbucks credits as the origin of their way of making coffee

The coffeehouse is periodically in the news for renovations and community issues, which is not media coverage which comes from typical coffeehouses.

The available sources present this place as something other than a typical coffeehouse. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
talk · contribs) 18:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
WP:GNG as the present version of the article proves through sources. I also hope the nominator will consider expanding on the rationale for deletion. desmay (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes per
WP:GNG. Seems like its got enough sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn Apologies, I didn't go deep enough on this one. The status as the first "espresso cafe" has indeed generated some coverage, which I somehow missed in my WP:BEFORE.
talk) 00:14, 18 August 2020 (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 withdrawn -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White carrot

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

White carrot is a disambiguation page including carrot, daikon, and parsnip. I see no evidence that either daikon or parsnips are commonly called "white carrot", though it is often said they look alike. DAB pages are supposed to be for alternate names, not similar things. The comment for parsnip mentions that in Arabic and Hebrew, its name means 'white carrot'. But this is not the Arabic or Hebrew WP; we are interested in the English name. Macrakis (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the daikon and parsnip aren't called "white carrot" in English, but the
arracacha, not currently listed on the page, is apparently sometimes called just that. And there are proper carrots that are white [2], so this means we've got two probably good entries. If they're good enough, and we don't have a primary topic... – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

WITHDRAWN. Fair enough, though I'm not sure that that name (a translation from the Spanish) is actually much used in English. I've added it to the article, removed the deletion notice, and moved daikon and parsnip to See also. --Macrakis (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
Arracacha. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect and hat per Clarityfiend. Good call, since the term in English will most likely suggest to readers a carrot that is white. BD2412 T 04:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed about the redirect, but it should probably go to the top of the Carrot article, since the article says that carrots in the Old English period were typically white, so not just the cultivar. --Macrakis (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not redirect. I've already suggested above that a dab page may be viable, but I would like to note now that redirecting is not. The white carrots mentioned here and there at
Arracacha should mention that as an alternative name). The two viable options that I see are 1) keeping the dab page (nothing wrong with an obscure page listing obscure uses), or deleting it altogether and letting readers use the search engine (for those looking for non-carrot-related plants described as "white carrots" in articles), or their common sense (those looking for whiteness in actual carrots could simply read the article at Carrot). – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

This Bioversity International PGR Newsletter article states "in English it is known as arracacha, white carrot, Peruvian carrot and Peruvian parsnip" and there's an agronomy article titled " In vitro multiplication of five cultivars of white carrot (Arracacia xanthorrhiza Bancroft) collected in Venezuela" published under the auspices(?) of the Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, bearing in mind the nom has withdrawn it anyway. It's not a disambiguation page, it's a set index article, and there's nothing structurally or substantively wrong with it that would justify deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2020 (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 Chess prodigy#Youngest to defeat a Grandmaster. T. Canens (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hetul Shah

)

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

WP:1EVENT Roller26 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose deletion. Sad that the kid didn't play much chess afterward. His latest rating is < 2000. -Abhishikt (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit: Agree that redirect is better. -Abhishikt (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chess_prodigy#Youngest_to_defeat_a_Grandmaster, a section I created in direct response to this AfD. Becoming the youngest to defeat a GM in a standard tournament game brought widespread coverage so he unquestionably meets GNG, the issue is whether per the nominator he fails N1EVENT. It's arguable he doesn't as he was also selected for the 2011 World Chess Championship [3] but as he appears to be no longer active there is not much opportunity for any further expansion of a stand-alone article. P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with P-K3, but does it make sense to use List of world records in chess for this purpose, rather than Chess prodigy? Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, except that Shah is indisputably no longer the record holder, and that list seems to generally list the current holders. P-K3 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per P-K3. Cobblet (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2020 (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 Turning Point USA#Formation and activities; I have separately taken the editorial action of redirecting and leaving the very limited mergeable content under the redirect. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA)

)

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

This article fails

WP:V since there is no corroborating information other than a news source that claims this person was registered as a founder of Turning Point USA. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly notable, as can be shown by the multiple

WP:RS also describe him as a co-founder. -- The Anome (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I urge you to review the sources and consider the depth of misinformation in those news sources. Think about why media juxtaposed that man's death with Turning Point USA - that is not what an encyclopedia publishes, and it certainly doesn't pass

WP:10YT. Some of the cited media TOTALLY misrepresented the facts. There is not even one RS that corroborates or even factually verifies that Montgomery's death was from COVID-19. The best we can do is cite 2 friends on social media. Montgomery worked behind the scenes for Turning Point USA handling the bookwork. He was a mentor who encouraged young conservatives during his retirement years. There is nothing notable about volunteering one's services to a nonprofit organization, and there is certainly nothing notable about dying from covid complications at age 80; that is sad, not notable. Notability is not inherited, either, so his association with Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA doesn't automatically make him notable. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

We have multiple reliable sources stating that he died of COVID-19. For example: [4], [5]. -- The Anome (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claims in the article do not have the sourcing that would lead to actually showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What sourcing do you want, other than
  WP:RS? He's clearly notable, as can be seen by multiple mainstream news sources publishing obits. -- The Anome (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Anything that verfies the claim made about being candidate?Djflem (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I could find. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can be notable even if you are not a legislative candidate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: But you cannot claim to be a legislative candidate if your are not a legislative candidate, as this article does. Can you provide a RS that conforms with the pillar of verifiability? Djflem (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have been a mix-up with Bill Montgomery (Arizona politician). -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Emir. I went and ahead and removed it; however, I'm of the mind that

WP:NOTNEWS, Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) The coverage is more about Kirk and Turning Point USA than about Montgomery. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep per
he's notable. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Selective Merge to
Wikipedia:BIO1E. Djflem (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, quite a lot of the discussion is over whether or not current refs in the article show significant coverage and demonstrate notability, so I've used this tool to make a table analysing each source currently in the article to see if they demonstrate notability or not. This is just my personal assessment, however, so it's not "official" or anything. If you disagree with my assessment, please say so. Seagull123 Φ 10:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Seagull123
1 - The Bulwark (website)	? I've never heard of this website before, so I can't say if this is a reliable source or not	One brief mention of Montgomery in the article	✘ No
2 - POLITICO		Doesn't appear to mention Montgomery at all	✘ No
3 - POLITICO		Article about his death; it does dedicate quite a lot of writing to Charlie Kirk and his thoughts on masks/coronavirus, however	✔ Yes
4 - Washington Examiner	Apart from appearing to deny climate change; I haven't seen anything that makes me think this website isn't an RS	~ Article about Charlie Kirk, discusses Montgomery in relation to how he "discovered" Kirk	~ Partial
5 - Crain's Chicago Business		Brief mention of Montgomery as how he "handles paperwork—“the old guy who keeps it all legal,”"	✘ No
6 - The Atlantic		~ Mainly about Kirk, but does discuss in some length Montgomery's role	~ Partial
7 - Fox News	? Per WP:RSP, there's no consensus on Fox's reliability on political matters	About his death	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Merge to
WP:GNG, but whatever information deemed encyclopedic could certainly be added to the main article. Hat tip to Seagull123 for the good work. Perusing the table above shows me the situation is even stronger for a merge (or delete) than I'd originally determined. petrarchan47 คุ ก 18:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete being a guy who contributes a lot to a non-profit may make you a good person, may bring you a lot of karma, but it does not, in and of itself, make you notable. Neither does the cause of death in this case. unless more RS can be found relating to his life, not just his death. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The creator has requested this article be moved to Drafts so they can attempt further development.

(non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 20:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Marciano Curiel Merchán

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

The article does not meet

WP:NACADEMIC. // Timothy :: talk 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Timothy, I understand why Curiel Merchán may be considered non-notable on the English Wikipedia site. Of course, as a Spanish folklorist he is unsurprisingly better known in Spain (see Spanish Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marciano_Curiel_Merchán). As you kindly suggested on my user talk page, perhaps it would be best to move this English page to the draft space, not delete it entirely.

Apologies for adding, I wanted to expand the number of Mexican/Spanish biographies on the English site. He is definitely interesting,just better-known in Spain.

Thank you, intoto99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intoto99 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi Intoto99 I hope you continue to work on this article and would support moving it to Draft if you think it can be improved. I looked at Spanish Wikipedia before nom and didn't see any sources, but I'm open to the idea there might be sources I can't find. I agree expanding the number of Spanish bios here is a very worthwhile goal and hope you continue here. We lack individuals with your perspective and skills and I know you would be a very welcome contributor. Best wishes and greetings from El Pueblo de la Reina de los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk 20:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Per the creators feedback above, I support moving this to Drafts so they can have time to attempt improvement. // Timothy :: talk 20:07, 15 August 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Maples

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

Nonnotable actress, this article which fails

WP:GNG also multiple issues that back a decade. Pahiy (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as per nomination. Not all actors are notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article itself says that she's best known for playing a minor role in one season of a series created by her husband. --Slashme (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2020 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P B Lahkar Para High School

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

The article does not meet

WP:SIRS. Article itself makes no claim of notability. // Timothy :: talk 20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MaysinFourty (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 21:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pappas

)

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

Mostly autobiographical, none of the sources provided show the subject meets

WP:GNG. Many/most of the assertions in the article are unsourced or not verified by the sources provided. The two Los Angeles Times articles at the bottom of the page only have passing mentions of Pappas, nothing in-depth to meet GNG. The previous AFD for John Pappas was for a separate individual, an American football player. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No version is free of promotional content. Every substantive edit is by, or paid for, the subject. This is spam. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing evidence of notability. Nine refs listed, but 3 of them (Nos. 2, 6 and 8) are to the same user-generated IMDB page, the AngelFire ref (No.3) is someone's personal web page, the Rotten Tomatoes ref (No. 4) is dead, the Theiapolis.com ref (No. 5) is another personal web site, the Fandango ref (No. 7) is dead, and the Backstage ref (No. 9) is not about him (it's just an almost 20-year-old review of something Pappas wrote and directed). So, two dead links, a few non reliable sources listing his work, and a passing mention. No in depth reliable independent sources about him to show notability. Meters (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to mention that ref No. 1 is a useless TV Guide pointer. Meters (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per User:Meters.Knox490 (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @
here (diff), which may be of interest to contributors here. There's also the comment they left at the end of this section of their talk page. Seagull123 Φ 18:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - if this were 2008,
in 2020 everybody knows we are not a resume service and you don't own your Wikipedia article. FWIW, I'm not an Eagles fan, and I know a third John Pappas who isn't notable, either. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia needs a much stronger policy of excising such promotional rubbish to prevent it being wrested into a promotional website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qoob chip

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

Non-notable GameCube modchip. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, this was turned into a redirect, I nominated it for deletion as one, but it was restored as an article. Pinging everyone who contributed in that discussion: @Tavix, @Thryduulf. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mod chip, no sigcov in reliable secondary sources, does not meet GNG. -- ferret (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage on this chip at all and it doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Pahiy (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - GNG failure. Sergecross73 msg me 22:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article just doesn't seem to pass
WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails GNG. All the coverage I could find was either in from the marketers of the chip or in forums or blackhat SEO type stuff. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Jawad Kadhim Al Zerg

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

Does not pass

WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't found any reliable Arabic sources about this person. Also, nominated for deletion on arwiki here --Alaa :)..! 22:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; military team caps are not enough to meet criteria Spiderone 13:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:GNG.--Faisal ^talk 01:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I can't found any reliable Arabic sources (except the site https://www.kooora.com/) about this person.--Nehaoua (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2020 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moksha (2020 film)

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jithin Majeed. Not notable. Article created by individual abusing multiple accounts on Wikimedia projects (Sockpuppetry proven and confirmed by CUs on English Wikipedia and on Commons), who has for goal to create articles and uploading media files related to a "Jithin Majeed". Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet
WP:NFILM, only won a minor award, mentions only found, nothing wikisignificant/indepth. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - due to concerns around
WP:GNG Spiderone 14:04, 16 August 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Riaz

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

New music director; however, he only composed the score for one film and this is a case of WP:Too early. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find in-depth reliable sources. MaysinFourty (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is probably
WP:TOOSOON. I can't find a lot of reliable sources about him, and this seems like someone who 'might' be notable in the future, but not right now. EverybodyEdits (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2020 (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 Geologic time scale#Proposed Precambrian timeline. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zirconian

)

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

I am proposing deletion of this page on the grounds of

WP:SIGCOV. A Google and Scholar search returns no relevant results (other than the Wikipedia article itself, or copies of). It is only defined in passing as a proposed geologic era of the hadean in Van Kranendonk et al. (2012)^[1] and Ogg et al. (2016)^[2]

(which is mostly a concise version of Van Kranendonk et al. 2012). It has not received any coverage since then. The proposed Precambrian timeline is already outlined in the geologic time page. That section can be added to if needed to provide a little more information about the proposed time divisions, although it is sufficient in its current state. When defined by Van Kranendonk et al. (2012) an alternate name of Jack Hillsian was proposed. It has not been ratified by the IUGS/ICS and they changed the frequency (and way) of publication of the geologic time scale as outlined in 2013^[3]. Should the Zirconian era ever be officially ratified then a page for itself would be warranted, as it would become notable in the geologic literature.

In terms of other widespread coverage, aside from only one notable source mentioning it, it isn't used in geologic literature or education currently as use of the ICS official chart [[6]] is required for publications in peer reviewed journals. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

ISBN 978-0-444-59425-9, retrieved 2020-08-06 {{citation}}: |last2= has generic name (help
)

ISBN 978-0-444-63771-0
, retrieved 2020-08-06

ISSN 0705-3797
.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. GeoWriter (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I interpret this as support to delete the article? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, support for deletion. GeoWriter (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GeoWriter, you might want to change your !vote to match this format so it's clearer. Ifnord (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect rather than delete to Geologic time scale#Proposed Precambrian timeline. The proposed division of Precambtian comes from the relevant international body, so that this is not a case of individual research. I am not a geologist, but it is not clear that the proposal has been widely accepted or used. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2020 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Nunoo

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

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

A non-notable media presenter. The article is heavily
refbombed, but the references are either primary sources or do not contain significant coverage of the subject. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him. Article is definitely
WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2020 (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. I will salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trippy Ja Productions

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Trippy Ja Productions

Articles for deletion/Trippy Ja Productions (2nd nomination)

Trippy Ja Productions (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 spam, nothing but fake sources (black hat seo) and press releases. let's just put the final nail in the coffin. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trippy Ja Productions, Draft:Trippy Ja Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt because nothing's changed since it was deleted less than 24 hours ago except the addition of another press release, and because the creator clearly isn't convinced by deletions to not simply re-make an identical article. —
Canadian} 00:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy
general notability. But let's take this to a seven-day conclusion before adding sodium chloride and silver nitrate to deal with this zombie. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

This is still an A7 IMO. Five million streams (even assuming that's true; Spotify's API says it was only about a quarter of that, totaled over all songs since release) doesn't really mean much; actually-notable artists get hundreds of millions of streams per song, and the 1.3 million I could verify only pays out a few thousand dollars. "Catching the attention of Warner Music and
Cryptic 22:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still doesn't meet
WP:G4? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and Salt given this was recreated so soon. Refs are press releases. --Kbabej (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Pendell

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

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

A potentially non-notable
WP:NPROF is viable as a criterion.) I am unable to verify the newspaper sources previously cited, though perhaps someone with access to more newspapers could. I genuinely welcome any comments. A speedy was quite reasonably declined back in 2012. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My search on JSTOR turns up quite a few contemporary reviews of Pendell's books, including:^{WP:NAUTHOR, although I welcome input from other editors. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]}

References

JSTOR 4604713
.

JSTOR 2085295
.

JSTOR 2808715
.

JSTOR 2457761
.

JSTOR 2571643
.

JSTOR 1810440
.

keep per comments of Lord Bolingbroke. I think these book reviews (thus secondary sources) are enough to establish notability. Would be great to add them to the article, maybe in a bibliography section. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:12, 15 August 2020 (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. Article deleted by
(non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Kojo Yankson

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Kojo Yankson

Articles for deletion/Kojo Yankson (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Kojo Yankson (3rd nomination)

Kojo Yankson (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kojo Yankson (2nd nomination). Non-notable radio announcer. Already found non-notable once. If notability is based on experience since 2016, please obtain copy of deleted article for comparison. Awards listed were covered by previous deletion discussion. Google search shows mostly obvious social media coverage, and also churnalism that he is famous for being famous. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2020 (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 Wood County Monitor. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wood County Democrat

Wood County Democrat (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 a small local newspaper that doesn't seem to pass
WP:NMEDIA. It seems to have joined with another newspaper in 2016 and became the Wood County Monitor. So, as an alternative to deletion it could be merged into that article. Since merging to the publisher or an equivalent sister newspaper is mentioned as a possible outcome for non-notable newspapers in the notability guidelines. Although, the guideline has the caveat that what it is being merged to has to be notability itself and Wood County Monitor doesn't seem to be, but I'll leave it up to others to decide if it's the best option anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wood County Monitor. Having some history about the target publication would be helpful in expanding that article; its notability can be assessed in an appropriate venue in the future. For now, sub-stub standalone articles for the predecessor publications seem unnecessary. Given that, I would boldly suggest to merge Mineola Monitor as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:GNG. With the Wood County Monitor, there aren't that many citations, so there isn't a strong case for a standalone article. However, it's a longstanding paper (first published in 1893), so having some information about it at Wood County Monitor seems appropriate. I'd be glad to carry out the merger if this AfD is closed with consensus for it. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per what 'merge' votes are suggesting. There are some reliable sources, so merging would help use that content. Idealigic (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2020 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Glenn

Shauna Glenn (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 seem to meet
WP:AUTHOR notability. The only independent and reliable source I could find on her was this non-significant mention
.
It seems she is an interior designer now, but the article is almost completely unsourced and I cannot find reliable/significant coverage of her or her work. (Article has also been tagged for notability since 2009) Whisperjanes (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Not every author (or interior designer) is notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources indicating notability per
WP:AUTHOR, and the article reads like a fan and/or PR biography. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:34, 17 August 2020 (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. Salvio 12:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wahdat

Wahdat (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)

Newspaper
WP:GNG. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{
WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 16:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entirety of the page is unreferenced and the vast majority of the text was added by an obvious COI editor. the last version prior to the COI edit shows an unreferenced stub and there is no evidence in the article or in searches of significant and independent coverage. The only independent coverage I have located, in fact, is passing mentions to the participation of this paper in the
WP:ITEXISTS but that is not enough to signify notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep @
WP:NMEDIA. "The “Daily Wahdat” from Peshawar are full-fledged Pashto newspapers which have been serving the Pashto language for a long time.". There's more in G'books. --Saqib (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:NPA might be in order. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Eggishorn: WP:NMEDIA states Notability is presumed for newspapers, (1) if have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history, (2) are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets, (3) are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area. This newspaper meets all these criteria easily. I still feel the nominator of this AfD is on deletion spree. The reason if he himself has been creating BLPs on non-notable figures (Misbah Mumtaz, Bin Swelah) yet marking BLPs on notable subjects (Iffat Rahim) for deletion. Doesn't sounds strange to you? --Saqib (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ASPERSIONS. Please do not do this again or continue to attempt justifying this statement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Eggishorn: This newspaper was founded in 1976 which means criteria # 2 of WP:NMEDIA is met. Secondly, Pakistan's reputable daily Dawn (newspaper) cites Daily Wahdat as a source (links below) which means criteria #3 and # 4 are met.--Saqib (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

www.dawn.com/news/1002663

www.dawn.com/news/472257/other-voices-pushto-press-need-for-cultural-revival

www.dawn.com/news/6989

@
WP:HEYMANN) that will go much farther to arguing for a Keep than anything you've yet said here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Now the promotional puffery and unsourced content has all been removed, there's nothing left other than "It's a newspaper". The article contains no sources other than the newspaper's official site. I can't find any significant coverage, other than pages simply saying it exists and is a newspaper/e-newspaper, so I'm not seeing enough for notability. That's searching for "wahdat newspaper" in English, and if anyone can unearth any other language sources I'll be happy to reconsider my recommendation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2020 (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucinogenic mushroom

Hallucinogenic mushroom (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 needs to be deleted. A hallucinogenic mushroom is just a mushroom containing hallucinogens. The two words do not have any special meaning when combined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberking321 (talk • contribs) 13:46, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

Keep Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template. Fixed now. As for my own opinion, this appears to be a useful disambiguation page. Improvements could theoretically be made on how articles around the topic are organized, but deletion would be counterproductive. --Finngall ^talk 16:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Finngall, whilst it may be true that the words do not have any 'special meaning', if a user were to search using the the colloquialism, the disambiguation page would certainly be useful. I also note that the same page was marked for proposed deletion by Saberking exactly one week ago here [7] and was quickly reverted here [8]. Wampagranule (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep – This is a very plausible search term, and as such useful to people visiting this website. I'm unsure if either of the listed mushrooms is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I suppose it would be possible to redirect this to Magic mushroom (disambiguation), but I'm inclined to think that would be getting it backwards (in other words, hallucinogenic mushroom should be one of the listed meanings of "magic mushrooms"). TompaDompa (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Upon closer inspection, it turns out that
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I'll also note that this has been disputed over at Talk:Magic mushroom#Ambibiguous term?. So maybe this should redirect to Psilocybin mushroom, or maybe those redirects should be to this page or Magic mushroom (disambiguation) instead. TompaDompa (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

This feels like a broad concept rather than an ambiguous term. Perhaps a good solution is to redirect to Hallucinogen, which is a broad-concept article that includes discussion of various types of mushrooms. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think a redirect to Magic mushroom (disambiguation) would be more appropriate, but Hallucinogen would also be fine.~~ As User:Uanfala pointed out, Mushroom#Psychoactive mushrooms would be best.Saberking321 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the page (yeah, it's not properly a dab page, so call it SIA or BCA). Retargeting to Magic mushroom (disambiguation) isn't a good idea as only one third of the entries there are for things that can be called "hallucinogenic mushrooms". If we're looking for an article target, then that would be Mushroom#Psychoactive mushrooms, which has all the content in one place (which is better than Hallucinogen where the few bits of relevant information are scattered throughout the article). – Uanfala (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom#Psychoactive mushrooms is the correct redirect, thank you! Saberking321 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Cloudflare. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Prince

Matthew Prince (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 independently notable of
WP:BASIC. K.e.coffman (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cloudflare: The subject is not notable and the sources I found published about him focus on said company or are talking about his opinions, but not about him specifically. Username⁶⁸⁹² 14:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lack significant coverage
WP:SIGCOV. -Hatchens (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I'm tempted to suggest this because the org he founded seems to have a load of spammers who isssue spam from it, but that woold not be a policy based opinion. He is just a man running a business for profit. So are many tens of thousands of other people, male and female alike. If he ever becomes notable in his own right he may have an article. Notability cannot be inherited from his company. Fails every notability test Fiddle Faddle 14:44, 15 August 2020 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Hashim Taher

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based unverified claims. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not listed here as playing for Iraq in 2001 as claimed. Unless evidence of notability is provided, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 13:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2020 (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 Mostafa Anwar (director). T. Canens (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abujh Hridoy

Abujh Hridoy (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 film doesn't appear notable. Only citation is about the director dying and I failed to find any in-depth reviews that it would need to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM in a WP:BEFORE. Only things that I found were directory listings and youtube videos. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
WP:MOVIE. Google and JSTOR searches yield nothing. The sources in the Bangla wiki do not focus on the movie, but rather the director or musician. I think merging with the director's article would be a better fit. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as above as there are insufficient available sources for a standalone article at this time, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2020 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne White

Adrianne White (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 model with absolutely no coverage in reliable sources, every single thing I can find is a press release or black hat SEO source. Praxidicae (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability, lack of sources. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability, self promotion. Dhpage (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 21:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable, self-promo Roller26 (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Good catch Prax. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. EverybodyEdits (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no reliable sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2020 (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. As far as I'm concerned, this counts as a delete, unless the article is improved and approved at AfC; however, I will generally draftify a deleted article if asked on my talk page, and, so, draftifying it at this stage is simply streamlining the process. Salvio 12:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bochner

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Daniel Bochner

Articles for deletion/Daniel Bochner (2nd nomination)

Daniel Bochner (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 does not meet
WP:NHOCKEY. The article was previously speedily deleted in 2014 and has since been recreated even though he still fails the guidelines. Neither the Israeli or Serbian leagues qualify for NHOCKEY notability regardless of games played or honours achieved while Israel have never played in the top level of the World Championship. Tay87 (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Tay87[reply
]
EDIT - While he certainly fails as a player, if his current coaching role grants notability then this can be withdrawn. Tay87 (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete subjects fails both
WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players or coaches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft I kindly ask the nominator to move this article to draft. Daniel Bochner approached me asking to work on it. My intention is to declare paid editing, make a rewrite and submit it properly through the AfC. I also see that he has some pretty good coverage including TASS (major Russian news agency), Financial Post (national Canadian newspaper) and The Canadian Jewish News (Canadian news agency). -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, if someone wants to work on the article, than draftifying is fine. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William R. Gruber

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/William R. Gruber

Articles for deletion/William R. Gruber (2nd nomination)

William R. Gruber (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 nominated for deletion in 2014. While his rank of Brigadier General satisfies #2 of
WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable per
WP:SOLDIER, which is generally held as being the standard notability guideline for general officers (despite its status as an essay). Consensus is clearly to keep officers of this rank per that guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Response Consensus changes.
WP:COMMONSENSE (which I know you're a big fan of) requires that for a military person to have a page on WP any reader should be able to immediately recognize that s/he won/did/led/commanded/developed/wrote [something militarily notable]. The presumption in WP:SOLDIER is that in reaching flag rank or in that flag rank that person did some notable things(s) which received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. However for many one stars and some two stars that simply isn't the case, they just got promoted without achieving anything that anyone would regard as notable. You clearly believe that just achieving flag rank is inherently notable, I don't if they don't also have SIGCOV in multiple RS.Mztourist (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed I do. I believe that getting to the top of a profession generally makes one inherently notable. After all, we classify sportspeople as inherently notable if they have played in a single top-level game or competed once in a top-level tournament (even if they got nowhere) and pop starlets as inherently notable if they have had a single moderately successful one-hit wonder (even if they subsequently disappeared from anyone's radar). I don't think it's unreasonable to also consider people who have got to the top of professions which are actually useful as inherently notable, even if their professions generate nowhere near so much internet fodder. We don't want Wikipedia to be known only as a repository of pop, internet and social media culture and sports, do we? It's getting far too much that way anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I disagree. Deflecting by comparing notability criteria in other areas is apples and oranges. I certainly agree that sportspeople who play in a single top-level game/tournament are not notable, however even a one-hit wonder must have sold thousands of copies of a record/download so temporarily playing a part in thousands of people's lives and creating a somewhat enduring legacy, thus achieving a far wider impact than a one-star with no legacy at all who would otherwise be completely forgotten except by those they served with. Getting to the bottom rung of flag rank doesn't make the holder inherently notable if they did nothing notable in getting there and do nothing notable while they're there. Look at Gruber, what did he do? No notable commands, battles, awards, just went for a drive with Eisenhower, that's it. Why do we need pages for that? Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp and because reducing Wikipedia to a collection of stuff that'e easy to find with Gooogle searches is a damfool idea. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete normally I would vote keep for a brigadier general, but he doesn't seem to have done anything notable except have some relationship with Ike, and notability isn't inherited. Also generals.dk isn't a RS, and Trout's mentions of him are in passing, so while he might just meet SOLDIER, he doesn't meet GNG because there isn't significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm interested to see these claims that he didn't do anything except know Eisenhower. Presumably being a general commanding divisional artillery in action is doing nothing. Maybe he would have been better employed playing a single professional game of football or singing a song. Now that would be doing something notable! What on earth is Wikipedia coming to? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That might have earned him SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because pop culture = internet dumping. Whereas useful and distinguished career in a non-pop culture field ≠ internet dumping on anywhere near such a scale but equally does not equal lack of notability. Why is this it not blatantly obvious to some editors? As I said, we are in danger of converting WP overwhelmingly into a repository of pop culture if we obsess too much over coverage at the expense of reasoned consideration of notability. That's not why I joined. Is it really why anyone else joined? -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, others may think that thinly-sourced bios of non-notable low-tier flag officers = internet dumping. Mztourist (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has SIGCOV in multiple RS. I quickly found biographical details in Ancell & Miller, and details of his war with the 24th Infantry Division. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then please provide them or add them to the page. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The United States military has, currently, nearly a thousand flag officers on active duty, which is more people than any professional sports league, more than every charting musician in the last year, and so on. (Given that the WWII military was forty times larger, we're talking more generals and admirals than any sports league has ever had players in their entire histories.) That
is a collection of indiscriminate CVs. These are encyclopedia articles, and if there is nothing significant to say about a subject, the subject does not merit one ... whether he be a 1-star in the army or a 1-star in crooning. SIGCOV is just not met here, and I for one would appreciate less rhetoric and more reliable sourcing. Ravenswing 11:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
If you think that having a distinguished career doesn't meet notability guidelines then frankly I really don't know why we're bothering continuing with this project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "having a distinguished career" doesn't meet notability guidelines -- notability criteria on Wikipedia are based on fairly specific criteria that has nothing to do with how "distinguished" someone's career might be subjectively claimed to be (an appellation for which, in the case of this subject, you have not submitted a single piece of supporting evidence). We can, no doubt, come up with any number of scoundrels, timeservers and feather merchants who were among the many thousands of officers to gain a star in WWII. We can also identify many outstanding soldiers and heroes who never did. Would you call their careers "undistinguished" in consequence? That being said, as far as whether you feel like bothering to continue with this project, you are the best judge of your own free time. Ravenswing 16:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need a cutoff point for "inherent" notability. We have decided it is general, flag or air officer rank and their equivalents (just as we have decided that one is notable if one serves in a national or sub-national legislature per
WP:SOLDIER, which has been formulated by editors who generally know what they're talking about and has been used for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
We certainly need a cutoff, but just being the lowest flag rank isn't it, they must also have SIGCOV in multiple RS. Thats what WP:SOLDIER says. Mztourist (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let us consider another point: WP:SOLDIER is an essay. It does not have the validity of black-letter notability criteria, should not be cited as if it did, and absolutely does not overrule legitimate notability criteria such as SIGCOV and the GNG. And beyond that: "It is a fact that reaching that rank is an indicator of a distinguished career." No, that is your opinion. Ravenswing 14:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
WP:SIGCOV and no one has brought up any SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 18:44, 25 August 2020 (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. Salvio 12:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chai Point

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

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

Purely a promotional article
WP:SIGCOV. Hence, Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every reference fails to verify any notability. One os from the principal, one at least an interview with the CEO and the remainder are PR pieces. Even the review of a cup of chai feels like a PR piece. Fiddle Faddle 12:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ab207 (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided below, article can now be improved. --Ab207 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly falls under
~~WP:Puffery but per nom seemingly created only for self-promotion. Wampagranule (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)~~ [reply
]

Delete per nom. --Devokewater@ 21:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The approach to this Afd is entirely misguided in my opinion. Yes, the article currently looks bullshit (their chai is even worse, trust me), but the company is clearly notable, as I was able to find independent in-depth reliable sources (not the trashy Paid Posts or press releases etc). This Business Standard report calls it "India's largest organized tea retailer". Here's The Ken profile that says it is India's largest tea cafe with 141 stores (numbers usually don't matter for notability but given the extensive reach in a country with a largely home-chai-drinking tradition, the network alone is noteworthy). Here's a Bloomberg Quint story about how they're trying to create a tea cafe culture in India, along with another very popular outlet Chaayos (which has slightly better tea imo!). Here's a The Hindu story on their AI features by an indy reporter as far as I can tell. Same with Livemint, Financial Express, Economic Times. Yes, the usual PR guff might exist, but separate the wheat from the chaff and reliable sources can very easily be found. I've just cited a fraction. Given that it's the largest tea network in India (ignoring the millions of street-side vendors who make infinitely better tea - just saying if you're ever visiting), and that significant and third-party reliable sources can be found (I'm amazed how they didn't turn up in the nom's or voters' searches!), the subject tremendously, justifiably, absolutely and surely passes GNG, NCORP, SIGCOV! If it sounds PROMOTIONAL, then it needs to be fixed. Not deleted. Best regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fully agree with the above assessment. If there is feedback on quality, those need to be added as tags for editors to update. No reason why that can not be done in parallel. Ktin (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've struck my original vote based on MaysinFourty's contribution. I made a rash decision based on a cursory search, so thanks for doing your research a lot better than I did. I'd now support an overhaul of the sourcing on the page, fixing the promotional element. Wampagranule (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course, the subject of the article is notable. A simple Google search reveals it to be the case. If it seems promotional, it should be modified and improved, not deleted. Stensrim (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2020 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Coffee

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

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

Fails to pass
WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. Hatchens (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ncorp fail. I saw a total of two sources in a search: the Vancouver Courrier and soemthing called Scout, a sort of web magazine. Not enough.
talk) 21:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No indication this is more than a run-of-the-
WP:MILL local business with the usual routine local coverage. Reywas92^Talk 02:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Disagree.
WP:MILL has this section for commercial establishments Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Commercial and you can clearly see that a chain such as this one will not fit into any of those categories listed. Ktin (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This article is modeled on the some of local coffee shops in the region (Pacific North West), as a part of the third wave coffee movement. While this is not an AfD for those specific local coffee shops, none of them have had issues proving
WP:GNG
for the same reason as this one. The key local coffee shops and roasters on whom this article has been modeled on are as below.

Café Allegro,

Monorail Espresso,

Caffé Vita Coffee Roasting Company,

Stumptown Coffee Roasters,

Blue Bottle Coffee,

Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea

The article does have sources that are independent of this topic and are relevant. Also, special care has been taken to ensure that there is no
WP:PROMO
by retaining it to be a factual piece.

Yes, this is a local business, and hence will have local sources for references, but,
WP:GNG emphasizes the need for a) independent sources b) reliable sources c) significant coverage more than a passing mention -- all of whom are met by this article. Ktin (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 02:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
ThatMontrealIP, I disagree. Both AfDs are very specific to the same theme, and the same premise holds on both cases. Ktin (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 03:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - The creator of this article is also involved with a similar AfD discussion of an article which he has created in the first place. For more details, visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/49th Parallel Coffee. -Hatchens (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 12:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination above. TheAnayalator (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet
WP:NCORP, no indepth sources found that indicate wikisignificance. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, does not pass
WP:GNG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2020 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

49th Parallel Coffee

49th Parallel Coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:PROMO. Most of its news coverage comes from paid/sponsored media and PR sites. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NCORP fail. I don't see how a small Vancouver coffee roaster is going to be notable. Source search turns up very little. (That said, I am a big fan of their coffee. But making good coffee is not a precursor to notability.)
talk) 16:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
ThatMontrealIP
, Howdy! Nice to see someone else who likes their coffee. They are good indeed. I am the author of this article, and I should frame my response well, since this is most likely my only one shot to defend. Will do that shortly. And, post as a separate comment.

I was modeling this article on some of the Seattle / Portland local coffee shops, as a part of the third wave coffee movement. Example of some of the coffee shops that I was modeling this article include Café Allegro, Monorail Espresso, Caffé Vita Coffee Roasting Companyin the Seattle region, and Stumptown Coffee Roasters in the Portland region. Also, Blue Bottle Coffee and Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea. Ktin (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles do not matter in deletion discussions. We are only talking about this article, and whether or not it meets our
talk) 21:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As mentioned in the previous comment, this article is modeled on the some of local coffee shops in the region (Pacific North West), as a part of the third wave coffee movement. While this is not an AfD for those specific local coffee shops, none of them have had issues. The key local coffee shops and roasters on whom this article has been modeled on are as below.

Café Allegro,

Monorail Espresso,

Caffé Vita Coffee Roasting Company,

Stumptown Coffee Roasters,

Blue Bottle Coffee,

Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea

The article does have sources that are independent of this topic and are relevant. Also, special care has been taken to ensure that there is no
WP:PROMO
by retaining it to be a factual piece.

Happy to provide additional details.Ktin (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "but there are other similar articles" basically has zero weight at AfD. See
talk) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
ThatMontrealIP, There is a subtle nuance, not sure if that was caught. The message above is not a "but, there are are other articles, hence, this should be". But, it is very specifically, stating that this is being built out as a part of the same concept / theme - i.e. thirdwave coffee in the region. Ktin (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 21:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - The creator of this article is also involved with a similar AfD discussion of an article which he has created in the first place. For more details, visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian_Coffee. -Hatchens (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

,3,49th Parallel Coffee,0,8:Hatchens, Not sure I follow - is the above implication that I should not be using the same case at two different, but, related AfDs? Also, I should add that the above commenter is the one that has marked that article for AfD as well. Ktin (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ktin, It is just a comment to link two on-going, similar kind of AfDs. So accordingly others can chip in their views. No need to worry or do anything with it. Best regards. - Hatchens (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 12:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable as mentioned above TheAnayalator (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet
WP:NCORP, no indepth sources found that indicate wikisignificance. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Does not pass
WP:NCORP. It's local coffee shop that has handful of news. One of the references used is a press release. It also doesn't have coverage from any major publications. Expertwikiguy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Expertwikiguy, Thanks. I was the first author of this article. Appreciate your vote. Would be curious to know the rationale for your differing vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Café Allegro. Seems like these three AfDs should go together (the third one being Elysian Coffee). Ktin (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin, I felt Allegro is notable because of its Starbucks connection and history. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Expertwikiguy, I definitely respect your opinion, please don't get me wrong. But, to me that fact (i.e. Starbucks connection) was trivia. I believe all three articles have their place on Wikipedia, and was actually modeling the 49th Parallel Coffee, and Elysian Coffee articles on the Seattle coffee houses, including Allegro. All of them have similar quality of links. In fact Allegro has a link from its own website marking its history. Ktin (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP. It is what it is, I guess. Cheers and have a great week ahead. Ktin (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROMO). When you say "per nom" -- you are agreeing with that assertion? Ktin (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nominator. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2020 (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 Kakrail Mosque. T. Canens (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Ahmed

Zubair Ahmed (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)

Unable to find anything other than some passing mention. Fails
WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as leader of a major mosque, he might be notable, but I have difficulty reading the extremely stilted, "in the know" language of the page. Its not quite
WP:TNT but it's close. If it is kept, it needs a lot of editing to be useful for our readers. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't find anything in English and in Bengali. You're welcome to improve it. If it is kept (without significant improving & source), it should be moved to draft space. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is the leader (president) of
tablighi jamaat Bangladesh chapter.--Owais Al Qarni (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge and redirect to Kakrail Mosque, at least for now. There are a few good sentences here. Readers of Bengali could clean up and de-redirect if there's enough sourcing for a standalone article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2020 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shankkar Aiyar

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

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

Fails
WP:NPROF. Lack of credible academic citations. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Complete absence of reasoned analysis. No assessment of the subject's extensive body of work. The nom argues that since the subject, a journalist and author who has never been employed as an academic, fails WP:PROF, they cannot be notable. Well, he fails NFOOTY, too, an argument no more intellectually vacant. Let's not waste editors' time any furthher and just speedy close this foolishness. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with feedback above. The subject is not an academic and should not be subject to WP:NPROF. Ktin (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I don't think we should start writing articles on everyone that fails NPROF, his books appear to have gotten some attention in the Indian press, and I think it's enough for
WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews include [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:AUTHOR and the mainstream-media book reviews found by Russ Woodroofe. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krodh (2019)

Krodh (2019) (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. No significant coverage either. We can't have articles on each and every short films released on YT. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass GNG. --Ab207 (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything significant during a search to support notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 07:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to concerns around
WP:GNG Spiderone 14:04, 16 August 2020 (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. Salvio 12:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CB Insights

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

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

Fails
WP:PROD, but the creator of this article removed the tag with reasoning which is beyond anyone's comprehension (kindly check the history log). Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's my explanation.
CB Insights is one of the top three (by usage and revenue) market intelligence platforms for tracking venture capital, and funding activities for private companies. Link from one of CB Insights' competitors here.
The company is considered a leader in its domain and a simple test would be searching CB Insights on Wikipedia and seeing the number of articles, particularly in the private equity, venture capital domains. Link here.
The company is quite a significant one in the private equity / venture capital / startup investments domain because it fills a void that very few can fill. i.e. market intelligence / venture capital information for private startups. Currently, they are tracking an annual revenue of ~$50 million, and have ~300 employees.
Sources
Sources for this article are quite diverse and a collection of all of them will pass the
Wikipedia:GNG
guidelines where the emphasis is on a) independent sources, b) reliability of the sources being referenced, c) more than a passing mention i.e. significant coverage, and d) multitude of sources -- all of them proving that that this is indeed notable.
1. Newspapers and Media: E.g. New York Times, TechCrunch, Business Insider
2. Market Intelligence Trackers: E.g. Crunchbase, Linkedin Company Intelligence
3. Other Advisory Firms: E.g. Pricewaterhouse Coopers
Further proof of CB Insights as a Reliable Source for Financial Data -- Can be also seen from the below table which shows the number of articles referencing CB Insights data. Now, if you click on each one of them you will see the reliability.

Source Number of articles
referencing CB Insights
Link

Wikipedia 307 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+%22CB+Insights%22

New York Times 299 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22CB+Insights%22

Financial Times 344 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aft.com+%22CB+Insights%22

WSJ.com 320 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awsj.com+%22CB+Insights%22

Additionally a few sources have been assessed to add to the GNG guidelines checks. In all this you will see that the reliability, independence, and significance measures are met, and met at multiple locations -- hence, collectively meeting the notability checks.

Source assessment table:

Source
Independent?
Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?

Colleen Lougen (2017) CB Insights, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 22:3-4, 247-250, DOI: 10.1080/08963568.2017.1372018
https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2017.1372018
Journal of librarianship (Business and Finance) w/ named librarians independent of the subject. Journal focused on librarians marking their notes on sources and their relevance Specifically discusses CB Insights as a data provider ✔ Yes

https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/09/cb-insights-raises-10-million-in-series-a-funding/ Article is by a named author at Techcrunch independent of the subject Techcrunch is a reliable source for factual information in the technology funding space, particularly. If there is a concern that TechCrunch is not fully reliable, the below sources should be considered. Article fully devoted to subject, and not just a passing mention ✔ Yes

https://www.businessinsider.com/cb-insights-has-acquired-data-assets-venturesource-dow-jones-7-2020 Named author independent of the subject of the article Business Insider is a reliable source for factual information in the financial space Article is fully devoted to the subject, and not just a passing mention ✔ Yes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/avaseave/2015/04/08/predictive-analytics-and-novel-visualization-draw-customers-to-must-have-data/#5d133f336623 Article by named author independent of the subject Forbes is considered a reliable source in the financial reporting space article fully devoted to subject, and not just a passing mention ✔ Yes

https://www.fastcompany.com/3061344/how-emailing-i-love-you-translated-to-1-million-in-data-analysis-revenue Article by named author independent of the subject of this page. FastCompany considered a reliable source for factual information in the Financial space Article is entirely on the subject of this page, and is not a passing mention. ✔ Yes

This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Ktin (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep.
The Financial Times seems to regard the figures they produce as newsworthy, but don't report much on the company itself. There is dedicated coverage in Forbes already quoted in the article. The reason given for deprodding seemed quite clear to me, in context. I don't necessarily agree with it, and it shouldn't affect the AfD either way, but it's inaccurate to say that it's "beyond anyone's comprehension". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Meets
WP:NCORP. Agree with the above Keep vote and assessment. This company has significant coverage some, from major news sources, Forbes, Tech Crunch, etc. It also has a lot of incoming links within Wiki. I am surprised that why someone would nominate this for deletion! Lately I have seen many good pages being nominated for deletion just because they are commercial in nature.Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Lots of significant coverage as noted above. While Twinkle makes it exceptionally easy to nominate for deletion, please consider doing a bit of research before clicking the button as Wikipedia's resources are scarce. Note that there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding around notability in the nom when citing the removed PROD - we don't care if something is "unique", we care if it is discussed significantly by sources demonstrating notability. II | (t - c) 11:56, 18 August 2020 (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. Salvio 12:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Active Risk

Active Risk (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 company - fails
single-purpose accounts that have not edited again since. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this company appears to be no longer quoted on the Stock Exchange --Devokewater@ 21:50, 14 August 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garry King

Garry King (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)

BLP article about a drummer and music producer filled with unambiguous advertising — both for the subject and for his gear endorsement partners. I can't find widespread coverage in independent sources that would justify inclusion and even if
nuking it and starting over would seem to be the more sensible option. Hence: Delete — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is one of those long-serving journeyman musicians who has made an honest living bouncing around the industry as a sideman and studio hound, but all of his works are a few degrees of separation away from
notability in his own right. He made the metalhead news briefly in 2013 for leaving the band Exorcism (themselves barely notable), and for all his other band memberships he is only ever listed briefly as being present. For his studio work he has some friendly interviews in the gearhead press, but once again most of his coverage is brief listings in pro directories. And finally, the nominator is correct about this article's attempted promotion of his various business ventures. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:CHEAP, redirect to band Exorcism. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Part of a promotional walled garden surrounding the repeatedly deleted Csaba Zvekan. Exorcism is another page created by the same coi editor and I question their notability. He didn;t make news leaving them as suggested above, pr releases were repeated saying it happened. Don't bother redirecting, band page should be deleted too. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musician, Non-notable band. Couldn't find anything reliable about either him or the band. Especially the band. Just streaming service entries, social media pages, press releases and lots and lots of blogs. I have found several album reviews - on WordPress sites, unfortunately. The only reliable source is this: Rock Hard album review Rock Hard is a notable magazine. I have also searched for two of their albums. "Exorcism End of Days" yielded results from horror movies and a few streaming service/database links. "Exorcism I Am God" yielded much more results, including several album reviews as I mentioned, but like I said those reviews are featured on blog sites. There are also press releases about them releasing a new track or album but that's it. Non-notable band and non-notable musician like I said. Also, the article was created by Csabi911 (most likely Csaba Zvekan himself), whose main Wikipedia activity revolves around the bands Raven Lord and Exorcism (he is part of both of these bands), and Garry King so the COI (conflict of interest) is obvious. None of these articles are notable, in fact, Raven Lord and Exorcism are up to deletion as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2020 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Individual

Individual (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)

Ugh, this is a mess that even if salvageable as a notable concept needs
WP:DICTDEF. Ping User:LookingGlass who proposed deletion of it (on the talk page), few years back (see their rationale at Talk:Individual#DELETE with which I agree). This should be simplified either into a redirect to person, or a disambig with topics mentioned in see also such as Self, Philosophy of self, Psychology of self, and Religious views on the self. The short sections in law and biology seem to me beyond rescue as off topic/OR/DICTDEF/not encyclopedic style. The remainder of the article is about Philosophy of self, so there is some scope of merger, I guess, but again, much of what is here is unreferenfed, so.... perhaps cut and paste to that article's talk page on the off chance it would be useful to someone interested in that article, before redirecting/disambiguating this mess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep It's the nomination that is a mess as it starts with
editing policy is clear: "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." For an example of a well-written encyclopedic article on this topic, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That article is about a topic of
Biological individual. Which may be notable. But our article is effectively an overgrown disambig. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Biological individuals are individuals and so that title is a redirect to the article in question. And the SEP article is just an example. There are plenty more such out there such as this discussion of the difference between the concepts of "person" and "individual". The topic is clearly notable and, because it is a broad one, different authors naturally approach it in different ways. This is not a reason to delete anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the concept of Individual is not the same as that of a (legal) Person. It is however one that is dealt with in a large number of books and journal articles, so its notability isn't in question. Individuality has aspects including biology, sociology, religion, and philosophy. There is clearly scope for improving the article, but (though this is not germane to the Afd) it wasn't all bad by any means. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nomination statement provides no rational basis for deletion or policy-based analysis. Yeah, the article is lousy right now. If you can't be bothered to improve it than just STFU if you have nothing policy-based to say. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indisputably notable. There's OR for sure, but we can fix that. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited by User:Chiswick Chap, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and User:AleatoryPonderings. AFD not clean up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AFD is not cleanup. The rambling deletion nomination is something you should've posted on the talk page, and made suggestions for how to improve the article, instead of wasting time coming here saying it should be TNT destroyed and then someone else should come along and rewrite it later on. The article is fine, others having explained this already so no reason to repeat their points. Dream Focus 12:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Get involved with the
Review nominations

This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this ill-conceived nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. I
WP:AGF; and suppose we all want to improve the encyclopedia; and that is a more constructive way to do it. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, AfD is for non-notable subjects,
WP:DINC. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is a notable topic, the article being in sub par shape is not reason for deletion.
talk) 00:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Nobody has shown yet that there exist a single source on the topic of "individual" that can be used to satisfy GNG. The current article is an essay-ish, unreferenced mess and should be a disambig. Please note that
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an appopriate vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Probably because no one is taking your ridiculous nomination seriously. Notice how when you nominate something and every single person is against you and you just keep arguing, such as here or [15] or [16]? Anyway, you could probably search for "individual" "biology" OR "Philosophy" OR "Law" if you thought it needed more references for anything. [17] Dream Focus 14:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This actually seems like a reasonable discussion of the various interpretations of what it means to be an individual, in both religion and biology. Per
WP:BROADCONCEPT, "A term with many related meanings should be presented as an article on the broadest understanding of the term, rather than as a disambiguation page merely listing variations on that meaning." I don't see this as a simple DICDEF, it's an encyclopedic topic with lots of themes explored in reliable sources. — Amakuru (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I would say it’s notable, I would keep as per comments above.-GizzyCatBella🍁 07:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Et tu, brutus? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is clear the consensus is to keep this. I am however not withdrawing the nom as nobody has presented a single source that suggests this should be anything more than a disambig for a number of related but not identical vews on what individual is (biologicial individual which needs to be written and others such self, Philosophy of self, Psychology of self, and Religious views on the self). We are doing a disservice to the reader by providing them with the ORish essay instead of TNTing this to hell and having a clear disambig here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I find the topic notable. Wm335td (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2020 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Silvestri

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

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

Fails
WP:BIO. Not a full professor. scope_creep^Talk 07:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
csp
|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "Not a full professor" is an entirely useless statement since there's no claim that he's mainly notable as an academic. He's not a full-time glamour model, either. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Trying to prove the argument by the negative, doesn't work at Afd, or indeed, in life itself, generally speaking. The subject is a adjunct professor, so
WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As
WP:MILL activities, and makes no assertion of notability. Searching is complicated by the commonness of his name, and I'll watch this discussion in case evidence of notability is uncovered. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete We have to actually prove notabilty. It is high time we stop keeping articles on proceduralism, and nothing here shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Andrea Silvestri is not a full professor. He is a lawyer with and extensive experience in tax law, corporate taxation, tax proceedings, etc. His relevance got him to be chosen by one of the major Italian Law Firms to create and lead a brand new branch (Tax Law Department, that he coordinates https://www.belex.com/en/professional/andrea-silvestri/ ). Sure he is lecturer in both Milan and Rome important Universities: Bocconi Business University in Milan (https://www.unibocconi.it/wps/wcm/connect/bocconi/sitopubblico_it/albero+di+navigazione/home/corsi+di+studio/master/mdt+-+master+in+diritto+tributario/struttura+didattica/docenti+del+master_edauthor+2008+06+25+05+41?back=y ) LUISS Business School in Rome (https://businessschool.luiss.it/diritto-tributario/faculty/ )Where he also takes part in important panels (https://businessschool.luiss.it/evento/un-fisco-per-competere/ ; https://businessschool.luiss.it/evento/imprese-e-fisco-nellera-digitale/ ) (https://www.unibocconi.it/wps/wcm/connect/ev/Eventi/Eventi+Bocconi/COSTRUIRE+LE+UNIVERSITA+ASPETTI+ARCHITETTONICI+E+URBANISTICI%2C+TRA+RAGIONI+ECONOMICHE+E+SCELTE+POLITICHE ; https://www.unibocconi.it/wps/wcm/connect/Bocconi/SitoPubblico_IT/Albero+di+navigazione/Home/chi+siamo/celebrazioni+ed+eventi/Celebrazioni+ed+eventi+istituzionali/Archivio/Centenario/Iniziative+realizzate/Mostra+Il+Mondo+Nuovo/Organizzazione/LA+STRUTTURA+ORGANIZZATIVA_EDAuthor5+2008+07+14+04+36 )But still he is known as a lawyer: see awards and recognitions he got from the Legal community:- Lawyer of the year 2013, Tax field, by TopLegal Award: http://awards.toplegal.it/medagliere/ - Listed as one of Italy’s major tax law experts by The Legal 500 EMEA international legal directories: https://www.legal500.com/firms/10189-bonellierede/10209-milan-italy/ - Made his Tax department, inside “Bonelli Erede” law firm, worthy of winning in 2016 by Legalcommunity Awards: https://legalcommunity.it/evento/tax-awards-2016/ --151.18.215.30 (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — 151.18.215.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

SPA editor, probably them in person, himself. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at each reference in turn, supplied by the SPA.

Company page. Not independent, not secondary. No indication of notability.

Proves that he is employed at the university. Does not prove notability.

Proves that he is employed at the university. Does not prove notability.

Proves he is on a scientific committee. Does not prove notability

Won a non-notable legal award. Does not prove notability.

Proves he is a good tax lawyer. Does not prove notability. All of them fail
WP:NPROF. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Tax Awards 2016. A non-notable award. scope_creep^Talk 11:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

these you are doing are subjective evaluations. If we were to decide independently the notoriety of each teacher on wikipedia, 80% of the pages should be removed --151.36.245.180 (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP editor: the relevant standards for notability of people are given under
WP:THREE. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment IP, regarding the comment on teacher articles, see
WP:WHATABOUTX. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. He is a prominent figure in the legal field, also at an international level, and this is shown by the fact that he has received several awards, such as the following:- Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500 EMEA international legal directories list Andrea as one of Italy’s major tax law experts;- TopLegal Awards named Andrea Tax Lawyer of the Year in 2013;- Legalcommunity Awards named the Tax Law Department, that he coordinates, “Firm of the Year – Tax” in 2016.He also writes for important economic magazines and newspapers such as Il Sole 24 Ore https://www.sulpl.it/images/Il_Sole_24_Ore_22_Aprile_2020_compressed.pdf --5.170.242.80 (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — 5.170.242.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep. you need implementations or modifications of the template, but not the removal of the page. I propose to add all these new info and sources --Loreferri (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — Loreferri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Two more
WP:SOCKs. scope_creep^Talk 11:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and
not allowed on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. I read he defended the Bulgari brothers (jewelry) and they were acquitted. I think that’s a point for notability https://www.swissinfo.ch/ita/evasione-fiscale--assolti-paolo-e-nicola-bulgari-ed-altri-11/44063816 https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2018/04/22/bulgari-il-legale-dei-fratelli-assolti-dallaccusa-di-evasione-fiscale-ora-lo-stato-restituisca-i-43-milioni/4309293/ --Erirus (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erirus (talk • contribs) 09:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC) — Erirus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, its not the point of notability, and Afd isn't a vote counting system, its a discussion. Your two references count as passing mention, again a strong indication that the person is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer without enough sourcing to actual reliable coverage. The excessive number of people voting to speedy keep is highly irregular.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:SIGCOV. Hits are trade publications and/or passing mentions. And does not, in my (draft) view, qualify as a presumptively notable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, Johnpacklambert, looks like you have two deletes here? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments by Bearian. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2020 (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 09:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham International Airport (disambiguation)

Birmingham International Airport (disambiguation) (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)

Delete as unnecessary. Readers looking for either Birmingham airport can visit the other via
hatnotes at the top of each page. feminist (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 09:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per
WP:NOPRIMARY then this is a keep from me. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I effectively created this, by renaming
Birmingham International Airport when it was altered from a primary topic redirect to a dab page. I then reinstated the redirect. I did this solely as an alternative to the edit war that often ensues when a dab creation is reverted, rather than feeling any strong need for a disambiguation page for this topic. However, this leaves an extensive page history now attached to this page which should possibly be preserved if the page is deleted. Lithopsian (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Obviously unnecessary DAB. PatGallacher (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A disambiguation page is not required (
WP:ONEOTHER). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The sources have been reviewed and general consensus is that they are just about sufficient. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motiravan Kangali

Motiravan Kangali (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 author with no evidence of satisfying either
WP:AUTHOR. References are passing mentions with no in-depth coverage of him. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
csp
|username}}.

Delete no notability here. Additionally I see COI and cross-wiki promotional attempt, as they have created the same page on hiwiki and enwiki too. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 18:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and basically spam. Java Hurricane 03:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kangali has widely written on tribal issues in India and is considered as a scholar of Gondi language. His works have been cited by various publications including BBC Hindi. Simple google scholar search shows his works have been cited by others, at one instance in Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India. Kangali belonged to a marginalized section of society and his works are mostly in Marathi and Gondi language. His inclusion in Wikipedia also makes it more inclusive. Strong keep. Shivashree (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG). By that standard Kangali is obviously not notable as a simple search will tell. Simply because others have cited someone's works doesn't make them notable automatically. Java Hurricane 05:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Based on Google Scholar alone, the subject is very far away from being notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Only passing mentions, not significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #1 Jothe (2020): Kangali is subject of the article; not just a passing reference. The author himself a scholar of Tata Institute of Social Sciences. The passing reference in BBC Hindi mentions Mr. Kangali as 'Scholar of Gondi language'. The Hindu reference mentions Mr. Kangali as 'linguist and expert in Gondi language and culture', ref in Dainik Bhaskar (2015) is an obituary. His works are based on a language and culture that is vulnerable and is on the verge of extinction. His exclusion from Wikipedia will be exclusion of the people who are already excluded from public discourse. The person is certainly notable. Shivashree (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete or merge~~. I've changed to weak delete, as ref #1 is relatively significant coverage, but not much else is. Being a scholar is not inherently notable. The BBC Hindi reference is not significant coverage. Ref #6 (obit in 2015) is not significant either as it's very short. (Disclaimer: I had to use Google Translate for some of the sources.) Perhaps some of the contents of this article could be merged into Gondi language? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to
WP:ANYBIO. Still lacks multiple independant sources with significant coverage of his life though, as ideally I'd be looking for a biographical book or equivalent. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest we keep this article on Kangali based not only on his scholarly work, but on his advocacy for the Gondi language, a language spoken by 2 million people. He helped standardize Gondi, and invented a script for the language. (See here and here for his work on standardization, and here for how the script is being taught to students and here for the script's digitization.) Moreover, contrary to the claims above, there are several in-depth articles about him.(one, two three). The article does need more citations for much of its content, but the article itself is notable - it is important and is supported by many reliable secondary sources. Prad Nelluru (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a very quick review of those sources:

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/interviews/language-is-the-only-tool-for-expressing-identity-and-culture-46695 - interview, hence not completely independant

https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Telangana/2015-05-13/Standardised-dictionary-in-Gondi-language-soon/150633 - covers his work, not him as a person

https://en.gaonconnection.com/in-chhattisgarh-tribal-community-students-will-soon-be-studying-in-the-native-gondi-language/ - brief mention of him, sounds more like it's the primer by Padda that's taught in schools

https://jobsvacancy.in/gondi-language-digital-font-ready-books-will-now-be-published/ - again brief mention

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/seven-brotherhoods-and-the-love-of-trees-animals-and-birds-46698 - some mentions, which is good

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/interviews/language-is-the-only-tool-for-expressing-identity-and-culture-46695 - repeat of 1st one

http://www.adivasiresurgence.com/india-motiravan-kangalis-bahujan-eyes/ - this one I should say is an independant significant source

Sources need to have significant coverge, not just be secondary and reliable, to establish notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first and last links in your list constitute significant coverage, though the first is an interview. The don't see a difference between articles of his work and him for the purposes of establishing notability - both establish his importance. The brief mentions, still, show his impact, which helps establish notability. I do think there could be better and more voluminous coverage of him, but there's no reason to outright delete this article. Prad Nelluru (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just want to let you all know that this is being discussed on Facebook by Adivasi Resurgence. I will quote them below, but I would be happy to "improve" this article if that would keep it, and if I understood what needed to be "improved." Indigenous peoples are extremely underrepresented on wikipedia. Link to original post: https://www.facebook.com/adivasi.resurgence/posts/3044333029026740?__tn__=-R /// Quote from that post:

BHOPAL: A social leader who had thousands of supporters, who was scholar of an important but endangered language. Someone who got a huge populace take pledge to revive the language.

The man who wrote books, whose anniversary is remembered and who has monument after him, his 'Wikipedia' page is considered for deletion, and this is done 'by voting' which only a few people aware of and they quickly do it. The Wikipedia page on him has citations, all the information that is needed, links about person's immense contribution from sources ranging from BBC to Bhaskar, Jagran, yet it is 'considered for deletion', with the false claim that this is 'self promotion', though the person died long ago. Not everyone knows but this deletion is through voting and how many vote? 10-12? Certain individuals who perhaps work as a group, they are part of such action. Now, Wikipedia's aim was to make knowledge free, it was to put focus on people from communities that didn't have adequate representation, the marginalized, the aim was also to bring women as editors. However, who would have imagined that such possessed and intellectually dishonest people who create handles with a purpose would enter and try to erect a wall, be gatekeepers of information? Unfortunately, that's happening in a big way and it's going on unchecked. Communities that didn't have access to higher education for long, are being stopped and not allowed to tell their history. There are huge communities whose figures are known in these regions but information about them hasn't reached the internet. Tribal communities that had less access to higher education, can't be stopped in this fashion, from telling the world about their history, heroes. And those who shut others' account don't write either but stop others, deter them and turn Wikipedia into their own property--drawing power through a strange system, just because they have been there for sometime. Totally mindboggling, how will new people come to the platform, they will simply leave it, stonewalled. Wikipedia aim was to draw people, not turn them off. However, imagine, a user makes his account, he hasn't published anything, but there are strange characters who appear from nowhere, even go to the extent of 'deletion of account', citing mumbo jumbo, sounding as if they are speaking from pulpit to their subjects. And those doing it, seem to work in a planned manner, with a manic urge to remove references about communities. Is it because these leaders are opposed to dominant narrative! Don't let Wikipedia become a shrine of knowledge and a few becoming its gatekeepers who can turna minnow into a hero, and decide that a giant would be 'non-notable' and 'useless' and his name 'fit for deletion'. Via Shams Ur Rehman Alavi http://www.newsbits.in/wrecking-wikipedia-erasing-history-of-marginalized-communities-defeating-purpose-of-website /// END QUOTE Hawa-Ave (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have found some notability references from reputed sources that I have already added to the article - [18]; it appears that Kangali does have significant contributions to the linguistic preservation and development of Gondi language to his credit. - Sdsouza (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep among the few writers from an oppressed community and comparison simply cannot be made on inappropriate notability scales (esp. since his writing is/has-so-far not been accessible to English speakers). In any case notability seems established by - the contribution to deciphering Indus and Hampi symbolism + working on Gond literary renaissance as mentioned in reliable sources (added a book with a chapter that has several references to him). Shyamal (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong support for keeping. It's important that editors from countries with a history of strong media and/or internet penetration understand how grave the issue of access is in developing countries. There is often very little documentation of works of many noted authors like Kangali. When it goes without saying that the work of many w:Adivasi (indigenous) or Dalit (historically oppressed) authors, it's much worse, and it might be futile to find online resources or publications in international journals. It's really hard for many researchers and scholars to get published without a strong institutional backing. Guidelines, like deletion criteria, are not above the equitable treatment many notable persons deserve. A maintenance tag should be okay to push editors here on Wikipedia to improve the article but deleting the article is more like killing it entirely without allowing it to grow, just on the basis of criteria that works very well for western authors. --Psubhashish (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe
WP:N. It might be a bit weak, but I think it passes. // Timothy :: talk 18:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Veale

Jamie Veale (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
WP:NFOOTY, having never played in a fully-professional league or a senior international fixture. Prod was removed by the article creator without reasoning, although the issue was raised at my talk page but provided no compelling reason to avoid deletion. Kosack (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 09:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2020 (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 09:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Martynowska

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

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
WP:SELFPROMOTE here... PS. After starting this AfD I found Bo Martyn, which this article is a badly named fork of (so I just redirected that old article to the new one). That other article is older, but also edited pretty much exclusively by SPAs and IPs. If this is kept, we will need to merge histories and likely rename the article from Bo to Joanna Justyna, but I don't really expect this to survive, so... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the nominator. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator. Good sleuthing; very interesting situation TheAnayalator (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2020 (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 09:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Cordier

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

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

Fails
WP:GNG, poorly referenced biography/puff piece Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a corporate bio, so
WP:TNT applies. I'm also not seeing strong evidence that WP:BIO is met. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: No sign of notability. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2020 (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 09:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday Island (California)

Wednesday Island (California) (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)

Island does not have a name. Author attempted to unilaterally declare a name by editing google maps and creating this article. Sources are self-published by the same contributor. Starryaja (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Also nominating related article created by same user with no sources:[reply]

Unit Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reywas92^Talk 18:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Delete both for failing
WP:GEOLAND. This place name appears to be a neologism unsupported by reliable independent references. The book reference is self-published. The remaining references do not even mention the subject. An independent search for references comes up empty. USGS has no record. Finally, Google Maps contains user-generated content. The now-removed Midzemuthleiy, Delaware was an actual hoax brought into Wikipedia via Google Maps. • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional comment: I didn't notice the bundled nomination for Unit Island. Delete that too for the same identical problems. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I'm wondering how you can tell this author had edited Google Maps with the name? In any case, the Rudy Daniels book is the only search result and GrayBirdGrayBackground needs to be banned for creating multiple hoaxes. Reywas92^Talk 18:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delele both. Zero evidence of notability, possibly a hoax. Yilloslime (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. No post office :-) Newspapers.com and Google Books had no useful hits for '"Wednesday Island" Morro'. I see that
Pillar Rock (California), created by GrayBirdGrayBackground which also cited "A Brief Geography of Morro Bay" was redirected by Reywas92 to Morro Rock. Cxbrx (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No official confirmation of name. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:22, 16 August 2020 (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. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time Flies (Tori Kelly song)

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

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

Entirely unsourced article for a song cover. All sources found reference the original Drake song or are mainly about the extended play it's featured in,
WP:NSONG. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm not very passionate about it, but this one might be keep-able per policy. The article's creator added some sources after the AFD nomination, including a dedicated story at Billboard (currently footnote #3 in the article), and I also found this: [19] at ABCNewsRadio, which has been deemed generally reliable at
WP:RSMUSIC. There might be enough for a stub article. Another reason for my "weak" vote is that one could consider those sources to be more about the associated album than the song, depending on your interpretation. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete If nothing more can be written about the song other than it was a single, it's a perma stub and does not meet
Solitude (Tori Kelly EP). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Solitude (Tori Kelly EP). I greatly appreciate the sources provided by Doomsdayer520, but I do not think there is enough significant coverage to support an independent article. However, I think a redirect would be more helpful for readers than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I'd probably support a redirect to
Solitude (Tori Kelly EP) as suggested by Aoba48, but I'm not convinced the EP is going to pass notability either... I'm waiting for its release first. Richard3120 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: The cover song and its EP have received some coverage. The sources indicated by
WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Question: this is a cover of
Time Flies (Tori Kelly song) be incorporated into that article instead? Or at the very least, the Drake song should redirect to this one. But it's the same song, the two versions shouldn't direct to two different articles. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: uDiscoverMusic is not reliable as it is "operated by Universal Music Group, the largest record label in the world and home to the greatest artists in history." See 1, a lot of bias here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename "Time Flies (Drake song), and incorporate material relating to Drake's version. I am a little on the fence here. There are multiple reliable sources that cover this song, although they generally say much the same thing and are not terribly in depth. But this song also charted in its Drake incarnation, and it has now been covered by 2 significant artists. Deletion would be wrong since there is reliably sourced coverage and redirection would be problematic since with 2 significant versions there is no uniquely appropriate redirect target. So even if it borders on IAR, the best solution seems to be to keep the article and cover both versions of the song in that article. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2020 (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 ITV Schools. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Out (TV programme)

Finding Out (TV programme) (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 TV programme, no valuable sourcing and no ref of it online   Kadzi   (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it seems to have existed, even the external link acknowledges that all episodes have been lost. The page's creator
WP:V. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to chatter) 19:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This was a programme that ran for over two decades. The programme is not "lost to history" as there are many extant episodes, notwithstanding the list of missing episodes being included in the page as an external link. The fact that two external websites have pages about it is evidence of its notability. More could be found with some diligence. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But, as you know, it is not enough to speculate about the existence of reliable sources to save an article: the existence of those sources must be demonstrated. Ravenswing 11:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dr Kadzi appears to be under a misapprehension about the link to TV Brain. That section of the website is there for the sole purpose of listing missing television. Therefore every episode of Finding Out listed there will be missing. It is fallacy, of course, to reverse that logic and decide that that means that all episodes are missing. Even if it were true, is the absence of a television series from the archives a reason to delete a Wikipedia article? It would prevent any articles on pre-World War II television from appearing here. Similarly, the destruction of the DuMont Network archive doesn't seem to have provided sufficient reason to remove those related articles. Simon Coward (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I tried my hardest and came up with basically nothing. [21] (only in "snippet view" so I can't verify) describes it as "perhaps the most popular" ITV show for children at the time. There's also [22] in a non-RS and [23] (namedrop). In addition, I found a single paragraph in the TLS from 9 January 1987, p 30, about the then-upcoming season. Just don't think there's the coverage for GNG. However,
WP:NTV says that an individual … television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations … or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. ITV surely had a broad national audience in the '60s–'80s. But without any real sourcing, I fail to see how we can retain the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. I am certainly for historical preservation of subjects so not opposed to a merge/redirect to
now would be the time. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Redirect: No evidence of SIGCOV here. I'm slightly baffled at the keep proponents focusing their attention on whether there are extant episodes (which one way or another has no bearing on any pertinent notability criteria), and ignoring that this is a GNG failure (where meeting the GNG is, in fact, how those early TV articles survive). Obviously it could be a credible search term for a redirect, though. Ravenswing 11:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ITV Schools per the above arguments. Reyk _YO! 07:04, 26 August 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Mancinelli

Dusty Mancinelli (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)

Completely unsourced
WP:GNG. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this -- but simply being able to list a filmography and support it with an IMDb link is not automatically enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article has existed for 11 years with its only sourced being the non-reliable IMDb. Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I have revised the article with refs. Could you please review? Alaney2k (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Google is showing 12,900 results for a search on "Dusty Mancinelli". It also appears that several movies of his were shown at TIFF. He also appears to have won an award at Sundance. I think this was simply a forgotten/ignored article. I will take a look at those results to see if they are routine/trivial or not. I will start adding some of the non-trivial references. Alaney2k (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just having movies shown at a film festival is not, in and of itself, a notability criterion for a filmmaker — no matter what film festivals a film may have been screened at, the filmmaker's notability still hinges on the degree to which the films did or didn't get published reviews from professional film critics. And he didn't win an award at Sundance, he won an award at Slamdance (which is not the same thing). But all film festival awards are not created equal when it comes to securing the notability of a filmmaker — awards at top-tier film festivals like TIFF, Berlin, Cannes or Sundance would nail it, while awards at lesser film festivals like Yorkton or Slamdance don't count for nearly as much. And finally, his number of hits is going to be disproportionately inflated right now, because he does have a film in the upcoming TIFF lineup, and so his name appears in coverage of the overall lineup announcement — but because of my first point about how simply being at the festival doesn't secure a filmmaker's notability all by itself, the current TIFF doesn't secure Mancinelli's notability all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will take that into consideration as I work on the article. I think I am leaning to keep based on what I have found in only one half-hour. Alaney2k (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you do realize that almost everything you've added to the article so far is a
primary source that is not support for notability, right? Even if you're working with the idea that having a film be an "official selection" of a film festival should be an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, the film festival's own self-published online catalogue of its own film lineup is not the sourcing you need to get there — you need media to pick up the story and have a journalist re-report it as news, not sources that are directly affiliated with the claim, to turn anything into a basis for notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think you need to put words in my mouth. I will take your comments in mind as I work on it. Alaney2k (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My expectation is that Violation would be reviewed. And I think being an official selection for several of those festivals indicates a notable film-maker, although clearly early in his career. Alaney2k (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether it will be reviewed — even if it does, it will still need numerous reviews, not just one or two, to get him over GNG. The question is whether it has already been reviewed or not. We don't base notability on what might (but also might not) happen in the future — we judge it solely on the basis of whether what's already true today clears the bar or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the notability essay articles work on predictors. E.g. sports first rounders, etc. It would be a predictor to be interviewed, then. Is there such an article for film personnel? Alaney2k (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)r[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on the additions I have made to the article, I do believe that Mancinelli passes #1 and #3 of
WP:FILMMAKER. As a stub before, it was sorely lacking. His shorts are available through paid major streaming services such as Prime and Apple TV. His films have won some significant awards. The awards at Slamdance are recognized by the Oscars. His feature film of this year was selected for the "Fantastic 7" and is premiering at TIFF. Additionally, the fact that his films have been shown at MANY film festivals internationally, and not minor festivals, would indicate a high level of respect in his field for his work. I don't think it is too early in his career for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think that Violation too, should probably have its own article, once it is shown at TIFF. Alaney2k (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - article now includes a number of well-cited claims of notability, including reviews of some of his work and participation in significant film festivals and receiving awards from these. Xuxl (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the citations rise to
WP:CREATIVE. This is a director who is working, but having a job in entertainment doesn't make the subject automatically notable. EverybodyEdits (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If the consensus is to delete, I suggest instead that it be moved to Draft namespace instead as the director is about to premiere a feature film at TIFF. Alaney2k (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2020 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shafique Katumba

Shafique Katumba (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 of article is a non notable socialite who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of
WP:ANYBIO also he doesn’t seem to be notable. Celestina007 22:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 22:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 22:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 22:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable personality in his society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy Solomon (talk • contribs) 09:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting a mere 'Keep' without providing any rationale isn’t usually valid. Celestina007 14:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since our subject ("founder of a money spending group, based in South Africa but comes to Uganda every end of the year to throw parties") abjectly fails
unworthy of an article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The coverage in the Ugandan news demonstrates that the subject is notable,[24], [25] 21:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UGAWOOD2020 (talk • contribs)

UGAWOOD2020 is the creator of the article. -The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More
Wikipedia is not a gossip publication; at least, not yet. -The Gnome (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidedeans (talk • contribs) 18:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sock-puppet investigation has been opened. -The Gnome (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2020 (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. Article was A7 deleted by admin
(non-admin closure) - hako9 (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Trippy Ja Productions

Trippy Ja Productions (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
Canadian} 00:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no reliable sources.
π, ν) 01:09, 14 August 2020 (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. I'm not seeing an clear consensus one way or the other here and the discussion seems to have generally run out of steam. There's some evidence the nomination was disruptive, some arguments that it doesnt meet GNG but nothing I would call conclusive. Wouldn't object to this being nominated again in the future. Fenix down (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Champions League clubs performance comparison

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

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

clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The rationale for deleting the article mentioned in the nomination was spurious and I would like to start a DRV. –
Jay 13:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on
WP:IDONTLIKEIT
, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:

WP:SYNTH
- This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.

WP:ACCESS
- This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.

WP:GNG
- The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.

WP:OR
here.

WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also says where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines
.

Jopal22 (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @
WP:OR isn't real is also incorrect because their is literally no references to compare teams. HawkAussie (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - @HawkAussie: Well this is really a performance record of each teams performance rather than a "comparison" as the article in named. The record (i.e. results of each season is widely available), and there is no conclusion drawn. I suppose I would throw this back, this page is essentially a collection of statistics showing results. Which statistics being shown do you think are either incorrect, cannot be verified, or are not objective? Jopal22 (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Can we please wait until a consensus is reached
~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 09:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. In line with the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison manipulating sports data like this constitutes OR and SYNTH, unless the charts themselves can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party. How could I verify the accuracy of these charts? Also, despite claims above about sources, this lists absolutely no sources. (For links to six more of these see this discussion) --Lockley (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep purely on basis of consensus at a recent related AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison, which was kept. Giant Snowman 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination appears to be made in bad-faith as a
WP:POINTY nomination in retaliation for the (somewhat questionable) result - the threat to disrupt Wikipedia is made by User:Malo95 here. Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Article fails
WP:NOSTATS is a major concern with these type of articles. I find all the keep votes strangely floored and majority are not providing any explanation why this should truly be kept. Govvy (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Are people forgetting that
WP:GNG is meant to be a thing as their is no sources for this comparison which is a red flag. Another one seems to be the fact that these Keep votes aren't trying to explain why they should be kept and just say they want it. HawkAussie (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is a
WP:REVENGE nomination - the threat to disrupt Wikipedia is made by User:Malo95 here. Wm335td (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 00:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a
WP:UNDUE problems, but which still hold encyclopedic content. Also, nomination was almost certainly disruptive. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2020 (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. The copyright of the image can and should be discussed elsewhere. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lafferty

Michael Lafferty (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 relies mostly, if not entirely, on self-published sources or sources with a close connection to one of the subject's companies.
Three of the eight references are marked as "dead links", yet even these lead to websites with links to the subject.
The first reference leads to the Financial Times (subject is described as a "Financial Times journalist"). The second reference (dead) leads to lafferty.com (subject is described as "Chairman of Lafferty Group"). The third reference (also dead) leads to OMFIF's website (subject is described as "co-chairman of Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF)". The fifth reference leads to the Wincott Foundation and is used as a source linking the subject to ... the Wincott Foundation. The sixth reference is lafferty.com again (subject founded this Lafferty Group in 1981, the current Wikipedia page claims). The seventh reference leads to the OMFIF's website again (subject was "involved in the formation of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF)", the current Wikipedia page claims. The eighth reference (dead) follows the claim that "In 2011, he was instrumental in setting up the International Academy of Retail Banking" so yet another company with links to the subject.
I checked to see if it was a recently created page. It is not. It has been here for more than nine years. Most edits, including all the early ones, were by User:Stuartatlafferty. This sounds like a possible employee of the Lafferty Group, one of the subject's companies. User:Stuartatlafferty has made no further edits in the past nine years and has never edited anything other than this subject. User:Stuartatlafferty also uploaded File:Michael lafferty.jpg and included a link to the Michael Lafferty Wikipedia page on the International Accounting Bulletin Wikipedia page ("International Accounting Bulletin was first launched in 1983 as a newsletter by Michael Lafferty", that page states).
A Google search leads to numerous Michael Laffertys. Ignoring Twitter, Facebook, etc, all I can find that possibly relates to this one is this (written though by a Michael Lafferty, so not independent) and The Irish Times, which has only this. Gaois (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. It fascinates me how this one avoided scrutiny for so long. —
Canadian} 00:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 12:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that File:Michael lafferty.jpg is tagged as "a candidate to be copied to Wikimedia Commons". I don't know if this should be allowed to occur or if the file should be deleted too? It won't be used if the article is deleted and it is unclear if User:Stuartatlafferty is, as claimed, "the copyright holder of this work" (the seniority of the employee or their ability to access such a photo is unclear and in the metadata section of the file the author is described as "unknown"). But someone with more knowledge than me might see to that. --Gaois (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2020 (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. Some of the discussion goes a bit off the tracks, but there is pretty solid consensus that she meets the guidelines. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerstin Emhoff

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

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

WP:NOTINHERITED from her exhusband or her exhusband's second wife. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Minor edits were made for clarification. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reasoned analysis for deletion. A documentary producer with an extensive resume of productions. Her most production, "AKA Jane Roe" was widely and internationally reviewed. The nom's implicit argument, that a woman whose ex-spouse is notable should be presumed non-notable and there is no need to evaluate her work, is just an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is the reason. What sources mention her in significant depth per GNG? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't be disingenuous, Muboshgu. You altered your nomination statement to address my objections (not very convincingly), and to make it look like I had ignored your statement. That's simply unacceptable behavior, as a user of more than 15 years experience well knows, no less an admin. And you've plainly done jack spit to comply with WP:BEFORE. Emhoff's most recent production, "aka Jane Roe," has been widely covered nationally and internationally, including four pieces (two news, two editorial) in the NYTimes alone. Other work has won, inter alia, a national Emmy award. A creative professional is notable principally for creating significant work, and you've done exactly nothing to assess the significance of Emhoff's work. Exactly nothing. And there's certainly a flurry of coverage of Emhoff this week, saying things like "Kerstin Emhoff co-founded a produciton company that works to elevate a diversity of voices. Prettybird, houses directors that are making bold statements and produces progressive content that helps move conversations forward. She also founded a non-profit called Pipelines which is a "mobile discovery app and Foundation" that aims to help people from underrepresented communities break through social barriers to success." [26]

And, again, you've done jack spit to evaluate this or any coverage. All you've done is say "This woman's ex-spouse is notable, so I'm going to assume she only "inherits" notability through him, and even though her work has much more recognition than his, and looks to be more significant, I'm going to dismiss it out of hand." That's not the attitude I'd associate with someone here to build an encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change the intent of what was said. All I did was add to the explanation of "Not notable", by which I meant doesn't pass GNG, and mention more specifically who she'd inherit notability from. I should have declared those changes though and have now done so. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She appears to have a significant body of work independent from her connection to her ex-husband. Moncrief (talk)

Delete Absolute nonsense. Obviously fails
talk) 06:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as exec producing prizeworthy works is no mean feat. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:GNG, as the only coverage is either passing mentions or unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets or exceeds
WP:AUTHOR#3, based on production noted by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that
WP:NOTINHERITED means that being related to a famous person precludes individual notability. pburka (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOTINHERITED is a factor. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The page may have been created because of her recent proximity to fame, but that's irrelevant to notability. The very first version of the article included the fact that she's an award winning filmmaker: that wasn't addressed in either the original or revised deletion rationale. Recently there have been several AFDs for relatives of famous people with equally vague rationales, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odessa Grady Clay (3rd nomination). pburka (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ties to AUTHOR#3 or CREATIVE#1 seem really weak to me. It is unclear what she has actually done on those projects where she got a producer credit. Getting a producer credit isn't an NFILM criretia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad. It appears that every individual connected to Kamala – even tangentially – is automatically notable now that she might be VP. Her mailman is getting an article soon, along with her first boyfriend and personal physician.
talk) 17:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Kamala stuff shows up on top of searches but if you search for "Kerstin Emhoff" + producer or "Kerstin Emhoff" + Prettybird she clearly meets
WP:CREATIVE #1, heading a Cannes Lion jury,[27] on the advisory board for Ava DuVernay's EEF project,[28] quoted by NPR,[29], etc.[30] etc.[31] HouseOfChange (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

delete per nom and after reviewing the sources, this is pretty coatracky and the sourcing is very weak. Praxidicae (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources aren't great, but passes
WP:GNG. - Scarpy (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply when the subject has independent notability. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Not the best article, sounds to some extent like PrettyBird publicity release. But – if kept – the article can be improved. Kerstin Emhoff is notable as a woman executive in the entertainment industry. With a few exceptions like Mary Pickford, a founder of United Artists, women have been absent from the highest levels of management in the entertainment industry until very recently. Wikipedians must not impair the future value of Wikipedia by over-zealously pruning the buds of articles about the current generation of women managers in this increasingly important industry. Paugus (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –
WP:CREATIVE).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment – note that same nominator also AfD the article about her former husband
Douglas Emhoff. That's been considered several times already in the past year, most recently resulting in a speedy keep.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Muboshgu and DemonDays64 are the same person? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DemonDays64 nominated it for deletion the second time, Muboshgu the first time. P-K3 (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the divorced wife of the husband of a Vice-Presidential candidate doesn't cancel out
WP:GNG. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep. Kirstin Emhoff is a respected film producer and woman executive who co-founded prettybird and has won significant awards. Women executives are all too scarce in the entertainment industry, and those who make their mark there should be remembered, not written off or disregarded. Her page should not be suddenly deleted just because her husband's second wife, Kamala Harris, has been selected as a vice-presidential candidate. Kamala herself, a friend of Kerstin's, has credited Kerstin with supporting her. Why should Kerstin's biography, which was previously included, suddenly be deleted? It should not. [prettybird.co]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLorrinR (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the coverage does indeed seem to be in relation to her ex-husband rather than her, but she appears to meet WP:CREATIVE as the recipient of an Emmy award.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on her Emmy she passes
WP:ANYBIO Wm335td (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_August_14&oldid=975214935"

[1] ISBN 978-0-444-59425-9, retrieved 2020-08-06 {{citation}}: |last2= has generic name (help
)

[2] ISBN 978-0-444-63771-0
, retrieved 2020-08-06

[3] ISSN 0705-3797
.

[1]

[2]

[3]

Lord Bolingbroke

talk

22:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

reply