Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 August	18 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 Tring-Albania. Consensus is that the article shouldn't exist as is. No reason why it can't be redirected to its parent article -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tring Tring[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 21:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lacks WP:GNG. 1989 (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't speak Albanian, so trying to find additional sources would be a bit difficult for me to understand, but I wasn't able to find any sources at a cursory glance. Haing a read over the applicable inclusion guideline WP:BROADCAST, it states "Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes". This article does state that original content is produced, in section Tring_Tring#Original_Products so it may meet this criteria for inclusion. An article exists on the parent company that operates the channel, Tring-Albania. If nothing else, this article should be redirected there. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Morgado[edit]

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

Voice actor that does not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. Pichpich (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. does not meet requirements for notability. Alex-h (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 21:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrus Coonrod[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, in a city not large enough to hand its city councillors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2. As always, city councillors are automatically presumed notable only in internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto or London, but Chattanooga is not in that class — rather, it is in the lower tier of cities where a councillor qualifies for a Wikipedia article only if she can be referenced to a depth and range and volume of coverage that makes her much, much more special than most other city councillors. The fact that some local media coverage happens to exist in her local media market does not automatically get a city councillor in the door, because every city councillor in every city can always show some evidence of local media coverage in their own local media market. The notability test for a city councillor is that her notability nationalizes well beyond just her local media market, not just that some local media coverage exists in her own city where it's merely expected to exist. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable city council member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Drever[edit]

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

Very well written article, but the subject simply doesn't meet WP:GNG, nor does he meet WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969: Hello and thank you for your advice, I am still learning! Can the article page just be removed from these categories rather than deleted altogether? If it is seen as too incomplete can it be moved 'back' into a DRAFT ARTICLE status instead. The notability of Scottish working class volunteers in the Spanish Civil War such as George Drever is referenced elsewhere and others can find more supporting materials, or I can when back in action (but not this coming 7 days however, due to other commitments). Help and advice is much appreciated. Other editors who have advised me can help steer? Kaybeesquared (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969: Added two book citations to the page. Does this mean deletion can now be postponed? Kaybeesquared (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969: Added two book citations to the page. Does this mean deletion can now be postponed? Kaybeesquared (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kaybeesquared - As I said on your talk page, don't let this AfD discourage you, you're doing fine work. Rarely do I feel as bad when I nominate a page for deletion as I did when making this one. It's a very nice article. Let's see what other editors think about the notability of the subject. My fear is that while there are mentions of him, there isn't the type of in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, and he definitely doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. The additional citations are fine, but I don't feel that they meet the notability criteria. However, I am far from infallible, so a I said, let's wait to hear from other editors.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969: Thank you for your generous teaching - I am not familiar with the edit source language formats yet; so apologies for causing you extra work. Hopefully this comment is correctly drafted. One of the challenges re 'Scottish working class' notable people who put their life on the line for a cause, is they are to be ignored by rest of the world? As you say, we have to see what other editors do or say on the matter. I will look for other sources but cannot do more until about three weeks from now due to commitments externally.

Once again thanks for taking time out to assist a newbie!

Kaybeesquared (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets WP:GNG with WP:RSs. The person died prior to the age of the internet, however good coverage from secondary sources exists. Herald Scotland and Scotsman In addition, books also refer to this person. Like: The Scottish Soldier Abroad WP:ATD Wm335td (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as the sources currently in the article (and the creator has added many since it was nominated for AfD), there are contemporary newspaper reports available in the digitised British Newspaper Archive. His talks before and after he fought in Spain are reported (he gave a series of talks in 1934 on "Revolutions or Revolts"), and of course there were reports of him being missing and then being held prisoner, which have biographical information in them too (he was the eldest son, apparently). I will be happy to add them to the article. There are certainly enough sources to meet WP:GNG (and there is also WP:BASIC, which does not appear needed in this case, but says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.") RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the extra resources @RebeccaGreen:as I began the article to help us to flush out further materials, because Drever is a notable example of educated working class who contributed to scientific research and also to further philosophical/ethical/political causes such as communism, anti-facism in his case but these people can be ignored by the traditional media, making secondary sources difficult to find.

However Drever is referenced in various IB materials and quoted by other Scottish Volunteers to the International Brigade in their personal histories, which can be added to the article as supportive evidence.

Kaybeesquared (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has enough sources and meets WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan Rome[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 42 AHL games and at least 200 is required to pass #2. He was in a SJHL First All-Star Team but that league does not qualify to pass #3 and so he fails that too. Tay87 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making an ECHL's team wall of honor does meet any notability criteria. There's no evidence he meets WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete clever hoax — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Westman (writer)[edit]

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

Superficially plausible but seems to be a clever WP:HOAX. To the extent I was able to look up the sources cited, they did not check out. Ref no 1, Burke, is available online in searchable form [1]. A search or "Westman" there does produce a single mention but it does not seem to be this one. Ref no 4, "The Old Boys: The Decline and Rise of the Public School", is available with a preview in Google Books.[2]. There is no mention of Westman in the book and nothing on pp. 125-126 given in Ref no. 4. Similarly, Ref no 6 "Entitled: A Critical History of the British Aristocracy"[3] is available in Google Books with a preview and does not contain any mention of Westman. The article claims that the subject was sworn as a member of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom in 1938, at the tender age of 31. The claim also sounds ridiculous. Not surprisingly, nothing about Westman in List of Privy Counsellors (1936–52) or in the sources used for the Privy Council appointment announcements such as the London Gazette [4]. Google searching of various kinds produces nothing of substance except various mirrors leading back to Wikipedia. The situation is similar with the companion page, Edwin Westman. Maybe I am completely barking up the wrong tree here, but to me this pair of articles appears to be a coordinated hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, as discussed above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some of the details relate to Kenneth Edwin Westman 1907-1964 but not all the facts fit. K E Westman was born in Penllyn/Cowbridge, South Wales on 2 Feb 1907 but his father was not "Edwin Westman", he was the son of William James Westman and Beatrice (nee Branch) Westman. Kenneth appears with his mother in the 1911 Census at Kilburn in London (she was born in London) but by 1912 he started at Pennline School in Cowbridge, Glamorganshire. In 1935 Kenneth is described as an Accountant and in 1937 as an "Observer". He did marry a "Jean Felicia Bedworth" in Lisbon, Portugal. The 1939 Register list Kenneth at 3 Upper Park Road in Hampstead and he is described as "Secretary - Accountant Statistician Linguist", he is described as married but his wife is not at home but his sister-in-law Margaret Caroline Bedworth a Teacher is living in the same house (His wife was in Durham with her parents). Kenneth died in 1964 in Kensington. His wife Jean died on Oxfordshire in 2003. Jean was the daughter of Bertam Bedworth (1878-1940) and Edith Emily (nee Dixon). Bertram's occupation is listed as "Chief Rate Fixer Electrical Engineering" in 1939. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entry appears to be the result of some dodgy genealogical research which is not born out by sources. I think we may have a bit of 2+2=5 stuff going on. Some of the info points to this being Kenneth Edwin Westman but a lot of the facts appear to be bogus. In fact all that can be proved is that he was born in 1907, died in 1964 and married Jean Bedworth. MilborneOne (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Edwin Westman - cant find any evidence that Edwin Westman as described exists (I can only find two Edwin's in late 19th Century one was a poultry farmer in Nottinghamshire and another was a "Piece Maker" in Bradford both appear to have died in the First World War. MilborneOne (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thank you for looking into this carefully, much appreciated! Nsk92 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per MilborneOne....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I got a copy of the book "Entitled: A Critical History of the British Aristocracy" (listed as a source in both articles) from Amazon. No mention of either Westman there, including on pp. 33–35, 141, 399–402. Pages 33–35 deal with pre-Norman conquest England. Page 141 deals with the events of early 17-th century. Pages 400–402 are a part of the Index. Nsk92 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Thermosphere Murders[edit]

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

Non-notable novel written with lots of Wp:PROMO Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daramad (surname)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No notable individuals with the surname. The listed individuals do not have Wikipedia articles attached to them. None of the sources attached are reliable. Fails WP:NNAME. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NNAME. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not a dabpage (no links), and not an article. No links offered to keep. WP:TNT it until actual links exist. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Daramad is a family name that is named after Iranian cities of Khuzestan and Tehran. Of course, Daramad is an Iranian music album by Hossein Alizadeh and Hossein Omidi as well as Shajarian. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hossein.income (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Hossein.income (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
- Forebears has been deemed an unreliable source per this discussion. Also, this is basically repeating the sources that are already on the page, which does not add to the issue at all. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no notable people with this surname. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete Please do not delete this article This article is about a family name This family name is used in Iran and most of its ancestors reside in Khuzestan territory. I have mentioned only two people in the list of people due to research and news sources Both chess players are born in Khuzestan province. Their sources are also mentioned. This surname is also used in Fars provinces of Tehran and North Khorasan and Sistan and Baluchestan.
Family name resources:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]
You can see the country and cities using this last name by visiting forebears.io and zooming in on the map.
News sources mentioning the names of people in the article: The people I mentioned in the article are both open chess players in Khuzestan province and Khuzestan Irna news websites and yjc.ir have also mentioned them. ^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14] Please read the references

^ "daramad surnames forebears.io".
^ "Persian Submitted Surnames - Behind the Name". surnames.behindthename.com. Retrieved 2019-08-18.
^ "Daramad - Ancestry.com". www.ancestry.com. Retrieved 2019-08-18.
^ "What is the meaning of Narge, the name Narge means, Narge stands for". thenamesdictionary.com. Retrieved 2019-08-18.
^ "Daramad last name world density map". surname.world. Retrieved 2019-08-18.
^ mazandaran.yjc.ir https://mazandaran.yjc.ir/fa/news/4721477/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%B4%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%AC%E2%80%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA-%DA%A9%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C. Retrieved 2019-08-18. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "بانوي شطرنج باز دزفولي به مسابقات قهرماني كشور اعزام مي شود". irna.ir.
^ "بانوي شطرنج باز دزفولي به مسابقات قهرماني كشور اعزام مي شود". irna.ir.
^ ""بانوی شطرنج باز دزفولی به مسابقات قهرمانی کشور اعزام شد – پایگاه اطلاع رسانی اداره ورزش و جوانان شهرستان دزفول".
^ ""ندا درآمد" شهروند نابینای دزفولی در شطرنج افتخار آفرین شد". IranWire | خانه (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-08-18.
^ ""ندا درآمد" شهروند نابینای دزفولی در شطرنج افتخار آفرین شد". IranWire | خانه (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-08-18.
^ "اعزام شطرنج‌باز نابینای آبادانی به مسابقات کشور". www.khouznews.ir. Retrieved 2019-08-18.
^ "Daramad, Narges FIDE Chess Profile - Players Arbiters Trainers". ratings.fide.com. Retrieved 2019-08-18.
^ "حضور بانوان شطرنج‌باز خوزستاني در مسابقات كم‌بينايان و نابينايان كشور". web.archive.org. 2019-07-11. Retrieved 2019-08-18.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hossein.income (talk • contribs) 2019-08-18 10:33:34 (UTC)

- More specifically, this is about your family name. ☺ Avoid the temptation to do this sort of thing. Uncle G (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the above names are notable. Just mentioned by some local sources. Deleted at Persian Wikipedia.Farhikht (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not the way to do this. It isn't a disambiguation, because it does not disambiguate anything. It isn't even at the correct title for such a disambiguation, which would be Daramad, that currently does not exist. Roughly half the sources cited are about some people, and are irrelevant. The other half just seem to be picked for their URLs, without reading what they are at all. One, for example, outright says that it contains no information at all on the surname. Then there are the citations of Wiktionary, aggregators of Wikipedia and other content that masquerade as informational WWW sites, user-submitted WWW pages that were suspiciously user-submitted around the time that this page was created, and (quite bizarrely) an Encyclopaedia Iranica article that isn't about anything mentioned in the article at all. Then there's the infobox that lists a set of geographic locations as a gender. This is a non-article non-disambiguation mess. None of this is helpful in writing a proper article or a proper disambiguation. Uncle G (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning here as this is yet another attempt for this user to spam themselves xwiki. Praxidicae (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atike Sultan (daughter of Ibrahim)[edit]

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

No source, name mentioned by Uluçay only to say it comes from a mistake by Alderson (who anyway does not give so much details). Possible fictional (pseudo)history. Phso2 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Phso2 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Fictional she is not; she's mentioned by name here and here, making me think it's not unlikely that better sources exist somewhere. I'm not able to find them, though, so delete, at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Atike mentionned in these sources is "as sister of Murad IV" i.e. a daughter of Ahmed I. She actually has an article (Atike Sultan (daughter of Ahmed I).--Phso2 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mayuren Naidoo[edit]

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

Unremarkable filmmaker with thee original creator of the article believed to be the subject themselves. No reliable refs found relating to subject's "projects" could be found. Nightfury 17:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 17:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 17:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitavada[edit]

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

I came across this newspaper after reading this front page of the newspaper on reddit. it's pretty clear that this newspaper has no standards but that's not relevant to the deletion discussion. It seems that the article was written by a paid agent, specially the "Copyright" section. Article fails WP:NMEDIA. Also: the creator of this article is User talk:Pankajmohod, who happens to be working for Hitavada at the time and only article he has edited is this one. He hasn't edited for a long time though, and now works for TOI. I now understand why TOI has degraded so much. TryKid (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The newspaper passes NMEDIA. Established in pre-independence area, the newspaper has been used as source in various books like Changing political leadership in an Indian province: the Central Provinces and Berar, 1919-1939, Oxford University Press, 1979, Gandhi and Civil Disobedience Movement, Gitanjali Pub. House, 1985, Untouchable Pasts, SUNY Press, 1998, The Adivasis of Chhattisgarh, Asian Centre for Human Rights, 2006, Economy, society & politics in modern India, Vikas Publications, 1985, Reverence, Resistance and Politics of Seeing the Indian National Flag, Cambridge University Press, 2016, Provincial Legislatures and the National Movement, Northern Book Centre, 1991. The paper was part of Servants of India Society, founded by Gopal Krishna Gokhale. The paper's editorial positions have been held by Banwarilal Purohit, A D Mani. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep while notability is not inherited, rest of the rationale by Dharmadhyaksha is correct. Even according to background check performed by me, the subject passes WP:NMEDIA. Although creation by SPA COI is disappointing. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above analysis, meets WP:NMEDIA. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burning in Water Gallery[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. No SIGCOV. Only incidental mention in the provided references, could only find announcements in web search. No notability established. Rogermx (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a tiny bit of in-depth coverage (e.g. the SF Chronicle article), but it is not enough. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Plumbing[edit]

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

A local run-of-the-mill company, there is some local coverage, mainly related to a lawsuit. Let us discuss whether it raises to the sufficient notability level. Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources are not reliable and/or feature only trivial coverage. I do not believe the lawsuit alone would constitute sufficient notability per WP:ILLCON and WP:SUSTAINED. - Scio c (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provide substantive coverage beyond routine local news. Reywas92^Talk 06:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand how a page that has legitimate news sources discussing them can be deleted. I get it if I were submitting personal or company blogs, press releases, industry rags, etc. but legitimate news seems to be valid. This company, as an example, made national news with the super bowl and does tremendous goodwill locally. You're fine to remove the link to the site, as that seems to be something you all are having issues with, but don't act like KOMO, KXRO, Crime Stoppers, Fox News (local), Seattle Times, Houston Chronicle, and more are not credible sources. The page is not promotional in any sense, it actually calls attention to their lawsuit in the past. I'm fine if someone has issues with a page, but tell people how to improve it or what you'd like see removed to make it acceptable, in lieu of just keeping all these decisions in-house to the power editors. There are literally countless commerical businesses with Wiki pages, so that argument is out the window. There are countless pages on Wiki that go back on forth on prominence, but for this state this company is very widely known and big, no different than anything else on Wiki. It's just frustrating that 4 months after the case and adding more new citations from valid sources you just email saying it's slated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPlayNiceWithOthers (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First step to understanding is to read our guidelines and policies. Companies/organization fall under WP:NCORP guidelines. The criteria for notability can be boiled down to a simple concept - someone, somwhere, wrote an in-depth piece which contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and it was published in a suitable publication. That's it. The fall-out from this is that while "legitimate news sources" may tick the box on "suitable publication", if they simply interview someone *connected* with the business (CEO, investor, customer, etc) and not provide any independent analysis/comments/fact-checking on the company, then it fails as a suitable reference. It is that simple. If you can find at least two references that you believe meet the criteria, then all of the Delete !voters will probably change their minds if they agree. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshwari[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing notable. Lacks encyclopaedic value.

Western equivalent would be creating specific articles for generic surnames such as "Betts" or "Martinez" or "Devers". —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 15:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have surname articles Betts, Martínez (surname), Dever, plus all of Lists of most common surnames. Some are simply dab pages linking to notable people with that name, other go more in-depth into name origins etc. There is significant coverage (e.g. here). ----Pontificalibus 15:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is not a surname article but rather a community, another among the thousands of castes/tribes recognised in India. So don't get too hung up on the surname stuff. They will pass GNG as a community - plenty of sources as noted by Pontificalibus, at least some of which are reliable. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sitush... Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had just started adding names of people and places to that article, but Sitush has just informed me that that should not be done. It appears that at least some of the sources found in a search for "Maheshwaris" in Google books are about people called Maheshwari, not about the caste (this source [12], for example, is about one particular family - Ashok and Arun Maheshwari and Arun's wife Ameeta Maheshwari). If there is enough significant coverage about the use of this as a sub-caste name, then I would encourage Sitush to write an article, otherwise I don't see why this should not just be explained in the article Bania (caste), which supposedly they are a sub-caste of, but which does not mention them at all (it is also a stub). RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Actually, I do think that this should be merged into Bania (caste). If it is a sub-caste of that caste, then that article should have information about it. It currently has nothing, and it is also a stub. The sources I saw in the Google Books search show discussion of this sub-caste with the other sub-castes, leading me to think that WP:NOPAGE may apply. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – RebeccaGreen, Maheshwari is an ambiguous term, and merging/redirecting it anywhere doesn't seem like a good idea. People typing the term may actually want to search one of the biographies with this (sur)name. So we should either expand it as a caste article (provided it has received enough coverage in reliable sources) or just convert it into a surname/DAB page: there are at least 15 biographies with this surname. In short, the page should be kept in one form or another. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NitinMlk, as I mentioned above, I started adding names of places and people to this article - ie, converting it into a surname/DAB page. Sitush reverted those changes, and said that names of people should not be on the same page as the name of a caste/sub-caste (there is apparently a policy about this - Sitush directed me to WP:BLP, which however includes nothing about castes). That is why I suggest merging to the caste article. Otherwise, I would agree that the article should be kept. But I am aware that I know nothing about Wikipedia practice regarding articles about castes, so I am really going on the basis that we have at least two related stub articles (presumably others, if there are other sub-castes), and until they are developed to the extent that they become too long for one article, I see no reason to have separate articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I directed you to User:Sitush/Common#Castelists, which in turn has a partial basis in WP:BLP. Give me 24 hours or so and I will expand the article. As much as I am trying to avoid more than a few edits a day at the moment, I'll make the effort. I realise that you are unfamiliar with the topic area, so no worries. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, there is a long-standing consensus that BLPs should be connected with a particular caste/clan only if they self-identify with it, e.g. see this discussion. But at the same time, most of the South Asian surname lists contain these caste/clan mentions. In fact, Sitush himself solved the BLP-related problem by introducing a particular sentence in those lists, e.g. see Tandon.

Anyway, Sitush will fix it in one way or another. But I am listing here the people with this particular surname, just in case. :)

alphabetical list of people

Notable people who bear the surname and may or may not be associated with the sub-caste include

- NitinMlk (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it now. If someone wants also to create a disambiguation page then that's fine by me. Other things to go in it would include the Dalit Maheshwaris mentioned in the article (redirect to Meghwal), the names listed above and Maheshvari. I think RebeccaGreen found a bunch of placenames, too. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great! NitinMlk (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Now that Sitush has expanded the single-line stub into an informative article, this seems fine as a standalone caste article. And one can create a separate surname list under the title of Maheshwari (surname), along with creating a Maheshwari (disambiguation) page to list the above article and all other similar pages. But that's not directly relevant to this AfD. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep mostly per Sitush's original vote, also per the later developments that took place during this discussion. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, it is now an informative and well-sourced article. (I admit to being a little confused as to why people who adopted the name Maheshwari out of devotion to Shiva should mainly practise Vaishnavism rather than Shaivism, though!) If no one else creates a DAB page, I may have a go. If I do, I will ping you to check that it is OK and in line with community consensus. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, I am confused about that Vaishnaivite thing, too, but various sources say it. I note that the Maheshvari article exists and is presumably connected in some way but it is of a very poor standard and the deeper complexities of Hindu deism go beyond my sphere of knowledge. Similarly, the Shiva article should cover it. There is another oddity but it is one I will raise on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, kudos to Sitush for improvements, just wondering why this even came to afd as, at the very least, it could have been made into a disambiguation page/"List of people with Maheshwari surname"? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Though the discussion is long and messy, ultimately evidence of coverage in multiple reliable independent sources has been provided and not convincingly refuted. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kimball Atwood[edit]

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

Passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPROF. gnu 57 14:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete associate editors of a journal do not pass academic notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert Being an associate editor is not evidence of non-notability. In fact, many associate editors do pass academic notability guidelines, through other activities than their editorship. The associate editorship seems here a small part of the article. Why did you single it out in your comment? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - HA! I was wondering the same thing David Eppstein - an odd thing to say. Sgerbic (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. That's my ivote, and a prediction. He is perfectly notable -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources I can check many (most?) appear to be primary, and the rest seem to either not mention Atwood or a trivial mentions in articles not actually about him.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Google Scholar lists two highly-cited publications by Kimball C. Atwood but with a date of 1951; I think they're likely by a relative of the subject rather than the subject himself. If Atwood has any notability it appears to be through his skepticism of others rather than his own works as a physician. But although I can find various skeptic blog posts about him, I'm having difficulty finding reliably-published and in-depth sources about him, which we would need for WP:GNG notability. His Institute for Science in Medicine page is in-depth but not independent, so that doesn't count. The page announcing that is a Fellow of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry [13] (despite being insufficient for WP:PROF#C3) probably does count as independent of him and in-depth, though. So that's one. But we need more than that, and I didn't find it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Kimball C. Atwood publishing in 1951 is probably his father, who seems wiki-notable in his own right [14][15]. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this Atwood is not the same as the grapefruit one or the genetics one, both of whom appear likely notable. gnu 57 23:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: I am beginning to doubt whether the Center for Skeptical Inquiry bio is entirely independent, because it is quite similar to non-independent ones: for instance, it includes the line
He is particularly concerned with implausible claims being promoted, tacitly or otherwise, by medical schools and government, and by the ethics of human trials of such claims.
, while the Science-Based Medicine one says
He is particularly concerned with implausible claims being promoted, tacitly or otherwise, by medical schools and government. He is also dubious about the ethics of human trials of such claims.
and the naturowatch one says
Dr. Atwood is especially concerned with the extent to which influential medical institutions -- among them medical schools, respected journals, and the National Institutes of Health -- have tolerated and even embraced highly implausible health theories and practices.
Cheers, gnu 57 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't it quite common for an organization to lift language describing someone's background from another site? For example, I've seen bios for invited speakers where part of the description of their background is lifted almost verbatim from the Wikipedia article about them. This doesn't necessarily show lack of independence of the organization. NightHeron (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this article to pass WP:GNG, it needs to contain external sources of information on Atwood. Regardless of what organisation is publishing the description, if the content is lifted almost verbatim from a promotional profile or self-written material, it is not independent/external. (I agree that invited speaker and "about the author" blurbs generally don't count towards notability.) Cheers, gnu 57 13:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The notability comes from recognition of Atwood as a "Fellow" by the Center for Skeptical Inquiry, but that can be questioned if the CSI is not an independent organization. I'm suggesting that the fact that part of the content of the CSI bio of Atwood was lifted from a non-independent source does not show CSI's lack of independence, and so does not diminish the significance of the recognition as a Fellow by CSI. NightHeron (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, I see what you mean. I don't think the fellowship counts towards WP:NPROF#C3, though, since it's not with "a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)". gnu 57 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm waiting to see if more shows up - but at the moment I'm leaning towards keep. This is a man that was very active in the scientific skepticism world in the past but not active lately. It is hard to hold this older generation to the same standards as someone who is active in 2019. Being a Fellow of CSI is quite notable (conflict - as so am I). I see the Chicago Tribune and Nature reached out to him about his work against chelation therapy - that's notable. Also he gave testimony to the Massachusetts Legislature - that's very notable. His career as a doctor is not what gives him notability, but his expertise as a doctor has allowed him to be a notable critic of alt-med. Lets see if others can give us some more, but as I say I'm leaning to keep. Sgerbic (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently in Massachusetts anyone who wants to can submit testimony to the state legislature.[16] Atwood did so in 2003 not on his own behalf, but as a representative of the Massachusetts Medical Society. According to their website, "MMS officers frequently offer testimony and/or legal perspectives to state and federal officials on issues relevant to Massachusetts physicians and their patients." (Atwood was chair of the MMS "Committee on Quality of Medical Practice" in 2003). There are a large number of testimonies archived on the MMS site, either uncredited or delivered by professionals who do not appear Wikipedia-notable. The society presented naturopathy-related testimonies with very similar wording in 2013 and 2015, without crediting Atwood. gnu 57 23:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Sgerbic: Since the notability question seems to be borderline, it would be helpful to know whether or not Atwood was perceived as a leader in the scientific skepticism world. For example, how would he compare with Steven Novella, Marcia Angell, and Edzard Ernst, all of whom deservedly have wikipedia pages? NightHeron (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great question - but I don't know how to compare these people fairly. Novella and Ernst are considered the top of the top in the scientific skepticism community. I had not heard of Angell before reading her Wikipedia page right now, sounds like a pretty amazing person. Atwood seems to be behind many important organizations, and also writes for Skeptical Inquirer and Science Based Medicine - both considered RS - he is an important part of the time when the Internet as far as scientific skepticism was finding its feet, publishing and doing activism concerning CAM. If I had to think of him in the terms you mention, I would say Stephen Barrett, Barry Beyerstein or maybe James Alcock. Not so much a "leader" but more of someone who was behind getting things started and keeping things running. I wasn't around at the time that he was active with his activism concerning CAM. Reading over what he did concerning the Massachusetts Legislature and his writings, I think he is plenty notable. Thanks for the question. Sgerbic (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons Sgerbic gave. His criticism is seen. By the Chicago Tribune, by Nature, by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, by the people he criticizes, ... --mfb (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great find - I had not seen that before Even more interesting as that critic also mentions Beyerstein and I just mentioned him above. Sgerbic (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultimately, we don't keep or delete articles based on the perceived significance of the subjects, but on the ability we have to write independently about them. Atwood seems like a great figure, but if the indendent sources don't exist - and if we have no evidence that they do exist, even if they are hard to find - then we can't write an article. That said, I'll keep looking, as maybe there is something more we can use, and I'm happy to change if the sources turn up. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons in Sgerbic's comments and answer to my question. Atwood seems to have been recognized as an important figure in the debate by both the skeptics and the alt-medists, as well as by publications covering the debate. NightHeron (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Visible enough that it's in the public interest that we write about who this person is; documented enough that we can provide a biographical baseline. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found any additional sources with third-party biographical coverage? gnu 57 23:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may be biased since I did the rewrite for Atwood. Part of the problem may be my inexperience as a wiki editor. After reading the criteria of notability, I see I used quite a bit of primary sources instead of secondary sources. I am used to writing about science information where primary sources are important. I went back and found 52 entries of secondary sources ranging from CNN, NBC news, USA Today, CBC Canada, Chicago Tribune, QZ.com, Forbes, Psychology Today, theaustralian.com, spiegel.de, researchgate, medscape, Center for Inquiry, Science in medicine, Nature, and multiple science blogs, and a few alt-med sites. I am willing to edit the page to include these secondary sources. Here is a list of the secondary sources I found: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User:CarlosXing/sandbox/atwood-secondary-sources CarlosXing (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of your links that I spot-checked looked like either blogs (not usually reliable) or stories in reliable sources that merely quoted Atwood rather than including in-depth material about Atwood. Sources like that do not count towards notability. Could you possibly make a trimmed list of the sources that you think should count in this way? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Founding Fellow Board of Director for the Institute for Science in Medicine, that therefore would not be an Independent source.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein , I updated the list of secondary sources and categorized it to make it easier to see. Finding secondary source bios on Atwood is difficult. Naturopaths definitely know Atwood's criticisims.CarlosXing (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still did not distinguish news sources that mention or quote him from news sources that provide in-depth information about him. Unless maybe there are none of the latter? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, thank you for keeping me on my toes. I removed a duplicated AP article. I sorted the news articles with what I think is the best ones on top. I do note the news articles covering the ethical issues on a single study range over an 8 year period from 2008 to 2016. One final comment not covered directly in the news but should be part of the equation. Atwood is no longer active, but proponents of alt-med continue to defend themselves from his criticisms as I pointed out in my comment below. CarlosXing (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gary Null is an alternative medicine proponent. In his most recent show notes on August 19, 2019, Null is rather critical of scientific skepticism. However, he recognizes Atwood as one of the leaders against alternative medicine. "At a glance many of its contributing authors are familiar to Quackwatch and SBM blog readers, notably Kimball Atwood, the co-founder of Barrett’s National Council Against Health Fraud William Jarvis and Wallace himself." and "It is also worth noting that SRAM editorial administration operated out of the leading Skeptic organization Center for Inquiry through which all subscription and press inquiries were directed. Stephen Barrett, Wallace Sampson, Steven Novella, Kimball Atwood and David Gorski are all leading celebrities in the Center, especially its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry."CarlosXing (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Null does mention Atwood, but he doesn't provide substantive information about him beyond calling him a celebrity of skepticism. gnu 57 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance is there in whether or not Null gives "substantive information about him"? The fact that a prominent opponent of skepticism calls Atwood a "celebrity" of skepticism is certainly evidence of notability. Null isn't being used as a source for the article, except in providing evidence of notability. NightHeron (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone actually pay attention to the timing of Null's podcast cited here?--TMCk (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As established int he article, Attwood is a significant figure in the growth of the medical skeptic community - a "notable figure in science and skepticism" to quote the Center for Inquiry. This meets GNG quite handily. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:GNG: Atwood hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All the sources in the article are written by him, closely connected with him, or mention him in passing. gnu 57 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reviewing the recent changes and reading others comments I'm going to vote Keep. The Gary Null comment was what tipped me over, notability can be established in many ways, including being recognized by notable critics. Null being one. Sgerbic (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen that criterion used before - does that mean that every pseupscience proponent that is openly recognized by a notable critic deserves an article? I don't see this working as a standard. - Bilby (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the slippery slope argument Bilby, of course not. There is more than that. But generally people are made notable by their peers and detractors who are also notable. When you are notable and you recognize someone else as notable then you have the makings of a peer. People like Chopra and Null criticize people all the time, but they rarely mention them by name. Even more rarely they write about them, when they do then we should take note also. Here is one way I explain notability to people who are unaware of how this works, I say imagine that something odd has happened in the world, like suddenly we see a sea monster crawling along the beach. The media will reach out to someone to explain, the more notable the media the more likely they will call in a expert. They name that person as a expert. The more that person is recognized as a expert and more interviews are done and more articles written about that expert, and then notable critics write about why they have taken issue with that expert then it raises their nobility. Plus that sea monster event will probably get a Wikipedia page. Sgerbic (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing two separate things. We don't create articles about people because they are experts, or because they have been criticised by name. We create articles about people because reliable sources have "taken note" of them sufficient for use to create an NPOV article. What you are arguing is that being important ("notable" in non-Wikipedia terms) in some way is enough to warrant an article, but that has never been what notability on WP was about. Notability has always been about whether or not sufficient coverage exists, not about the subject's percieved importance. It doesn't matter how many times they are asked to comment on your sea monster - if there are insufficient non-trivial independent sources about the subject, then we can't create an article on them. - Bilby (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously it would follow that RS are being created because they are recognized as experts by notable people and notable organizations. I'm not sure why you keep splitting hairs Bilby? Can we move on now? Sgerbic (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't follow. The point of the specific notability requirements is to name situations where we can safely assume that the coverage would exist, even if we haven't found it. Nothing that has been proposed here shows that Atwood meets the specific notability requiremenst or the GNG. The mistake you seem to be making is assuming that expertise equates to sufficient coverage, and it doesn't. What we need is evidence that sufficient coverage exists, not that the subject is in some way important in the field. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep physician whose carer has had a significant, if unusual, impact.Strandvue (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Eagle Brown[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion, as the subject lacks the in-depth, independent coverage needed to meet WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR. While the article cites a number of sources, a glaring issue is that almost every source is WP:PRIMARY, as they are based on information provided by the subject, most often in the form of an interview. No source cited lodges a credible claim to encyclopedic notability, and other sources are listing/profile pages that do not provide in-depth information. In addition to this, the fact that the article was created by a blocked (initially undisclosed) paid editor and the fact the article cites sources (such as the Guardian source [17]) written by freelance journalists imply this article contradicts WP:NOTADVERTISING and Wikipedia:Notability#SPIP. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable motivational speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could have been a speedy delete. Non-notable person, promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, fails GNG Taewangkorea (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid promo by blocked acct. Agricola44 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMOTIONAL and not notable BLP DocumentError (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Works done, but it just looks like a normal day job. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 00:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chuck Tingle. As noted here, opinion pieces are not adequate evidence of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seduced By Doctor Bigfoot: Attorney At Large[edit]

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

The sources are all passing mentions of the book either in an article about the author or in 2 very similar articles about Bigfoot Porn. Does not show it meets WP:NBOOK the only references found in a before search were user generated content blogs and passing mentions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Chuck Tingle). Sources aren't proper reviews, but instead are either primary, fail independent (including interviews), or are only mentions. WP:NBOOK not satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has reliable sources such as the The New York Times, if not metge into the author's article.Ndołkah (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Ndołkah (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

The NYT article is an opinion piece, so doesn't have the independence and editorial control needed to help Nosebagbear (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the NY Times is an excellent source if I ever sawr one!Ndołkah (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the general course of things the NYT is a great source. But they also have op-eds (columns in the UK), which aren't vetted by the editor or fact-checked. As such it ceases to be a suitable source. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chuck Tingle - notablility for stand-alone article not established - Epinoia (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. czar 21:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Horror Movies[edit]

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

I can't find enough reliable sources about this footage to justify keeping an article, even if it was made by Kurt Cobain. It's not even really a home movie as such, per Live Nirvana it's a bunch of random clips recorded by 17-year-olds and never published (or intended for publication). While it's reasonable to argue that the published works of incredibly notable figures like Cobain are inherently notable, I don't think that argument extends to unpublished unreviewed experiments created in one's teenage years. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Despite being supposedly created by the very notable Cobain, there is not enough reliable sources that discuss this home video he did as a teenager to justify an article. And definitely not under this name. There are some very brief mentions of these home video clips out there, so I suppose I wouldn't be entirely opposed if it were given a very brief mention on Cobain's article. However, this particular article title is worthless as a redirect as it is A)too generic of a name to be a useful search term, B)not even an official title of the clips, just a name that was seemingly made up to describe them. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient evidence of notability for this specific coin. RL0919 (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland 1996 25 euro coin[edit]

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

This was basically a prototype coin struck to demonstrate a design. As the article says, it was never legal tender, so it's not inherently notable the way actual money is. I wasn't able to find any in-depth sources about it, so it seems like it's not particularly notable even to the coin-collecting community. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom is right in relation to a standalone article, notability isn't established. I do think there is probably a logical article to merge this into - happy to consider anything someone might suggest. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching for sources bring up a few things showing that it existed, but nothing in depth or that demonstrates why this prototype of a non-legal tender coin is notable. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Ackers[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 17 DEL games including 1 playoff game and at least 90 is needed for a goaltender to pass #2. Also has no preeminent honours to pass #3 and never played international hockey to pass #6. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY or the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Nagao[edit]

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

Is World Yo-Yo Champion really a notable award? Suggest replace with a redirect to World Yo-Yo Contest. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm actually inclined to say keep. There's no specific sports set so we default to WP:SPORTBASIC or, if we don't want to discuss the "is it like a sport" then we could consider treating it like WP:NCHESS. Ultimately, it's clearest cut to just prove GNG. Newsweek, Hawaii news now, nextshark would seem sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Improve - I agree with the previous voter that this guy has achieved basic notability thanks to some notice as yo-yo champion, though the article has no reliable citations to that effect. His music is non-notable and not (yet) worthy of being described in an encyclopedic article, though this one actually has a few weak references for his music. The article should be improved until it is the opposite of what it is now -- a description of his yo-yo championship with reliable sources and then a very brief mention of his decision to pursue music. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The music career is non-notable, but clearly being a yo-yo champion meets GNG, per coverage cited above by Nosebagbear (talk). ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R. James Breiding[edit]

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

Article created after the draft was declined by a WP:SPA, same name as the subject's book. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Nothing of interest found in a before search. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not that notable. Lefcentreright (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, non notable person. Lapablo (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHi - Thank you for your thoughts on the R. James Breiding article. I would like to advocate for keeping the article for two main reasons: 1. The subject of the article is the author of a book which has sold more than 250,000 copies and has been translated into more than 7 languages. The book has been praised by people such as Larry Summers and Paul Volcker. By any metric that is a fairly notable person. 2. There are plenty of other Wikipedia articles on people who have merely published a single book, i.e. much the same thing. If those articles are allowed, this one should be, too. R. James Breiding is the author of two books, runs a successful hedge fund which has its own Wikipedia page and is a noteable speaker at famous universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwissMade2019 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SwissMade2019: Could you please state your connection to the subject of the article. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am his personal assistant — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwissMade2019 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO as a result of creation history and sourcing. There is also a COI with SwissMade2019. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I note that whether this material is appropriate for the article about the show is a separate question from the notability of the list as a separate article, and can be discussed at Talk:List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! songs if needed. RL0919 (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! songs[edit]

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

We don't need this list that has zero sources and which songs have absolutely no notability. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:9037:D5EF:126E:4EBC (talk)

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. SD0001 (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Doesn't pass WP:GNG --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a split from a notable article due to size issues it doess not have to be independently notable. Remerging would make the parent article too large imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Whoever made the list should have deleted the content instead as cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a list of needless plot devices involving songs with obvious morals, and zero-sourced. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research, and that isn’t allowed here. 1989 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by the nominee. A reliable source has been found verifying the existence of the subject town. WP:GEOLAND applies. @SD0001: thank you for your promptness. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bathkepally[edit]

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

While there appears to be a place called "Bathkapalli" in Karimnagar district, Telangana according to Google Maps and some non-reliable websites (like this), this place is not mentioned in official census website. It is also not clear whether this is a village or smaller scale dwelling. There are no sources in the article and most content is non-encyclopedic. SD0001 (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - “According to Census 2011 information the location code or village code of Bathkepalle village is 572193” according to villageinfo.in. Mccapra (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable village of a reasonable size (see here). Care needs to be taken to avoid confusion with other places similar or identical names.----Pontificalibus 13:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: according to WP:GEOLAND, all we have to do is a find a reliable source verifying the existence of a consensus town, or legally recognised settlement. Then the population is immaterial. Google maps cant be used as a reliable source, and villageinfo.in has been decided as a non-RS by the community through an RfC. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the reference added by User:Pontificalibus. The more common spelling seems to be "Bathikepally" as per [18] (Telengana govt). The village is also available in the 2011 census [19] (state Andhra Pradesh, district Karimnagar, sub-district all) although the spelling is Bathkepalle and the town/village code is 572193.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw now that an RS has been found. SD0001 (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. Nominator blocked for WP:SOCKing. (non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigration to India[edit]

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

Maximum sources from india, we can not reliable on India and Bangladesh source, we need third party sources to verify the actual fact It's true or not. The article seems lacks of neutrality and biased. We don't need comment from Bangladeshi and indian admin,previous afd of this article seems biased discussion which is archived now. Rasi56 (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic. Neutrality, bias and unreliable sources are all editorial concerns that can be resolved without requiring the deletion of the article. SD0001 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Deletion is not cleanup: article not in such a state that WP:TNT is required. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment : not an editorial concern, Wikipedia always follow neutrality and verified sources . We can not reliable on india,Bangladesh or Pakistan statistics and news.Its unverified (per neutrality). We need third party statistics and sources otherwise it’s not necessary to keep this article just because of just notable topic. You can see the deletion archive many articles has been removed just because of this verification concerns. “ notable topic. Neutrality, bias and unreliable sources are all editorial concerns that can be resolved ” its approve when just fews sentences, statistics are lacks of neutrality. You can not reliable on maximum indian sources. And there have less chance to fix this in future because 65 references was added. And this article looks like good so no one will bother in future about this article. So It's better to take decision now besides of nationalism not to be biased. You can see history related articles have many biased decisions and comments before which is we needed to avoid per as Wikipedia policy. We don't need to keep unverified articles for readers. Just base on Indian news we can not keep this,we need to international statistics and maximum coverage to stay this article on Wikipedia. Rasi56 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Rename to a more neutral title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There certainly may be difficulties with article, but it relates to an important topic and should not be beyond rescue, if anything is wrong with it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Peterkingiron (talk) --SalmanZ (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SD0001 notable topic.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is a notable history and politics related topic. Keep per WP:GNG --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:Rasi56 and Andy Kearns have been blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Kearns--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeta Music[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG the sources are too weak a vast majority of passing mentions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sangeeta Music is a notable record level company in Bangladesh since 1982. Its one of the oldest record company in Bangladesh. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 14:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Masum Ibn Musa (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

*Delete : agree with Dom from Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafiz ansi (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC) User:Hafiz ansi (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hafiz ansi) Sockpuppet user.[reply]

Delete - non-notable record label. Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT or WP:CORPDEPTH: no "Deep or significant coverage" in the references. The references appear to be WP:REFBOMBING. No significant coverage, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Music[edit]

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

Of the 18 sources the majority are passing mentions, quite a few are clearly press releases and a number of articles praising the the number of views on youtube for the video of an artist signed to Eagle on their own channel. Click farms are rife in Bangladesh. There are some unsubstantiated claims not included in the sources. It has already been cleaned for puffery and there may be COI issues here. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eagle Music is a leading record level in Bangladesh and produced over 1000 bengali cinema and over 500 Music albums and Television Drama. Oporadhi is the first Bengali song, which has secured its place in YouTube global ranking. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 14:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Masum Ibn Musa (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete Agree with nom's summary. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT or WP:CORPDEPTH: no "Deep or significant coverage" in the references. The references appear to be WP:REFBOMBING. No significant coverage, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Regional Clinic[edit]

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

non-notable and promotional All the refs are local or notices or PR or some combination thereof (the ABC and NBC refs are local stations, tho this is not obvious from the manner of citing) DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate and references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no non-local sources, per WP:AUD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam-2727 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:CSDG7. (non-admin closure) Wug·a·po·des 03:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hall (Stanford University)[edit]

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

Subject is a building/hall of Stanford University. The info already in Main Quad (is the heart and oldest part of Stanford University in California) under Description -last sentence of first paragraph so AfD instead of merge. Subject is no notable to be a stand alone article - fails WP:GEOLAND. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough information to justify a free standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely a badfork - the Main Quad article actually has more content. Would seem a weird thing to type into wikipedia, so probably not redirect Nosebagbear (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say roll into the Main Quad (Stanford University) except all the info here is there already (and more). Jordan Hall houses the Psychology department at Stanford and was the site of the Stanford prison experiment. It was named after David Starr Jordan the university's first president. None of this even put together makes it more significant than any other building in the Main Quad and can be easily covered in that article. I could see a disambiguation link on the Jordan Hall (disambiguation) to the Main Quad article. I note btw that the Main Quad (Stanford University) article recently got renamed to just Main Quad which I think is a very bad idea since multiple universities have Main Quads (e.g., University of Chicago, De Anza College, University of Illinois). --Erp (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no justification for an independent article, as above. If this building doesn't warrant an article, presumably the two separate articles on the statues on this building should also be deleted: Statue of Louis Agassiz and Statue of Alexander von Humboldt (Stanford University). Ingratis (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G7 and close per WP:AFDSNOW. Consensus is quite clear and good suggestions have been made. I've updated the DAB page per Erp as well to point interested readers to the main quad article. Wug·a·po·des 03:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spondon Audio Visual Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. 2 identical press releases and a passing mention is nowhere near enough. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Spondon Audio Visual Center is Bangaldeshi oldest islamic record level company and produced over 1000 albulms. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 14:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Masum Ibn Musa (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete If, as the article creator suggests above, that the company is notable, I expect it should be relatively straight-forward to find acceptable references. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT or WP:CORPDEPTH: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." Of the sources in the article, two are press releases, two are about a Sydney festival and the rest are to sites to buy or listen to music. No significant coverage, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Antony's Church Machad[edit]

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

On EN web search found no WP:SIGCOV of WP:IS, WP:RS to pass notability guidelines. Sources provided are listing/directory and no reputable sites. Fails WP:GEOFEAT CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge: There are likely offline and non-English resources, but in current state a downsized merge to Thekkumkara is probably appropriate. Even then it might initially be a little WP:UNDUE for that article but long term it might help other parts of that article improve.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Switch vote due to too much distruptive editing of article so no longer prepared to merge. Please ensure salted.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, would be hesitant to delete unless we can get a Hindi person to look for non-English sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the script used on the article is Malayalam, to my limited knowledge that would be unsurprising for Kerala.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are many/hundreds in some cities churches in one city/place and not all churches would include in an article. Merge should be a choice only if the church is significant in the city and yet not significant enough for stand alone article. Here we have only directory for sources which is not enough for merge. However, do encourage editors who know the local language to provide sources if possible instead just vote merge and do nothing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG as the sources cited are essentially listings and/or not useable for notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as for merging into Thekkumkara, i am concerned that this may give undue weight to this church, having a look at gmaps there are quite a few temples/religious sites located there so unless these are included, suggest against this. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NBUILD: "require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" - I would recommend a Redirect to Syro-Malabar Catholic Archeparchy of Thrissur, but St Antony's Church Machad is not mentioned in that article - I would recommend a Redirect to List of Churches in India, but that redirects to List of basilicas in India and St Antony's Church Machad is not a basilica - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JomRun[edit]

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

Highly promotional article, previously deleted. Current sourcing all appears to be unreliable - mostly articles on websites that allow 'contributions' (WP:UGC), plus one or two rehashed press releases, and passing mentions - nothing that rises to WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citations should not obscure the fact that, as the nominator correctly says, this is a highly promotional article. It is clear that the article is principally to serve the purpose of spruiking the app's features to potential users. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This app has gained a lot of notability since the last nomination. And the previuos article was mostly based on press releases etc. Currentlyit is downloaded 20,000 times a month and it is used in almost all of running events in the country. I created the article with proper sources that show this app is notable. We should remember that this app is for running so the news will only be about running events. Off handidly saying that such news coverage is not good enough is not right. It is used to host running events of 6000 users almost every week. So it passes GNG quite easily. The WP:PROMO guidelines have been followed to the letter in the article. It only informs the user and does not use any phrase to promot the software. LigonX (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LigonX - I was not being off hand when I described the sources - I actually spent quite a bit of time looking into them closely, and searching for better ones, before making the nomination. If you check the websites carefully, you will see that the articles giving significant coverage to the subject are written by 'contributors' on websites that accept articles from the public - that is a form of WP:UGC, and they are not considered reliable, or to contribute towards notability. Take a look at the section on Forbes Contributors at WP:Perennial sources for some discussion of this type of source. As a commercial product, this article needs WP:CORPDEPTH-level sourcing, not just WP:GNG, and these refs do not come close. As for the promotional phrasing - the very first sentence starts with JomRun is a top ranking... - see WP:PEACOCK, that is not how to write a neutral, encyclopedic article. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional and non-notable. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely paid-for spam. I have blocked the creator for this. MER-C 10:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CookXml[edit]

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

No in-depth independent reliable sources located. Ineligible for PROD as it was PRODded in 2006 and removed by the article creator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The project was created in 2006, but wound off in 2008; received minor updates until 2013. Its forum has closed down shortly after that because of receiving nothing but spam. Now, the question is: did it make an impact? And the answer is no. Google News has nothing. Google Books has a lot of false positives. The top seven items have "Source Wikipedia" tags. (Ouch!) It has a Softpedia page but it has not been reviewed. So, the verdict is: No impact. Cheers. Flowing dreams (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant find anything either. Mccapra (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Power[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe author, self-published books. His website is [20] Very little about him and what there is isn't helpful, eg [21] Doug Weller talk 16:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm assuming he isn't this Ken Power; and he's the only one with any news hits. No book reivews found. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ETA There are a lot of false positives for Sameena Zehra (a possibly notable comedian) with a show called Tea with Terrorists and reviews of a book called Tea Time With Terrorists by Mark Stephen Meadows (a possibly notable author) which has several RS reviews. Nothing on this guy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~Delete~~ self-published writer; ~~I cannot find him or his books in WP:RS searches.~~ reconsidering after running searches with better keywords .E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC))~~strike, sockpuppet. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ sourced role in Value America to books, added a book review, he's notable less for the books he wrote about Islam and terrorism than for his role in Value America and the Dot-com bubble.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)strike, sockpuppet. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some good work was done on the article. WP:GNG Forbes. Lightburst (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article mentions his name twice but doesn't say anything about him whatsoever.----Pontificalibus 07:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Craig Winn, his former employer and co-author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)strike, sockpuppet. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 06:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage, just passing mentions ----Pontificalibus 07:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of significant coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbey (novel)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NBOOK, specifically every criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case! Apparently the book won two awards in Romania; Premiul I „Vladimir Colin” and Premiul RomCon. The author's page quotes two reviews of the book but it's not immediately clear to me if they're from self-published blogs or edited publications.[22] We need to dig deeper. Haukur (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I came to this after being pinged by Haukurth (talk · contribs). I do not believe that blurbs on the author's personal page can be used as sources, regardless of their nature -- we should refer to the original sources, if anything (though yes, they do appear to be blogs). The book was however reviewed by the (now paywalled) Observator Cultural -- see here, which also mentions that it was a unique achievement in its context, for being voluminous and for receiving all relevant awards in Romania for that year. The comics inspired by the novel were also covered by Mediafax (here). There might be other reviews, but unfortunately Romanian literary magazines are going offline these months, so I can't really check that far back (though I have a faint recollection of reading about the novel in articles ca. 2002). That said, I wonder if the novel should have its own article, or whether it can/should be folded into the writer's bio. Dahn (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Dahn which seem to constitute two pieces of non-trivial coverage as needed by WP:NBOOK. We don't currently have an article on the author. If an author is primarily noted for one work then I think we're better off with an article about the work than the author. For an author with two notable works, an author article is a good idea. Not sure which is the case here but as things stand we don't have an author article to merge to. Haukur (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - orphan article on non-notable book - does not meet the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT - no major reviews or significant awards - the article links are to a database, the publisher's website and a blog (Cititor SF) - no notable references - this is just a promotional article WP:NOTPROMOTION - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 05:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A couple of refs have been identified in this afd. Szzuk (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two sources found by Dahn are sufficient to allow the book to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
Cunard (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DXBM-TV (Davao)[edit]

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

This article is not exist. Myrabert01 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Station is a blatant fictional wiki creation. Nate • (chatter) 04:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page has been moved to DXBM-TV (Davao). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DXBM-TV (Davao) - non-notable TV station - just existing is not notable - no notable original programing or indication of importance as required by WP:BROADCAST - no "significant coverage in reliable sources" as required by WP:GNG - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Women2Win. Merge consensus agreed per participants and nominator. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women2WinWales[edit]

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

While Women2Win may be notable despite being a redlink, I don't think the same can be said about its Welsh arm. I wasn't able to find any substantial sources about it. It was originally kept in 2007, largely on the strength of "well it must be notable because someone notable chaired it" arguments, which don't hold up under our more stringent modern standards. I'm not sure a redirect to Cheryl Gillan is suitable, as the organization isn't mentioned in her article. I couldn't find an independent source reporting about her chairing it, so I'm not sure it's even worth a merge there. In the absence of any major sources or reasonable redirect targets, we can't keep this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable per nom, but I believe Women2Win is, so it might be worth moving this page to Women2Win and adding content about its non-Welsh movements. Otherwise I'm weakly in favour of deletion, as the page doesn't seem to have a huge amount of usable content anyway. — Bilorv (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Women2Win, which I have just created. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As nom I'm fine with that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in support of a merge. Thank you for creating the page. — Bilorv (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrew on a total keep consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selwa Al-Hazzaa[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability, does not have any reliable sources and contains many weasel words. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she was a member of Saudi Arabia’s national legislature snd thereby meets our notability standard. I’ve found some sources but not many, which I’ll add to the article. The language of the article does need some heavy editing and if the biographical section is entirely based on interviews, the whole lot will have to come out. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’ve added refs and removed unsourced and unencyclopaedic material. Even if the subject of the article went a member of the national legislature there are more than enough sources for her to pass general notability guidelines. Mccapra (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I see that with new refs that were added she was in fact a member of the Saudi Shura Council, and therefore meets notability. I withdraw my nomination. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite considerable volume from one editor (even without considering apparent socks), the discussion was very lopsided in indicating that there is not sufficient evidence of notability for this subject. RL0919 (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player[edit]

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

No indication of notability for this software. ... discospinster _talk 01:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the following reasons, this article is notable and therefore should not be removed:

1. The ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player article describes the only online program that provides the features that are described in this article.

2. There is no other program (online or otherwise) that provides the ability to create a midi file that can play a microtonal composition from any synthesizer or sound card.

3. The microtonal community (i.e. virtually all 21st century composers) will be missing out if they are not made aware of this free online program.

I thank you for keeping this worthwhile article in Wikipedia.

MySonLikesTrump (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The person who deleted this article apparently deletes many, many articles without spending any time to review the notability of the articles that they are deleting.

As an example, in the Microtonal_music article, under the section of "Creating microtonal music", they deleted the text which described how to create microtonal music, so the section made no sense after their edit.

On 7/30/19, after I created the "Creating microtonal music" section in the Microtonal_music article, I received messages at my website from four college professors who thanked me for creating the only tool which allows them and their students to play a microtonal composition from any synthesizer or sound card.

The person who deleted this article, and incorrectly edited the section in the Microtonal_music article, is causing damage to Wikipedia's reputation.

I sincerely hope that a high-level administrator takes a good look at the full history of the person who deleted this article.

MySonLikesTrump (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I like to think I'm a pretty high-level administrator here. The article is not deleted, of course; it's nominated for deletion. Discospinster is in fact the only person who stands between us and complete irrelevance. If you want to consider editors to support keeping this article, you will have to cite reliable secondary sources that prove it deserves an article. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. The ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player program was mentioned in the Microtonal_music article (with a favorable personal response from four college professors) two weeks before the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article was created. That in itself proves that the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article is relevant and notable to the Microtonal community.

The ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article (which is being considered for deletion) contains citations from 3 reputable websites:

https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/midi-player.html

https://www.w3.org/TR/webmidi

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_API

Take a look at Discospinster's talk section. It would seem to be very difficult for them to truly judge each article's notability, considering the huge quantity of articles that they are deleting.

Again, why would someone delete text which describes how to create microtonal music, in a section entitled "Creating microtonal music" (see the Microtonal_music article).

Thank you again for your reply.

MySonLikesTrump (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: MySonLikesTrump, I understand your reasoning behind wanting to keep this article, but please realize that "notable" has a relatively narrow definition on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's notability requirements are unrelated to any of your three points. From WP:N: To be notable under the general notability guideline, a subject has to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Has this piece of software been covered in reliable independent news or other sources? I don't see any on Google, but that doesn't mean that they aren't out there. K.Koopa (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the ONLY program (online or otherwise) that provides the ability to create a midi file that can play a microtonal composition from any synthesizer or sound card. Deleting this article will deny the entire microtonal community of reading about this free website on Wikipedia. Microtonal music does not receive "significant coverage" in the media, but that is not a reason to deny its importance to the artistic world.

I understand how your rule would normally apply when deciding if an article should be accepted about a person. However, 90% of the products listed in the Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article have NOT "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". For that reason, and the reasons that I previously described, this case certainly deserves an exception.

I really don't want to inform the heads of all the music departments that use MidiPro.org that Wikipedia refused to accept an article that describes something that they have already deemed to be incredibly important to their professors and students, just because Wikipedia feels it has not yet received "significant coverage".

Again, I understand why you have to deny articles that have little notability or relevance. However, that is not the case here.

Please consider all these issues when making your decision. Thank you again for your consideration.

MySonLikesTrump (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some of your arguments are more likely to concern editors considering your arguments than convince them. Things like "The microtonal community (i.e. virtually all 21st century composers) will be missing out if they are not made aware of this free online program." - the article doesn't exist to advertise software (even free software). If it was viewed as overly advertorial that would be grounds for deletion in its own right.

I picked 7 of the Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers list to check. 5 of them were very clearly notable, with various forms of good sourcing. One was iffy and another probably should be nominated for deletion. So it's not a case that this one has high coverage in comparison - though that would generally be irrelevant, it's worth reading Other Stuff Exists.

I'm not sure if "I really don't want to inform the heads of all the music departments ..." was supposed to be an odd threat, but its presence is a bit random. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really do fully understand your reasoning, MySonLikesTrump, but it's just not valid here. I happen to think microtonal music is really cool too. But Wikipedia has rules, and those rules must be applied impartially. According to the rules, if something does not receive "significant coverage" in the media, it does not belong on its own page on Wikipedia. If ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player has/gets media coverage that brings it up to Wikipedia's notability standards, then it will be eligible to be the main subject of an article. My advice if you want to keep this article is that you read up closely on WP:GNG and submit a bullet-pointed list of links from reliable sources if they exist, all together under your original Keep vote, that substantiate this article's notability with regards to Wikipedia's guidelines. I can't find enough good WP:RELIABLE sources to justify keeping this article, but if you can find them, that's the theoretical path to my Keep vote. A significant amount of WP:RELIABLE sources is what talks here. You can come up with as many arguments not based in guidelines that you want, but arguments based in guidelines prevail. K.Koopa (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a free piece of software that isn't downloaded, it's a little unclear whether this is more like NPRODUCT, NWEB or something else. I'm going to go with the easiest to satisfy - GNG. However, I still don't think sufficient sourcing is available to satisfy it. I've also read through the arguments above, and I'm not seeing a reason that makes this "important to users" article a reasonable Ignore All Rules case vs others the AfD community has declined in the past. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice against refunding a copy to MySonLikesTrump Nosebagbear (talk)

Keep - Within the hundreds of references and links in the Microtonal_music article, there is not a single mention of any other MIDI program that creates microtonal music. Removal of the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player article would lesson the value of the Microtonal_music article, and would be doing a great disservice to the contemporary classical music community.

Four music professors who learned about this product from the Microtonal_music article contacted me through MidiPro.org, to inform me that they are recommending this program to their students. If this article is removed, other music scholars will not be made aware of this program that greatly increases the usage of microtonal music. That makes this article deserving of a unique exception, even though it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources". MySonLikesTrump (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how well that holds up - the name is quite specific, and it's unlikely to be searched unless you already know of it (in which case use can't be too contingent on this article). If there is micro-industry-wide adoption of it, then that's plenty of other routes individuals can use. Without reliable sources we have no way of making sure that what visiting readers see actually is a reliable impression. We exist to inform them, not just act as a guiding post to the website. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Regarding your concern "Without reliable sources we have no way of making sure that what visiting readers see actually is a reliable impression": If MidiPro.org is malicious then people will complain, and then you blacklist MidiPro.org.

Of the 50 programs listed at Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, very few have "reliable sources". Except for MidiPro.org, every program on that list has to be downloaded at the user's risk. MidiPro.org is the only program on that list that does not require any downloads (or registration), so it is the safest program shown in that article.

MidiPro.org was created 2/1/2017. A Google search shows no negative reports whatsoever. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated that it might be malicious, and we don't "blacklist" any product - we have articles for downright dangerous places on the web to visit. Instead it is purely the accuracy of the content inside the article we endeavour to demonstrate and as a tertiary source we specifically do so with reliable secondary sources. In any case, we're looking for notability, and nothing indicated thus far is so far outside the norm as to warrant Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If "the accuracy of the content inside the article" is the issue, you can simply go to the website to see it is exactly as described: https://MidiPro.org

You can also see that all the features in the article are described in the Help File: https://MidiPro.org/Help.php

If I was to spend money to get reviews on several additional websites, I am afraid that you would continually say that those websites are not good enough.

Here is a reliable secondary source, is this good enough? https://www.videoconverterfactory.com/tips/midi-player.html

Anyone with common sense can see that MidiPro.org is legit and relevant, and that Wikipedia users would benefit by having it appear in all applicable categories. If you delete this article, your inflexible policies are stifling innovation. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MySonLikesTrump, where shall I start. First, you are not citing any secondary sources. You can't just barge in here without having even the slightest idea what we do. Well, you can, since in fact you are. Second, I don't care how many times you say keep, you're still just one person. Third, no, we are not going to go to some website to judge the accuracy of this or that content unless it is a secondary source. "Videoconverterfactory" is not acceptable via WP:RS; look it up. Finally, we're not in the business of doing innovation--that's really what MySpace is for. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending the URL of this section to the Music Department heads at 15 Universities who use MidiPro.org regularly, so they can see the arrogant, nasty and disrespectful remarks that Wikipedia admins make to people who try to contribute to Wikipedia, and so they can inform their students to never waste their time trying to submit a useful article to Wikipedia. Drmies said this me: "You can't just barge in here without having even the slightest idea what we do.", and "we're not in the business of doing innovation--that's really what MySpace is for." Really? Do you talk to people like that in real life, or only when you're hiding in your room? MySonLikesTrump (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Let's take a look at the nominated page first. It does not look like an encyclopedia's article at all, but it is a very good home page for the web product in question. (I should say this product needs one like this.) But Wikipedia is not a free web host nor is it a fast ticket to fame. Now, the question is: Can this article not be saved through normal editing? Unfortunately, my web search results were fruitless. This product is yet to have any impact. And I wonder if it appropriate give an advice to our friend User:MySonLikesTrump. You see, my esteemed colleague, you have not been adhering to talk page layout guidelines or AfD contributions guideline. And this is bad. My life experience tells me people often don't get what they deserve when they don't give a good impression. And you're not giving a good impression. Flowing dreams (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Five of the eight references are to the program's own website, two don't even mention ADSR or MidiPro, and the remaining one, videoconverterfactory.com, only features trivial coverage and is not RS. Not notable. - Scio c (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed all inappropriate citations from the article. Any other suggestions will be greatly appreciated. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Music Department heads from two separate universities informed me of the following website that I was previously unaware of, so I added a citation in the article to the Classical Archives (the largest classical music site in the world), who stated the following in 2017: "MidiPro.org is the only Online Midi Editor".

The Classical Archives was created in 1994, and has never had any advertising or user-entered editorial whatsoever. Their statement ("MidiPro.org is the only Online Midi Editor") has been prominently displayed on their website for more than two years (since at least April 26 2017): https://web.archive.org/web/20170426053227/https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html

Several universities are actively following this dispute, since they hope that this extremely relevant article remains in Wikipedia. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MySonLikesTrump: - while it probably does satisfy secondary, and I'm happy to concede it's reliable, there remains no way that this satisfies WP:SIGCOV. Have you considered adding a sub-section to the primary MIDI article? The requirements for inclusion in an article are much lower than to possess an entire article. As a side note, I read AfD content within about 24 hours, and all my AfDs are watchlisted - you don't need to drop a notice onto my talk page. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: - Thank you for your reply, and for your advice. The problem with a sub-section is that this article will then not appear in Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers. This article has more notability than most of the articles that are currently listed in Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, and it makes no sense that the ONLY Online Midi Editor does not appear in that list, so please post a Keep. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can't actually know what doesn't appear in that list, because it's not there. At least 2 other entries have been removed in the past. There may be others on the list that shouldn't have articles (and thus appear on the list). 5/6 out of the 7 I checked did have better sources than this article, but that would indicate at least a few would be potential AfD targets. That no-one has removed them yet can't be used to support another article's ongoing existence. Otherwise a small pool of unsourced articles could be used to support endless numbers, and those would support the original pool. It's explained a bit better in Other Stuff Exists. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it still doesn't make sense that ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player should not be listed in Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, since ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player has been verified by a reliable source to be the only Online Midi Editor in existence, which gives it notability. Although it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to promote programs, it is their responsibility to not intentionally exclude the only Online Midi Editor (and the only Midi Editor that supports microtonality) from an article that is supposed to provide a "Comparison of MIDI editors and sequencers". I don't think you will be violating WP's policies by posting a Keep here. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player has more notable references than the following 18 articles that are listed in Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers: Aria_Maestosa, Deluxe_Music_Construction_Set, FreeWRL, GNMIDI_Professional, Guitar_Pro, Keykit, Master_Tracks_Pro, MIDI_Converter_Studio, Mixcraft, MuLab_(MuTools), MultitrackStudio, NoteWorthy_Composer, Zynewave_Podium, Qtractor, Rosegarden, Scala_(software), Seq24, Z-Maestro MySonLikesTrump (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these do indeed have few sources in articles. I've checked about 2/3 - some have sources available elsewhere (like this article, it's all about the sources available anywhere), I've added a few. 1 shouldn't have been on the list, as a redlink - I've removed it. 3 I don't think met notability, I've PRODed 2, and sent 1 to AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidenced notability in its current form. While I've only skimmed the arguments above, it appears at least one editor is arguing that it is clear that the article's subject is a notable one, based on argument. Unfortunately argument, even "common sense" arguments, are not the deciding factor in AfD debates...citations are. If this article's subject is indeed notable from an objective standpoint there should be no problem with finding and providing secondary sources to demonstrate that. If there are no such secondary sources, then this article's subject is not yet valid to be presented in Wikipedia's main namespace. -Markeer 14:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the universities are going to love that Wikipedia editors don't consider Classical Archives (https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html) to be a "secondary source". MySonLikesTrump (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm uncertain if Classical Archives is an editorially curated website in terms of analysis of music or software, which would influence my opinion of it's validity as a source for notability. However, that's neither here nor there. My comment above was based on sources that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Those guidelines specifically require multiple examples of non-trivial coverage in sourcing. Classical Archives would only be one source even if considered an appropriate secondary source (which, as it happens, I strongly question) and even then fails on the "non-trivial" front. The link to your tool at the bottom of a generic article on "What is a MIDI" is a minor afterthought, not the primary point of that article. So...no valid sources. -Markeer 17:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia" rarely thinks anything, individual editors do (statement made in response to previous form of above comment). Indeed they can get to the same answer by different routes. Markeer doesn't feel it's a secondary source (or he didn't see it), I felt it was secondary, but didn't have sufficient coverage. In any case, as a piece of software it needs to meet WP:NPRODUCT which requires multiple suitable sources. For that matter, universities aren't really groupthinkers either, and I'm still unsure why we keep being threatened with their judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To answer Nosebagbear's question why the judgment of universities matter: When universities see that an article for the only online midi editor that exists (which is also the only midi editor that supports microtonality) is being intentionally omitted from an article described as "Comparison of MIDI editors and sequencers" (and an article described as "Microtonal music"), even though it has an endorsement from "the largest classical music site in the world", they will question Wikipedia's relevance and veracity.

When universities see that WP editors mark an article for deletion without even looking at the article (Markeer said "lack of evidenced notability, no secondary sources"), they will certainly not advise their colleagues and students to waste their time creating useful and relevant articles for Wikipedia, when their time will be at the mercy of editors whose mentality and purpose (to receive more WP accolades) has been demonstrated by the text within this discussion. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I am a music professor at Vanderbilt University. I learned about the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player from the Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article. To be frank, most of the other programs on that list are worthless junk. As stated in their article, the ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player is the only online midi editor. I have used it, it is fantastic, so I will be recommending it to all my students.

~~I would not have learned about this program had it not appeared in the Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers article.~~

~~Why would you omit an article for the only program that is endorsed by Classical_Archives? Why would a Wikipedia editor vote to remove it without even looking at the article?~~

~~I also noticed that this is the only midi editor mentioned in the Microtonal_music article. Why would you omit it?~~

I reviewed some of the articles that were created by the Wikipedia editors that voted to remove the article in question. The articles they created do not have references that are nearly as strong as Classical_Archives.

I have contacted several prominent microtonal composers, so they can also follow this debate. If you remove the article in question from Microtonal_music and Comparison_of_MIDI_editors_and_sequencers, your priorities are definitely in the wrong place. Stravinsky411 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)--Comment added by a WP:sockpuppet of User:MySonLikesTrump. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I am a film composer. I am glad that I read about the ADSR Online Midi Editor in the Microtonal Music article, because I now use it every day. I am not the same person as Stravinsky411, we are in the library together this morning.

~~Their article fulfills all of Wikipedia's requirements for a new article (I read the rules).~~

What does not fulfill Wikipedia's requirements is the arrogant attitude that the Wikipedia editors have expressed towards the person who is defending their article. What type of pompous *** would begin a comment with Ahem.? The same person also said "You can't just barge in here without having even the slightest idea what we do". If the other editors want to do something constructive, they should file a complaint against that editor.

I have donated money to Wikipedia for the past five years. If this important article is omitted, not only will my donations stop, but I will also inform the other members of my film composers' group of this injustice, and of the disgusting attitude that the Wikipedia editors have demonstrated in this discussion. To mark an article for deletion without even reading the article is disgraceful. IWonAnOscar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC) --Comment added by a WP:sockpuppet of User:MySonLikesTrump. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all that stands between this article and ignominy are three advertisements thinly disguised as RSs. Searches reveal nothing better. Difficult to understand the apparent socking in the Vote!s and extreme verbosity unless someone is getting paid to keep this article alive. Heaven forfend that such a thing might be possible. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Stravinsky411 and IWonAnOscar, thank you for your support. Please let your colleagues know what goes on here. Did you know that your comments are "socking"? Velella's fancy icon must indicate that he has earned a lot of WP points for deleting articles without reading them. He referred to the endorsement at Classical_Archives as an advertisement, even though Classical_Archives has a strict policy of no advertisements. MySonLikesTrump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm actually inclined to assume GF and it's not socking. It is however an issue of Votestacking since the notifications to other editors are clearly not neutrally phrased. Please stop assuming that a difference of opinion on the reliability of sources means they're acting in bad faith. Shame we don't get wikipedian points, I wonder what I could spend them on since you can make your own signature if you feel like. While "barge in here" could be phrased differently, the viewpoint is valid - the arguments raised clash with various fundamental policies like Reliable Sources and Reasons for Deletion, anyone who hasn't read them is going to struggle because the closing Admin will just ignore non-justified arguments. We aren't just making up our reasoning for some dramatic evil deconstructionist preference of ours. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of Wikipedia:Notability_(software) or general WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of the four references in the article, none of them give in-depth coverage of ADSR Online Midi Editor and Player - the program has not "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 21:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Páll Gíslason[edit]

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

The only source is literally a list. Bronze Wolf is not a default sign of notability, and leading a small scouting organization that covers a small country is not a default sign of notability either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the page creator, Kintetsubuffalo, canvassed on the Islandic Wikipedia (links) for this AfD discussion. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no violation of wikipedia:Canvassing. --evrik ^(talk) 03:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, there are now three sources. Also, while no one has expanded this article in three years, it can grow. --evrik ^(talk) 03:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was much more known for his medical and political career than for leading the scouting organization. I expanded the article a bit with information on both and added sources. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - seems notable enough to pass WP:BASIC. Thanks to all involved Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a non-notable list topic. RL0919 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bands & Musicians who have played at the Lemp Neighborhood Arts Center[edit]

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

Unimportant list, not necessary or notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:LISTN. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Successful groups play at a wide variety of venues, so why single out this one? It doesn't have the same prestige as Carnegie Hall or La Scala (and they don't have such lists). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Clarityfiend. Vorbee (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OLIST as a trivial list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could/should this be made into a category (there doesn't appear to be any directly related to the Lemp)? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:NONDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s an even more specific prohibition of just that kind of performer by venue category type. postdlf (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to the above editors for clarification. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Self-build. As noted by User:Epinoia, this has no references, hence it fails WP:V in its current form and thus can't be merged. The history will still be there, so anybody is free to reuse text, with the requirements that they provide a WP:RS to meet WP:V and proper attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owner builder[edit]

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

How-to article, unsourced, no indication of why this is a significant or notable term. ~~Might be suitable for transwikification to Wiktionary, I don't know how that process works.~~ creffett (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not in the case of articles that are not dictionary articles. See Project:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for an explanation of the difference. Uncle G (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, got it, thanks for the pointer. creffett (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to self-build. Subtle regional differences between the meaning of the two terms can be discussed in that article.----Pontificalibus 06:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title is a legal term used in the US and Australia, as there are building codes in such countries. The general topic is poorly served on Wikipedia; I had to start a page for house-building myself. Policies such as WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew D. (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Self-build. Just because this term is legally defined in one place doesn't mean it can't be discussed in the same article as a term with an identical concept. Reywas92^Talk 06:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, entering "owner builder" into WorldCat brings back numerous magazines with this title so it appears to be a well known term/concept. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and why not merge self build into this article? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Self-build - Merge not advisable as this article has no references - Epinoia (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to H. Irving Hancock. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Li Shoon[edit]

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

Fictional character with little notability. Covered by only a few sources after a google search. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to H. Irving Hancock. A few book sources mention the books this character appears in [23], but not enough for a stand-alone fictional character page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to H. Irving Hancock. There is a lack of coverage on the topic to support a separate article, but it is a viable search term and a redirect would be more helpful for anyone looking for information on the topic rather than an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to H. Irving Hancock - there is a guideline for fictional characters (WP:NFCHAR), but it is dormant so WP:GNG applies here and this fictional character has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "daramad surnames forebears.io".

[2] "Persian Submitted Surnames - Behind the Name". surnames.behindthename.com. Retrieved 2019-08-18.

[3] "Daramad - Ancestry.com". www.ancestry.com. Retrieved 2019-08-18.

[4] "What is the meaning of Narge, the name Narge means, Narge stands for". thenamesdictionary.com. Retrieved 2019-08-18.

[5] "Daramad last name world density map". surname.world. Retrieved 2019-08-18.

[6] mazandaran.yjc.ir https://mazandaran.yjc.ir/fa/news/4721477/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%B4%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%AC%E2%80%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA-%DA%A9%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C. Retrieved 2019-08-18. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[7] "بانوي شطرنج باز دزفولي به مسابقات قهرماني كشور اعزام مي شود". irna.ir.

[8] "بانوي شطرنج باز دزفولي به مسابقات قهرماني كشور اعزام مي شود". irna.ir.

[9] ""بانوی شطرنج باز دزفولی به مسابقات قهرمانی کشور اعزام شد – پایگاه اطلاع رسانی اداره ورزش و جوانان شهرستان دزفول".

[10] ""ندا درآمد" شهروند نابینای دزفولی در شطرنج افتخار آفرین شد". IranWire | خانه (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-08-18.

[11] ""ندا درآمد" شهروند نابینای دزفولی در شطرنج افتخار آفرین شد". IranWire | خانه (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-08-18.

[12] "اعزام شطرنج‌باز نابینای آبادانی به مسابقات کشور". www.khouznews.ir. Retrieved 2019-08-18.

[13] "Daramad, Narges FIDE Chess Profile - Players Arbiters Trainers". ratings.fide.com. Retrieved 2019-08-18.

[14] "حضور بانوان شطرنج‌باز خوزستاني در مسابقات كم‌بينايان و نابينايان كشور". web.archive.org. 2019-07-11. Retrieved 2019-08-18.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]