Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 August 30 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Bhardwaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Previous discussion was kept on the basis of !votes by 3 subsequently blocked editors. 2 for sockpuppetry and 1 for spamming. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only claim to notability of this first-time director relies on his work on Saare Jahan Se Acha (TV series), a 4 episode web-series. None of the sources in his article meet WP:INDEPENDENT. Nor do any of the sources in the TV series. Nor can I find independent critical coverage of the series or his work. And even if there were a small amount of RS coverage of the series and Bhardwaj's work, that wouldn't rise to meet WP:CREATIVE. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:ANYBIO. The subject is not significantly covered in reliable media and his films so far did not get any notable awards.This article states that he has an upcoming film, so his notability may change. If in future he does something notable, then probably the article can be WP:REFUNDed but only if the refunding admin is convinced that the notability has been reasonably established. Currently it is not. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Official Tour Wins - Tour era[edit]

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

WP:OR and not referenced(For the win totals. The only references pertain to the history of various golf tours]] for any of this. The fact is, the PGA Tour while not created till 1968( Actually the name goes back to the 1970s. It was Tournament Players Division before then) counts wins by players by prior to 1968. Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player's win totals on this list are a creation of the article creator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is really something that would go under WP:OR so I agree with the nom here. HawkAussie (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Keep - I don't think there is anything wrong with having this article as such. There are as discussed a few issues to resolve, which I think Oogglywoogly should be given the opportunity to address. The main issues are
  • As with others, I completely disagree with the PGA Tour figures, which do not match List of golfers with most PGA Tour wins or the PGA Tour's own records.
  • There is not adequate references for the figures shown in the table.
  • The intro needs some better structuring and wording, i.e. a shorter punchier lead, narrative that stays on topic, and remove phrasing like "the purpose of the article is" etc
I do think that this article can be put together and not be [[WP:OR}]]

And generally I'd say thanks to Oogglywoogly for contributing to wikipedia, don't be put off by challenges like this! Jopal22 (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I have never heard of a player's worldwide win total being counted in such a way that includes these six tours and only these six. That in itself implies that this is OR. To make this into a list of most wins anywhere doesn't seem practical (since it's so hard to find reliable sources), and I don't see any other way to make the article viable. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 14:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Tewapack (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Here are some of my reactions:

1) While the PGA Tour officially does count victories before 1969 it is not especially reliable source actually. This unreliability has come up very recently as there has been a lot of media attention pertaining to Tiger Woods potentially breaking Sam Snead's record for most tour wins. Snead's amount of victories is not considered precisely accurate according to all articles that I have read. For example, an writer for Golf Digest noted that Snead's actual amount of victories should be at 73. Several of his "official" wins were in very small fields (16 players) and others, by today's standards, exhibitions (4 players). Also, one of the events he won, the 1950 Pebble Beach tournament, was in fact a tie between four players as darkness prevented a playoff - an unthinkable outcome nowadays.[1]. Another writer for Golf Digest noted that Snead's "final" official win total vacillated from 81 in the 1970s to 84 in the 1980s to 82 in the 1990s.[2]

I think is also especially relevant, given the contents of this Wikipedia page, that the author of the first article notes that many PGA Tour records before 1968 were lost during the break from the PGA of America. With this information it is difficult to accept the PGA Tour's list as the gold standard.

2) I will admit that this page appears somewhat "original." I am new to creating pages on wikipedia and this is by far my most "ambitious" page. I guess I wanted to create it in the first place because I thought the need was there but no page existed. I wasn't trying to overstep wikipedia's guidelines or anything. I created it because you often hear about a golfer who plays around the world (e.g. Norman, Els) and the total career wins never seems to be consistent in the media. For example with Norman: The World Golf Hall of Fame has Norman with 86 "international wins."[3] The British Open's official website has Norman with 69 "career worldwide victories."[4] A website called Top End Sports states that Norman has "over 85 international championships."[5] Norman's own website states that he has 91 "professional victories."[6] The same problem with Els.

I also feel that the "big six tours" is a discreet phenomenon. I come across it in the media and on wikipedia. The fact that these tours were the first full members of the International Federation of PGA Tours in the late 1990s and remain the only ones 20 years later helps substantiate this concept. 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/forget-sam-snead-tiger-woods-already-has-the-tour-record-for-wins-seriously
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/use-the-sam-snead-criteria-for-wins-tiger-woods-actually-has-95-tour-titles-well-explain
http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/greg-norman/
https://www.theopen.com/players/greg--norman
https://www.topendsports.com/athletes/golf/norman-greg.htm
http://www.shark.com/the-shark/tournament-victories/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oogglywoogly (talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are trying to put together a table like the Open era stats in tennis, but with no single organisation overseeing golf, I think it will be impossible. Unless you can find a reliable source that agrees with your totals, this will be deleted I'm afraid. It seems above you are admitting this is subjective original research. Jopal22 (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is preposterous WP:OR and I will state it for one simple reason. It omits Major Championship wins prior to 1969 for Nicklaus, Trevino, Player. Now tell me how how subtracting major wins make this list credible?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment The above comment says- 'Also, one of the events he won, the 1950 Pebble Beach tournament, was in fact a tie between four players as darkness prevented a playoff - an unthinkable outcome nowadays.[1] One of those tours that has wins listed, the European Tour, had a 1986 event and a 2002 tournament end in a tie. Both the LPGA Tour and the Senior PGA Tours have had events end in a tie in the time span of this article. Unthinkable isn't exactly accurate....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment @Oogglywoogly: What's this with Langer and Ballesteros win totals on the European Tour. The ET says they are 42 and 50 respectively yet you have them as 40 and 46. Why? Are you subtracting from Langer because two of his wins are ties? The ET counts them, so again this list is Original Research. It isn't just that but revisionist history″ also. Gary Player isn't a Grand Slam winner by your methodology because his US Open championship win was in 1965....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have to add in the major and WGC's seperately. The PGA Tour and ET columns are shown excluding this. Anyway, think we have got the point. Let's cut Oogglywoogly some slack and not discourage him, as new golf editors should be welcome! Jopal22 (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This cobbling together of stats to come up with new wins totals is veryt much the definition of original research. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A final response: I largely created this link to compare achievements of successful contemporary international golfers from around the world who play on the "big 6" tours. No good information had existed before which is why I created it. I believe the "big 6" is a coherent concept as these are the only full members on the International Federation of PGA Tours and sanction the Official World Golf Ranking.

Jopal22 referenced tennis' Open Era since the late 1960s. I do not think the ATP is devaluing, say, the 100+ victories Rod Lavar earned before the Open Era by not including them in their all-time wins list. Rather they created a reliable list to compare achievements in a certain era. A cut off-point needs to be created at a certain point and some players' wins/achievements will be truncated on the particular list. Similarly, I am not trying to undermine the achievements of Player and Nicklaus pre-1969. Rather a cut-off point needs to be created to compare achievements between contemporaries and this cut-off will always be "arbitrary" to some degree. For example, let's say we change the cut-off line to 1955 to ensure that all victories of Palmer, Nicklaus, and Player are included. Ok, but then most of the victories of Snead and Hogan are not included. This "problem" could go on forever.

Also regarding the Open Era... Many professional sports organizations advanced during the late '60s and early '70s. In tennis the aforementioned Open Era distinguishes modern tennis from older tennis. The NFL's merger with the AFL in 1970 helps bisect pro football's history. Likewise, the "expansion era" in NHL started in 1967 where the NHL added teams for the first time since the 1920s. This terminology helps distinguish these sports from their pre-modern pasts. Golf, I think, changed similarly with the creation of independent, well-organized tours in the late 1960s and early 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oogglywoogly (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per above OR, sources do not relate to actual plays. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: H. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Haller[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: H. BOZ (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the list mentioned by BOZ. The appearances in other media give her enough notability within the fiction to retain the information. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Fails notability, merge to the above list Alex-h (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, While I do think the character is important, in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines she is nearly a notable as other Marvel Characters. (BackLash (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global School of Corporate Excellence[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG all the sources are affiliated and nothing was found in a before search. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:10, 29 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) 23:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OPSWAT[edit]

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

Unreferenced, promotional article about a non-notable cybersecurity company. I could not find any in-depth, independent coverage of this company in reliable sources, only passing mentions and press releases. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 29 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XConsortium[edit]

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

One line article. A bit short of useful information, and doesnt seem to be notable in its own right. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 29 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 Tutor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tutoring agency[edit]

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

Largely a personal essay. Very little referenced content. Would be better placed in articles about education in Singapore Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into tutor. Agencies are common for many types of employment – IT, translation, cleaners, &c. This aspect can be covered in the main article tutor while the content is developed. Andrew D. (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tutor as a WP:ATD. As of stands the subject hasn't received in-depth coverage to be notable on it's own. Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esol Education[edit]

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

Unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly, I would have speedied this as G11. Reads extremely promotional, all with the gallery part. Fails WP:NCORP, I have only been able to find passing mentions [1] and a parapgraph (plus it seems it is an advert) [2]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chengalvarayan Padmanaban[edit]

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

No sign that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I'm not sure what a "Deputy Controller of Examinations" is exactly but I'm pretty sure it doesn't confer instant notability. He is the author (co-author in one case) of two books, neither of which is notable and the list of papers given in the article (4 papers in total, published in journals that are not particularly prestigious, except Journal of Higher Education) is definitely not strong enough to meet WP:PROF. Pichpich (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note that the subject publishes under the pen name "P. Chengalvarayan". No citability in GoogleScholar[3]. MathSciNet has 5 papers by him, with no citations. Appears to be mainly an academic administrator. Nothing in the record indicates passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. His book titles sound like popularized mathematics books, of the type that would be more likely to be reviewed on MAA Reviews than MathSciNet. But I don't see them there either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The path to wiki-notability would be through WP:AUTHOR or the book-oriented portions of WP:PROF, but I'm not seeing any evidence that his books are nearly well-regarded or influential enough to qualify. XOR'easter (talk) 03:13, 31 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British Blues Exhibition[edit]

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

I'm having trouble finding what could be considered a critical mass of independent coverage of this exhibition (actually I'm having trouble even figuring out who runs it and where they are based - the website is very coy about that). They seem to be quite good at creating a social media presence, which leads to articles like this (basically a re-posted tweet); but I haven't found a single independent, in-depth article in a newspaper, magazine or similar publication. Looks to me like these guys are just gearing up and it may be WP:TOOSOON. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not WP:TOOSOON as the British Blues Exhibition webstite About section says they held the first exhibitions in 2015 (with planning starting in 2014) - as for who runs it and where it is based, the About section also says that "This project, the brainchild of Blues writer, podcaster and PR Darren Weale" - the website Contact section connects to Weale's PR company Pro Music Agency, based in London, UK, which says, "We are involved in the British Blues Exhibition and our founder, Darren Weale, was a former board member of the UK Blues Federation" - it does not appear that Weale is using the Blues Exhibition or the Blues Federation to promote his own PR business - I couldn't confirm the writeups in Blues In Britain and R2 (Rock'n'Reel) print magazines - there's an interview with Weale about the Exhibition on the Music Heritage UK site - there seem to be mentions of the Exhibition in a number of places, but no in-depth coverage or reviews (that I could find) - perhaps others with more knowledge of the British blues scene will have more luck - Epinoia (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the functionally mixed comment, a relist seems to do no harm and potentially some benefit
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a Google search doesn't turn up anything substantive. While John Mayall is a big deal in British blues (and could safely be seen as a reliable source in determining how important this exhibition is to the scene), and significant coverage from him would thus go a long way in helping the Exhibition pass the notability guideline, his website on the link given in the article says, in full, John supports the British Blues Exhibition and has donated three of his signed harmonicas to it. Website: www.britishbluesexhibition.co.uk, which is not such coverage. Nor do I think such coverage is provided by the Barber website here, which in any event seems almost like a conflict of interest and thus non-RS as Barber says that he is a supporter of the British Blues Exhibition, which recognises his unique and pivotal role in the development of Blues music. (Maybe I'm just reading too much into that, but the whole thing is about a paragraph and thus still not SIGCOV in any event.) All in all, neither of the sources given make the Exhibition notable, nor does a Google search provide anything, so this article should be deleted without prejudice to a future recreation if/when the Exhibition gains enough traction to be covered in more appropriate sources. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope this is readable, I struggle with the tech side of Wikipedia a little. Darren Weale here, exhibition founder. I appreciate the input/review as I recognise veracity in Wikipedia content is vital. Elmidae kindly explained Notability to me and I can see why this page (that I created) is up for review. The exhibition has taken time to build and will be in the Barbican, London, next year, and that will carry a lot of Noteability value. So if the page comes down now and needs to be restored with better evidence later, that's fine. I could look out the RNR and Blues In Britain articles, but they're rather buried in the hard copy collection of the exhibition and hard to access. Incidentally I have images of John Mayall with a certificate awarded to him by the exhibition, but this is not announced yet. If anything I have done is against the grain of Wikipedia, I'd look to change it. Thanks for your input and time. Darren192 (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: if closed as delete, I would suggest a soft delete, assuming that a Barbican exhibition may generate sufficient coverage in the near future. Darren192, you could then just drop me a note when you think that the press has had a good go at it, and we can get the article reinstated and properly referenced at that point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:27, 29 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. Unlike the 2008 discussion, this time the focus was on finding sources for notability, and the consensus is that such sources are lacking. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Morningstar[edit]

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

There is a long list of writings on what look to be defunct small presses. Self-published? The only sources for the article look to be self-penned author bios, or deadlinks. There has also been COI editing on the page.[4][5] Unless someone else can find some indication of third-party notability, right now this looks to be serving as the person's resumé. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - current sources don't demonstrate notability. In BEFORE sweep, couldn't find much that would make her notable in a WP:BASIC style. I also looked at WP:AUTHOR, there's a review of Weaving Magic into Your Life at publishers weekly, however that was the only reliable review I was able to find (a bunch of non-reliable/independent ones). No single redirect target jumped out. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd also like to note that the previous AfD was a major race to the bottom for both Keep and Delete "!"votes, in terms of making any policy justified argument. I think the reviewer was right to NC it, just because of the lack of a basis to work from. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being prolific does not make one notable, and in this case there is no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to find articles about them on Google but nothing came up. Definitely not notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one book review on Publishers Weekly.[6] That's not enough per se. A search on ProQuest turns up 16 hits but most or all seem to be passing mentions. Haukur (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything more that would count. Haukur (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bohemia Interactive#History. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cauldron (company)[edit]

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

Cauldron is not a notable company and fails WP:SIGCOV, as well as WP:NCORP. There are a few sources from 2014 when the studio was acquired and shut down, but these do not include more than its fate and count of staff at the time (25). A good indicator, IMO, is trying to find a reliable secondary source for the company's founder and foundation year, and I found none.

BOLD attempts to redirect the page to the page of the company that acquired Cauldron, specifically to the section where the acquisition is mentioned, were denied because the company is supposedly notable through the games it developed. Per NCORP and WP:INHERIT, notability is not inherited (in either direction).

If the games list (which, like the rest of the article, has no source at all) is the only thing to stand by this article, it is just a WP:DIRECTORY, and should not remain either; MobyGames or the like can be used to look these up instead. Lordtobi (✉) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (to Bohemia Interactive). As nom (who I assume counts as a redirect) says, it just doesn't meet WP:NCORP - the only real significant sources I could find at all are during the acquisition, and they don't cover Cauldron itself in enough detail to meet SIGCOV. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bohemia Interactive as it was acquired by them in 2014 [7], clearly does not meet WP:GNG Spy-cicle (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename List of games created by Cauldron. This is a list article, not an article about the company, and with that many notable games on their list having blue links to their own articles, its a valid list article. Dream Focus 00:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dream Focus, but that would miss the point of a list article. There would be no main topic where the list was extracted from for length issues and it would merely be a WP:DIRECTORY. That's not to mention that not a single entry in that list is currently sourced and you will find sources for the fewest. Lordtobi (✉) 04:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A list article aids in navigation by listing connected things. There are 19 games listed, and 18 have their own articles. So it is a valid list article. And you don't need a reference to tell you each game is from that company, you can just click the link to find that information in the articles linked to. Dream Focus 12:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:DIRECTORY #7, the list lacks context because the company has no notability attached wherefore there is no actual content related to the company that would justify listing its products on Wikipedia. Lordtobi (✉) 13:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DIRECTORY #7 ends with "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." There is ample content related to the company on Wikipedia in the form of all the articles for its games. I've seen other list articles exist which don't have a company article but list their works. List articles can exist to aid in navigation by linking to related articles, that's all they need to do. Dream Focus 19:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bohemia Interactive#History as a WP:ATD. No opinions on the list suggestion which can be freely created from the article's history at any time. Redirecting this to the list would serve no purpose, because it would have no info about the company. Sadly, the company fails WP:NCORP and I wasn't able to find indepth coverage (doesn't help the name itself is very generic). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Being WP:BOLD with this close, but there is a complete Keep consensus that the river is indeed notable as a result of inter-language references. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dos Papagaios River[edit]

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

Per WP:V. Apart from the map provided as an external link, I can’t find any reliable evidence suggesting this river exists Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a source of the river's existence from the Portuguese Wikipedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are lots of JSTOR sources that mention the river (all in portugese, calling it Rio dos Papagaios). I can link them but you'll need JSTOR access to read them. The mentions of existence mainly crop up in articles talking about parrot populations in Parana. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A geographically significant verifiable river.----Pontificalibus 08:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A verified river is notable. --Doncram (talk) 10:23, 31 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) 21:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroots East[edit]

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

Failed WP:NORG. Strictly local political action committee Rogermx (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. Reywas92Talk 19:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local organizations are not guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they must clear WP:ORGDEPTH on a volume and/or geographic range that expands significantly beyond just one or two hits in the local media. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOTE and WP:NORG. --SalmanZ (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters#TSR 2012 – Fiend Folio (1981). and merge the small amount of additional material that is missing from the list entry. The notability of the list article is a separate matter; if it eventually ends up deleted, then the redirect would be also. RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Throat leech[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional article that has no chance of actual discussion. TTN (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:34, 29 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. MER-C 09:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Against Combs[edit]

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

An indie band that does not appear to pass WP:NBAND. I have been unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the band in depth. I see a few brief mentions here and there regarding the lawsuit filed against them by Sean Hannity, but even that is just brief mentions, largely from unreliable sources, rather than actual coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 29 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. Snow Keep based upon the votes clarifying that this is part of a large set and is notable (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 17:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 263[edit]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 263 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, undersourced, no use for the wiki, most links shown are redlinks anyways.


Really most of this series does not meet notability standards. Jerry (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jerry (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't understand that a list needs links at all to be notable. Seems a useful index of the law of the land for that year. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page appears to be part of a larger set of articles, deleting this page wouldn't make sense Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 20:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly unsourced, fails WP:NOTDIR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one part of a very large organizational scheme of U.S. Supreme Court cases, nearly all of which are notable by virtue of having been decided at the U.S. Supreme Court level. TJRC (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The external links indicate that details of cases are available on websites. If we have such articles for every volume, then we need to consider them together (unless this is intended as a sample nom), but this is currently a list with one or two blue links. This suggests to me that (like most court cases of that age) most have now ceased to be of significance and are thus NN, which explains the redlinks. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons noted above re this being part of a larger set of articles, and notability as cases from the US Supreme Court. Bookscale (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a list of boring old court cases - "Fascinating! Absolutely fascinating. Erm, tell me, er, how exactly is a list of US Supreme Court cases notable, .. as it were?" (with apologies to Blackadder), that happen to be a fundamental part of US law that underpins, for better or for worse, how people live in that country, so a definite keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Claiming it is "un(der)sourced" shows the nominator and subsequent deletion !voter have no idea what they are even looking at; it is literally a list of cases, with citations, that were reported in a particular source. And for the modern SCOTUS era at least, we will eventually have articles on each of these opinions. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above (recommend snow closing). Nothing wrong with redlinks, especially since the targets are all notable. Deleting it would actually hurt the encyclopedia by making our index of US Supreme Court decisions incomplete (see Helloimahumanbeing above). Wug·a·po·des​ 22:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously any case going to the supreme court is notable and should be listed on this series of list. Dream Focus 00:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Sands[edit]

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

per WP:BIO, just because she looks like Angelina jolie that doesn't make her a notable person. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 16:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not been able to find any documentation of this person's life and works since, or anything outwith some baseless idle speculation and this one factoid. There is simply no documented biography to have. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's nothing in the media other than the resemblance. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Bennett[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: In my opinion, the subject doesn't satisfy any of the four listed criteria of a creative professional as listed in the notability guidelines. User Wmpearl, the creator of the article, argues the subject satisfies #4 as firstly their work has become a significant monument (two examples given are two outdoor murals) and secondly their work is represented in permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums (example given of two works in one museum in Honolulu) on the talk page. I feel these examples do not satisfy and, as such, have brought this to seek a wider opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from the article The Hawaii State Art Museum and the Honolulu Museum of Art are among the public collections holding works by Bennett satisfies criterion 4(d) of WP:NARTIST. This claim needs sourcing though. Vexations (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep museum collections, assuming the work is still in the collection, satisfy WP:ARTIST. She seems to have a lot of very visible public works as well.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:ARTIST as works held in at least 2 notable galleries (have added references to the article to show held in 2). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Artist's work is in the permanent collections of two notable museums. Meets WP:NARTIST criteria on several points. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 31 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Sytin[edit]

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

I propose deletion per WP:N. The links in the article go to either his Facebook and LinkedIn profiles or to some blog mentions. The only time he got covered by mainstream media was when he made a scandalous statement about the 2014 Trade Unions House fire in Odessa, which looks like a textbook case of WP:INHERIT. Buzz105 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Agree with deletion per WP:N rationale.Knox490 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nanes[edit]

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

This article has had a notability tag for ten years, and I am honestly on the fence about whether or not this subject meet's wikipedia's notability requirements. Mr. Nanes has been described as an amateur pianist and composer, but it's clear he had professional ambitions and did have some professional success (which asks the question whether he can truly be called an amateur?). I am taking this here in order to get a wider opinion, and put the matter to rest. Please don't consider my nomination as a delete but as an uncertain.

Nanes does have a discography with some important ensembles (the London Symphony Orchestra and the Moscow Symphony), but it's almost certain that these recording were paid for by Mr. Nanes himself and released on his own record label. These recordings, however, are available commercially on Amazon, iTunes, Spotify, etc. His work was programmed by the Pacific Symphony in 1985 as a part of their season which is a professional achievement, and did receive a very brief mention in this review: Chris Pasles (April 7, 1986). "Music Review: Clark Leads Symphony In Taut, Lean Program". Los Angeles Times.. He also attracted enough attention to have his work reviewed by The New York Times music critic, even if the review was bad. He also presented and performed his work at the Kharkiv Festival in the Ukraine with the Kharkiv Festival Orchestra, which apparently was filmed and broadcast on public television in Kentucky [8]. This bio indicates that their may be other professional achievements that may make him notable. The issue here, is that it's difficult to parse out where self puffery has inflated his achievements to appear better then they really are, and where legitimate professional achievements can truly be verified. 4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both Moscow Sym and London Sym are orchestras for hire, as opposed to London Phil for example.--Lute88 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it's perhaps a bit by the by, but what, Lute88, are you proposing is the difference in the for hire status between the London Symphony Orchestra and what I assume you mean to be the London Philharmonic Orchestra? If this difference is meant to help your argument, I'm really sorry but I am not getting it. Could you please explain the orchestras for hire bit and how it works in informing this discussion? Thanks! DBaK (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dont understand. If you don't want this considered for deletion why bring it to the AfD board? Couldn't you have merely initiated your question on the article's talk page? ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did initiate a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Richard Nanes. Consensus there seems to be leaning towards deletion (although not unanimously) which is why I brought it here. I have not yet formulated a definite opinion one way or another myself. I trust the AFD process to come to the right conclusion, and I do want it to be considered for deletion by the community since it's had a notability tag for a decade. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article needs editing for neutrality and investigation into whether there were paid for collaborations but the dedicated review in the New York Times is a sign of notability and the fact that it is a bad review at least proves that it is independent critical assessment, also having 899 library holdings indicates there should be more reviews and coverage offline if not online, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per a) procedural, because the nominator doesn't support deletion; b) Atlantic306's arguments. I also notice that the article has been twice severely pruned; some material might be rescued from earlier versions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Michael Bednarek: I feel your "procedural" point here is a little unfair to the nominator. They were clearly considerably uncertain about whether this article met the community standards for inclusion under the GNG and nominated it—after being recommended to do so by several people, myself included—in order to let the wider community assess the issue. This is actually the correct approach: what matters isn't any one person's subjective assessment (inluding the nominator's), but the community's consensus based on policy factors. There is absolutely no reason why the nominator should be expected to have reached a conclusion before nominating: it is sufficient that there is any level of uncertainty about the conclusion and how policy applies. That's why we have AfD after all. --Xover (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Now stricken. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going for Keep. In a just world, assuming that all the assessments I find of Nanes's compositions are accurate (I haven't heard his work myself), Nanes would not have garnered the coverage in the New York Times and L.A. Times; but garner it he did. Given that he's drawn enough attention to himself to get that coverage -- undeserved as it may be -- it seems to me that he has successfully pushed himself into notability, if not respectability. In sum, he perhaps ought not to be notable, but he appears to be notable nonetheless, and therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article.
I would also like to add a note of approval for 4meter4's use of AFD here. I think Wikipedia, and AFD in particular, would be a far better place if one can explore things like whether an article should be deleted or kept without having to stake out a position and entrench themselves into arguing for or against it, instead searching for a resolution on a questionable issue without having to take a stand on it. An unbiased good-faith exploration of an issue like this should be encouraged. TJRC (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm sure the article could be improved, but I think it's pretty good actually. It gives a fair assessment, supported by references, of the quality of Nanes' music ("inept", basically); and it is a good article to have in WP because there will be people who run across his name, and wonder who he was. WP will tell them, which is as it should be. (If this were an "Encyclopedia of Musicians", then there is a good argument for not including him, because he was not a "significant musician", musically speaking, but WP is not such.) See also my comments on the article talk page. I very much agree that it is good to have a discussion like this -- the "Notability questioned" tag can be removed as resolved. And I applaud Michale Bednarek for retracting his earlier comment. And a happy First of September to all. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close per WP:SNOW. In hearing others comments, and re-reading the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music), I have to conclude that there is enough evidence to support criteria 1 with significant reviews in two notable newspapers. Thanks to all who participated in this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable composers of bad music are still notable. In fact, he was notably inept and an amateur. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MER-C 09:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nurit Zederboim[edit]

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

Unable to find indications of notability. If this is not deleted under notability guidelines, I feel it needs a WP:TNT as it is so poorly written Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is a related article on he.wiki to which this wasn't linked for some reason - the en.wiki article is a translation of it. There are plenty of references included, but apparently all in Hebrew, and I think this discussion would benefit from contributions by someone who can read them. If she is considered notable enough to have an article on he.wiki I'd be inclined to keep this too. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    hewiki's artist notability is merit based (featured in exhibitions) and not coverage based. It is easy to see she passes hewiki notability due to exhibitions. Assessing enwiki GNG is more difficult because she is also an academic (NARTIST is stronger here than NPROF) and journalist - and filtering stuff she has written (as opposed to pieces on her) takes time. Most coverage is probably in Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Gilded Snail (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I trimmed the article of the use of Wikipedia, Youtube and Facebook as sources. What is left is not much. An English language search turns up only notices for this deletion discussion! Hebrew sources might be OK but if found, but I can't assess them. As far as I can tell, the sourcing in the English and Hebrew. Wikipedia pages is identical. Here's an example source on something called "the Marker cafe" and Facebook used as a source for autobio details. The article has many of the hallmarks of puffery used by mediocre artists to create the appearance of notability. In the absence of evidence otherwise, I say not notable. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete & Comment. Could this be a spelling issue? I see in the article her last name is also spelled Cederboum (with about 400 results, formerly the "Head of The Interdisciplinary Center of Art Studies” at Western Galilee College. [9]) and there is a Nurit Zederbaum (with about 20).[10] Yet, I don't see much in the way of WP:RS; it's mainly facebook, blogs, and event pages as ThatMontrealIP noted.Fred (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. She might be notable, for all I know, but this isn't an English-language encyclopedia article. Random words appear in Hebrew text; the rest appears to be machine translated from a press release by her publicist who only can read Hebrew and a few words of Yiddish. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Award[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for notability for over 7 years!! No evidence of notability per sources that would establish WP:GNG. The sources I see on the Google appear to be of the press release or blog nature. Team-specific awards rarely do. Much of this could be condensed and included in New York Mets award winners and league leaders. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google is full of stories about the annual winners. No sense clogging up the page for the Mets' MLB award winners with this list of minor league winners. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbny-wiki-editor, like this and like this, yes. That hardly makes the "award" notable; the players are. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Announcements of winners by the Mets doesn't constitute independent coverage. (And besides, it's the Mets.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarityfiend, ha! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. This was the best I could find on the subject [11]. Bbny-wiki-editor's argument is invalid because notability isn't inherited from the players per WP:NOTINHERITED. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worse yet, that scottsdaleindependent.com reference is about a different Sterling Award altogether: "The awards will honor businesses in four categories: micro business; small business; big business; and non-profit.".
  • Delete. Some representative search results (actually, all the results which looked worth opening on the first three pages of a Google search for 'sterling award baseball'):
  1. Luis Santana Named Sterling Award Recipient. (1) That's about the player, not the award. (2) It's a Mets' publication, and not independent.
  2. Mets announce 2018 Sterling Award winners. The page is headed 'a New York Mets community'; it isn't independent.
  3. Ross Adolph Earns New York Mets’ Sterling Award. That's about the player.
  4. METS ANNOUNCE STERLING AWARD WINNERS. Brooklyn Cyclones' website; and (you guessed it) the Cyclones are part of the Mets organisation.
Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail. Narky Blert (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus here is that the article is suitable for inclusion to Wikipedia, and name/content/structure issues can be discussed at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of districts in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets[edit]

List of districts in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is completely unreferenced. There are no "districts" in Tower Hamlets. There are so-called "polling districts" but these are just administrative divisions of "wards" (see Tower Hamlets § Wards within the borough. This article is inaccurate, unsourced and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk • contribs) 2019-08-29 15:41:14 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tower Hamlets is so-called after the numerous hamlets in the vicinity of the Tower of London. These date back centuries and are the basis of many of the districts listed here, such as Spitalfields. We now have some modern creations too such as Canary Wharf and that's fine. None of this seems controversial and there are plenty of sources detailing the history and topography of the area such as this. Note that there are lists of this sort for all London boroughs and more besides – see {{Areas of London}} for many details and links. Applicable policies include WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book you're referencing mentions the word "district" only twice in relation to Tower Hamlets, and both times it is in relation to an industrial district, which is not what we are discussing here. So I'm confused as to what you think this article is actually about? It is not, as you are trying to suggest, about the history of Tower Hamlets, which is also covered in the East End of London, nor is it a list of the historical hamlets of Tower Hamlets. There is no such thing as a "district" in Tower Hamlets, there is no reference to support this article and it serves only to confuse. As it stands, the only place which refers to "districts" of Tower Hamlets is Wikipedia and this is mostly the work of disruptive sockpuppets (see here and here). Not only that, but this article also directly contradicts the Districts of England article, which is actually referenced. Indeed, Tower Hamlets itself is a "local authority district" - it cannot also have "districts" (see here)
    • It's the same as if I created an article called List of freeways in Tower Hamlets with a completely arbitrary and unreferenced list of roads in the area. There is no reason whatsoever for that article to exist in the first place and there is no external reference to support my selection, so WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE do not apply. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The term freeway is an Americanism and so would not be appropriate. The word district is used here in the sense which the OED gives as "Any tract of country, usually of vaguely defined limits, having some common characteristics; a region, locality, ‘quarter’." Like it or not, London contains numerous districts which do not now have precise boundaries or legal definitions. An example which I have worked on is Covent Garden. Its boundaries are debatable but the page is a featured article regardless. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • So how would you suggest referencing what is or is not a "district" in Tower Hamlets, when no external sources use the term? It is not our place to decide whether something should be considered a "district" simply because it seems to match the description in a dictionary - see WP:ORIGINAL. We must use only reliable sources. "District" is obviously not the correct term and this list is obviously pulled out of someone's imagination. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for completeness with the 31 other "List of districts in..." articles in Category:Lists of places in London, assuming that other boroughs are no different to Tower Hamlets. (Either that or delete them all, if the "list of areas within this area" article concept seems unnecessary.) Some other list articles avoid using the term "districts" in the article text and say "places" or "areas" instead, and perhaps it's worth a unified discussion about renaming them all to "List of areas in" to avoid any confusion with local authority districts. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London/Archive 9 has some inconclusive past thoughts on this.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was originally titled list of places in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets back in 2007, and that's what it started out as in terms of content. It was not originally intended as a list of districts, and our definition of "district" is woolly at best. In the 12 years since, the rest of Wikipedia has overtaken it and it has seen no real development at all, save by the sockpuppeteer discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Bow / Bethnal Green sockpuppet damage.

    The list of old civil parishes in the old Parliamentary constituency, some of which were in the original "places" list is today in Tower Hamlets (UK Parliament constituency). The list of wards in the borough is in London Borough of Tower Hamlets#Geography with several other in-article lists in other sections, and a navigation template at Template:London Borough of Tower Hamlets that has street markets, parks, and other places; all things that this list of places never gained. The whole thing seems superfluous, and I suspect that it is time to revisit these "list of districts" articles to see whether as a navigation system the development over the past decade and a half of in-article lists for the boroughs and Parliamentary constituences, and of navigation templates, has simply rendered them superfluous.

    It seems a little pointless to copy the in-article lists and navigation templates here, just to bring this article up to par with the 12 years of development, of the navigation system that editors decided to maintain instead of this, that it has simply missed out on. I do not see how even as a list of places (rather than "districts") this could improve upon the cohesive lists in the borough/constituency articles and the classified layout of the navigation template. The few remaining woolly "localities" can be incorporated into the navigation template or the borough article, properly classified. The list is comparatively substandard now, and would be a duplicate of what we already have if developed.

    Note that one of those "localities", Globe Town is a redirect to a non-existent section, and there is currently some debate about Globe Town, London.

    Uncle G (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Looking through the "List of districts in the London Borough of..." articles and their respective borough articles, I have no idea why any of these are separate lists. List of districts in the London Borough of Islington can just be redirected to London Borough of Islington (and many others of these) because it already exists there! While London_Borough_of_Tower_Hamlets#Wards_within_the_borough is not the same as the contents of this list, this can certainly be merged there as necessary. The naming issue certainly needs to be fixed otherwise. Reywas92Talk 05:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BACKINTHEDAY. ——SerialNumber54129 13:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All these places have articles, are in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, and can reasonably be called "districts", so the nom's assertion that "There are no "districts" in Tower Hamlets" is not true. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it shouldn't be split into two sections and should be renamed to "List of places in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets". Peter James (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Computerman[edit]

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

Defunct, non-notable banned signed to a minor label for two singles and which never released an album. Scraped through an AFD in 2008 on the basis of one reasonable BBC article and a couple of local pieces. In my opinion, not sufficient to pass WP:GNG, and nothing else they've done would get them past WP:NBAND. Hugsyrup 15:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND... in fact, if you read the article again, they only released one single in their entire career: the second one and the subsequent album were both cancelled. The single did reach no. 29 in the UK Indie Chart [12] but that really doesn't mean very much – a specialist chart where "indie" only refers to the fact that the the single was released on an independent label, not that the song is necessarily in any way alternative, which explains why the not-very-experimental-hardcore-at-all Katie Melua, Tiesto and Brian Kennedy all charted higher than Computerman that week... and the biggest-selling "indie" hit of that year was "Axel F" by Crazy Frog. The article's creator, a SPA, admits on the talk page that he only created the article because he was the band's manager. I don't really set much store by the fact that a local BBC station and a local newspaper both covered a local band as "the next big thing", because that's what they do all the time, and in this case the group never made it past that "next big thing" stage... a dozen years later and it's clear that the band will never record again and this article will never be improved. Richard3120 (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Appears to be one hit wonder band.Knox490 (talk) 20:27, 29 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 Stranger Things (season 1)#ep8. Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Eight: The Upside Down[edit]

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

Was redirected as part of an AfD, after which, nothing has changed. This article is virtually identical (in terms of sourcing and content) as that which was redirected as a result of that AfD. Onel5969 TT me 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The old AfD from October 2016 was set up, and passed, because a lot of the episodes from the first season were basically a copy\paste. This article is an exception to the rest, due to the fact that it's NOT a copy\paste unlike the rest of the episodes. Have a look at the reviews, they are specifically about the episode. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom, this is nearly identical to the article that was AfDed, as can be seen via a simple compare. —Joeyconnick (talk)
    • Comment: And is it nearly identical to the rest of the episodes of this season? That AfD, was set up and passed for the reason being that most of the episodes were basically a copy\paste. If it was nominated separately, it probably would have been kept. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Stranger Things - this article is headed by a tag saying the article may be of interest only to a particular audience. Vorbee (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stranger Things (season 1)#ep8 to preserve history. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stranger Things (season 1). Disregarding the excessive unreferenced plot detail, there isn't enough content here to justify a separate article. There is also no rationale given for why this episode should have a separate article - it has no particular features that make it more notable than other episodes, it's simply the season finale. The two sources discussing it reflect that, and those sources would be better employed in the Stranger Things (season 1) article, where discussion of the season finale can best be placed in the context of the season as a whole. A future split would only be justified on WP:SIZESPLIT grounds or if this episode later became notorious for some reason. ----Pontificalibus 15:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Pontificalibus: The excessive plot can be trimmed down easily. If the references refer to this particular episode rather than the season as a whole, then what's the problem with the article. I'm sure there's plenty more reliable sources disscussing this episode. The Optimistic One (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources discussing in detail whether Brenner is still alive after the monster jumps on him, but we don't need an article on the topic. The "production" and "reception" sections just reiterate information about the season (e.g. like all the other episodes it was directed by the Duffers. Shawn Levy of 21 Laps Entertainment produced it,and like the rest of the season it was released on July 15, 2016 on Netflix). The "reception" section likewise talks about the episode as part of the season. We give quotes such as "I've rarely seen a series as inviting...", "Stranger Things ends the way it began...". There's nothing to justify coverage outside of the season article.----Pontificalibus 07:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just googled the episode and I found several other sources for the episode alone, just because the episodes current state isn't satisfactory and looks vaguely similar to the rest doesn't mean it should be taken off completely. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are sources for the episode not currently being used: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quit dissembling: it doesn't look vaguely similar to the rest... it is nearly identical. If someone later wants to write up a properly sourced version that meets notability standards, it's not like the page couldn't be recreated. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cici Chen[edit]

Cici Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
@Hipposcrashed: The 2012 AFD never got anywhere, do you intend on re-nominating now? Iffy★Chat -- 15:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but nominator's statement isn't the reason. The rule is not that television personalities keep articles as long as they're still in the same job and then get deleted once they leave it; if a person was properly sourced as having been notable in the first place, then they stay notable forever. Even dead people stay notable permanently as long as they were notable in life. Rather, the real problem here is actually that Cici Chen was never properly sourced as notable under our rules for television personalities in the first place, relying entirely on a single piece of media content which is now a dead link and wasn't properly cited in the first place (media citations have to include the title of the content and the date on which it was published, people!) — so it is impossible to determine whether it was substantively about her, or just glancingly namechecked her existence in the process of not actually being about her. Nothing here is actually a strong enough notability claim to exempt her from having to have much better sourcing than this, and it's irrelevant whether she's still in the same job today or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the pageants she won are not at a level to make her notable nor have her roles in television been such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as a host and the two pageants that she has won is not notable event.Ms.bletvok (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar the Grouch (dog)[edit]

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

Fails WP:DOG. --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form, could have easily been speedy'd as a G11 as promotion of the dog. Bkissin (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:DOG. Every dog has his day, but not every dog can have his own Wikipedia article.Knox490 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Bongwarrior --Pierpao (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Menezes[edit]

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

No evidence of passing NFOOTY. Highly questionable GNG status - majority of references have nothing to do with the subject. Appears to be heavily edited by a closely related person or subject himself BlameRuiner (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unsure what's to be questioned? NFOOTY and GNG passed. Article is in a bit of a mess, but Menezes passes GNG: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. A number of those refer to Menezes as a former Indian international - which is enough for NFOOTY. Happy to be corrected if I'm missing something. R96Skinner (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since he was a manager of a team in the I-League, which is one of the fully-professional leagues of the NFOOTY list. William2001(talk) 19:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - RSSSF indicates that Henry Menezes played for the India national football team in the 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 editions of the Nehru Cup {[25], [26], [27], and [28]}, but these were unofficial matches against youth, Olympic and national league sides. I'm not sure he ever played an official match for India. Jogurney (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG per some good work by R96Skinner.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I actually agree with the nom that GNG status is "highly questionable". He is often in the media, but it's always talking about something else (like the state of football in India), rather than focusing on Menezes, the person. So I don't see WP:SIGCOV of Menezes in online searching, but this is a situation that I think the SNG is made for. He was goalkeeper for the national team for years–not sure how many appearances but he is certainly known as a national team goalkeeper, as that's mentioned often when he is quoted in the media about something. He also managed (and founded?) at least one team that played in an WP:FPL-listed league. He was awarded the Shiv Chhatrapati Award in 1986, which, yes, is a regional award, not a national one, but the region, Maharashtra, has over 100 million people, twice as many as England, so still kind of a big deal award. I think all signs point to the likelihood that there are offline, pre-internet-ubiquity sources (e.g., Indian media coverage from the '70s–90s) where, if we looked, we would find SIGCOV. And I think the SNG WP:NATHLETE overall supports that. So, keep per NATHLETE. – Levivich 01:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:19, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SAP Smart Forms[edit]

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

Fails GNG, WP:PRODUCT, WP:INHERITORG. No Independent sources cover this topic. This is a trivial subject with the narrow purpose of presenting a type of software that simply creates forms. There is no indication of significant impact. Also, the sources are trivial and are simply instruction manuals. Wikipedia does not cover handbooks unless independent secondary sources note its significant impact. WP:NOTADVERTISING also applies. Possibly it is too soon. Steve Quinn ---(talk) 14:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per policy: since it has been verified to exist it is clearly a reasonable search term. ——SerialNumber54129 15:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable software - just existing is not grounds for notability - Redirect to SAP SE is possible, but Smart Forms is not mentioned in that article as a product of SAP SE - Epinoia (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is policy; WP:N is not. Existence des not equate to notability, but it does provide a reason to redirect—which after all is WP:CHEAP—and conform to policy. The fact that the article is about SAP makes the SAP article a worthy target. ——SerialNumber54129 17:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:RPURPOSE says that one purpose of Redirects is for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article" - SAP Smart Forms is not described or listed in the SAP SE article, so there is nothing to target - Epinoia (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SAP Simple Finance[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources cover this topic. All available sources are affiliated with the company and this product. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRITE, WP:ORGIND, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Rheinwerk Publishing produces the imprint "SAP Press" [29]. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform is a self publishing outfit [30]. Espresso Tutorials is some sort of library that is a storage medium exclusively for SAP literature [31] and the SAP books catalog. WP:NOTADVERTISING. Steve Quinn (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is a classic User:Shevonsilva microstub - there is nothing here. This user has been blocked for creating thousands (really, about 3000) such articles, wasting the time of editors like Steve Quinn, who have to go through masses of poor "sources". Imaginatorium (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. SQLQuery me! 23:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition[edit]

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

Tried redirecting as per WP:CRYSTAL but it's since been contested - this is as of yet unreleased and has no coverage outside of "Microsoft just announced x will be released on y date" along with rumor-hype, which isn't really much of an article. I'd ask that this be deleted and redirected to the original target and can be revisited once it's released/if it receives necessary coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is definitely not appropriate as the game is due out in 3 months, and MS has talked extensively in general of the Age of Empires definitive editions. Whether this game needs a separate article from the original Age of Empires II game that's a separate question, but regardless "Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition" will be a likely search term. At worst Merge and Redirect to Age of Empires II but a Keep is also possible. --Masem (t) 14:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure how WP:CRYSTAL is supposed to be applicable here since all information is in fact verifiable and it's virtually certain that the game will meet any notability tests once released since reviews in multiple magazines and other reliable sources for a major title like that will exist. But it already meets WP:GNG because it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. Heck, there is even a extensive review of the beta version already. Definitely individually notable. Regards SoWhy 14:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SoWhy, none of the sources you posted besides the Game Informer preview are establishing notability. PCGamesN one can be used to expand development section but it's a WP:PRIMARY interview, and the rest are all WP:ROUTINE announcements of the game, neither of which are WP:SIGCOV (which requires in-depth reporting of the game). However, Game Informer mentioned here [37], PC World [38], Eurogamer [39], Laptop Mag (part of Purch Group) [40], Destructoid [41], GameStar [42], Computer Bild [43], Gamereactor [44], Heinz Heise [45] before I stopped searching. Clearly notable even before release, meets WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Masem and Praxidicae just in case to see the sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:06, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish women's cricket team in Austria in 2019[edit]

Turkish women's cricket team in Austria in 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not worth keeping such articles when the event was cancelled. See, WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Could be included in a wider article about Zimbabwe's current 'expulsion' if anyone is interested in creating such an article. Harrias talk 14:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 30 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 Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Clear consensus that this cannot stay as its own article and that it might fit in the list that already exists. Questions about the notability of the monster list need to be addressed in its own AFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoar fox[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:10, 29 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) 11:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Najaf Ali-zada[edit]

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

It clearly fails to meet the WP:Notability criteria and seems to be for promotion. The only source is a link that sends me to nowhere. Maybe this one deserves a speedy deletion though I am bringing it for community input. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally unsourced, probable self-promotion - a direct search for "Najaf Ali-zada" - the chosen title - returns 2 G-matches Arjayay (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and totally fails GNG.Knox490 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehab Karim[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:19, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just Detention International[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as lacking sources since 2011. Most of it was written by a handful of single purpose accounts. I have tried to find anything about them that's not a press release, without success. It appears to be a project of Russell Dan Smith, author of such peerless references as "Extraterrestrials And Sex",and the dates coincide with Smith's lawsuits.

Bluntly, this is advertising. It's also not notable. Superficial referenciness is provided by links to documents that are either self-published or do not discuss the subject at all, with one exception: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/226680.pdf, a mere namecheck. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fact the organization still functions and has a South African office (mentioned in the article) does not equate to notability. Nor does the executive director having written one op-ed piece for a newspaper. On a side note, Russell Dan Smith also sued Wikimedia for hosting nudity among other things. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all, the article reads very promotional. "Notable successes"? "Core beliefs"? Which is what Wikipedia is not. That aside, analyzing the references in the article:
  • 1) and 2) are WP:PRIMARY, comes from the (former?) president of the company
  • 3) Press release. WP:PRIMARY.
  • 4) and 5) Same as 1).
  • 6) The subject is not even mentioned.
  • 8)WP:PRIMARY.
  • 10) A passing mention (Just Detention International (JDI), the only US NGO dedicated solely to ending sexual abuse in detention, served on all eight of the expert committees appointed by the commission.)
  • 11) WP:SECONDARY requires sources from people that aren't connected to the subject. That isn't the case here (Just Detention International (formerly Stop Prisoner Rape) played a

pivotal role in our public hearings)

  • 12) Same as 1).
  • 13), 14), 18), 21), 26), 27), 28) Sources I cannot access.
  • 15), 16), 17), 19), 22), 29) Same as 1), all WP:PRIMARY
  • 20), 24), 25) The subject is not mentioned.

In my searches I have found lots of passing mentions like, with a half-decent source in [82]. But not enough, so as such fails WP:NCORP. The BeenAroundAWhile's argument that the company is notable because it is functioning is not based in any policy or guidelines, plus the article mentioned is a WP:PRIMARY (comes from the exec-director). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyree Walker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH . Not even played a game in college yet. Only WP:ROUTINE sources found. Josalm64rc (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is also a lot of significant coverage from various sources listed above. WP:ROTM does not apply because a very small percentage of college prospects are featured in multiple publications across the country like Walker. Sportzeditz (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is plenty of sources on this living person. He is a basketball player, and he is notable. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Dodgson Tan[edit]

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

The subject of the biography does not pass WP:SIGCOV as required under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Most of the references include a quote or two from the subject, who is speaking on behalf of the organizations he has been affiliated with, and other sources are WP:PRIMARY and non-independent of the subject. Moreover, the article reads like a personal vanity page. Vicheat (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vicheat (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vicheat the majority of the sources are from WP:NEWSORG including both of the national newspapers the Khmer Times and Phnom Penh Post. Just because an article includes quotes from the subject does not make it an unacceptable source, in good journalism they should seek input from the subject of an article. Additionally, the article clearly meets WP:GNG as the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambodiaSocial (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: CambodiaSocial (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Contrary to what CambodiaSocial says above, the sources are extremely weak. I started assessing them below, but I've stopped bothering to go into detail after 7 because it's clear that the sources are a disingenuous attempt to make the article look notable, while actually not coming close to passing the WP:GNG. None of the remaining sources are any better than these 7.
  1. [87] - Essentially a press release, with just a quote from Tan.
  2. [88] - Barely mentions the subject, except as the source of a quote. This is not WP:SIGCOV
  3. [89] - This is by Tan, therefore not independent.
  4. [90] - A blog. Not reliable, probably not independent, and doesn't discuss Tan in any depth.
  5. [91] - I'm a bit dubious about the independence of this as it stinks of press release, but it's irrelevant because it doesn't actually discuss Tan in any depth, it just quotes him extensively in talking about a different topic. This is not WP:SIGCOV.
  6. Foodbuzz - Not remotely reliable, or independent, and doesn't cover Tan at all. In fact I can't even post it here because it's blacklisted. Not a good sign.
  7. [92] - Not a reliable source, and barely mentions the subject of the article. Hugsyrup 10:09, 29 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 Uplay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uplay+[edit]

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

Nothing significant found for the product to have its own Wiki page. No need to create a separate page for Uplay+ as there is already a page for Uplay. Meeanaya (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Uplay - I agree this is not particularly distinct from Uplay - is it just another feature on the same service. It is also a recent feature - so standalone notability is sketchy. Merging with a redirect does however make sense. @Meeanaya: - you could've WP:BOLDly redirected it there (with a brief merge) - without an AfD nom. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Uplay per Icewhiz. Classic case of WP:ATD-M. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the similar names, Uplay and Uplay+ are not the same thing. Uplay is a platform that has always existed (uplay.ubisoft.com) and Uplay+ is a game service where people can download games freely on Uplay. The parallel would be EA Access which has a Wikipedia article here: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=EA_Access Hattiedog (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Uplay - gonna say this is WP:TOOSOON for an article, if it even merits one.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Uplay, and make sure it doesn't become a list article in a section of it; the availability for a game can be noted in its article rather than a WP:NOTDIRECTORY that duplicates its UI. Nate • (chatter) 20:49, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hardy CK[edit]

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

I can't seem to find the notability of this person. A simple google search did'nt hilde any significant results. Perhaps I could have missed something, i will let the community have the final say 10MB (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: A few minor roles, nothing significant for her. Meeanaya (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No reliable sources support the "CK" in her name, only imdb and a lot of social media ghits. Odd. Has she changed it? PamD 09:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON both for acting and directing/producing. The film festivals seem small, and she has only one significant role in a notable production. (I would guess that she probably added CK because Jennifer Hardy is a fairly common name.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Stablecoins. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TrueUSD[edit]

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

No reliable sources in the article. Topic doesn't seem noteworthy especially in light of crypto general sanctions Molochmeditates (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Molochmeditates (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I assert the article meets the notability criteria. TrueUSD has extensive coverage in a non-crypto news-source, Forbes[1][2][3]. Besides being the first fiat-backed Tether competitor, and the first fiat-backed stablecoin to do monthly attestations, two of the innovations described in the article (Autosweep, real-time monitoring) were covered by multiple secondary sources (CoinDesk, TheBlock) with substantial credibility in their domain. Though not as media-covered as controversial Tether, TrueUSD is regularly mentioned in every article[4][5] and analysis[6][7][8] about Stablecoins. The escrowed $200 million is perhaps significant all by itself, and the daily trade volume, even excluding exchanges suspected of faking their volumes, exceeds the most-traded stocks on the NYSE. I respect the sanctions in light of smaller projects without significance, but TrueUSD is an industry leader that regularly makes news. Wjmelements (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separately, I concede my COI. I wrote the majority of the article, and the article is about a product I develop. I indicated so on my profile shortly after I first-published the article. Wjmelements (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. All I see is a small paragraph among many other things on Bloomberg and passing mention on CNN. The rest are not reliable sources: crypto sites, Forbes contributor blogs and self-published sources. Retimuko (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the most-credible crypto news sources are currently disqualified as RS, that's going to cull a lot of the technical significance, as the internals of fintech are fairly niche. I accept this policy since it seems to be the current standard, but I would like to revisit this if that changes, or if there comes dedicated coverage from a more generalized news source. --Wjmelements (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge and redirect to Stablecoin. I'm slightly surprised, but yes, this article has not a single Wikipedia-quality reliable source - I thought of culling it to RSes, but that would mean actually deleting the whole thing. @Wjmelements: Is the single paragraph on Bloomberg all there is in mainstream sources? Are there any peer-reviewed academic sources? - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stablecoins article, which mentions TrueUSD and covers the internals of fiat-backed stablecoins. The sources available are not up to Wikipedia standards of notability, and most mainstream press coverage of TrueUSD is in the context of stablecoins at large. --Wjmelements (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect sounds good, actually - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not so sure about merge and redirect here. The source that mentions TrueUSD in the Stablecoin article is "masterthecrypto" - definitely not an RS. That article generally has issues with citations and verification already. I guess I'd be fine with the merge if the part of the article that mentions TrueUSD has better sources, like the Bloomberg source with a small paragraph. --Molochmeditates (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • oh yeah definitely, but I think that Bloomberg para is substantial enough for a mention in a longer stablecoin article - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've made this change in the stablecoin article. I add my vote to the redirect idea here as well. --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Forbes article 1
  2. ^ Forbes article 2
  3. ^ Forbes article 3
  4. ^ Bloomberg Stablecoin Article
  5. ^ CNN Crypto
  6. ^ Consensys Research
  7. ^ Binance Research
  8. ^ Blockchain Research
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 29 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) 02:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

300 crore club[edit]

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

Arbitrary milestone. Aside from media outlets casually calling films that gross ₹300 crore (3 billion rupees) members of the "300 crore club", I don't see any in-depth consideration of this subject as an established topic. It's jargony and neologistic, and I don't see that it belongs here. If the goal is to eventually list films that have grossed 300 crore rupees, then List of films that have grossed 300 crore rupees or more would be a better fit, since we shouldn't be legitimising the idea that there is an actual "club". There is no club. It's an expression. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: List of highest-grossing Indian films is sufficient and people can sort numbers there and can make any "nnn crore club". And please dont redirect it either as its not a popular jargon. To me, it can also mean List of Indian people by net worth. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and per Dharmadhyaksha. This, along with 100 Crore Club and 1000 Crore Club, are just long, verbose, jargony page-forks of List of highest-grossing Indian films, reflecting the Indian press' slightly breathless obsession with films' earnings (domestic and international). Oddly, the lead section of the 100 club article says that the figures are nett, while the 1000 club one says they're gross. I haven't bothered to check the figures: truly, life is too short. This new article says it's using nett. Keeping all four articles accurate, particularly during any given film's first few weeks of release when the fans and marketing people are at their busiest, burns a lot of editors' time. The pattern is "first film X reached the threshold, and newspaper Y commented on it, and then film Z reached the arbitrary threshold, although film Z had higher earnings by another measure", followed by a list of when the films reached the arbitrary threshold. It's gossipy and unencylopaedic. Delete all three. If an encyclopaedia really needs to list nett (which can be difficult to verify) as well as gross for the films of one country, then add a second column to List of highest-grossing Indian films. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Tracy Von Doom: for deletion of all nnnn Crore Club articles for their gossipy and unencylopaedic nature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - industry jargon not notable or differentiated enough from 100 and 1000 crore topics on its own. I would also recommend redirecting the latter to the former, which seems to have been the first "club" of the sort - if we're going to keep any of them. Don't see enough merit to keep a redirect unless we're going to create redirects for the whole lot: 200, 300, 400... Daß Wölf 11:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Delete all of the "club" articles. Bollyjeff | talk 12:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the above. Ravensfire (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:32, 31 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) 02:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Zipner[edit]

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

Non-notable chef whose is only known for his world record in peeling asparagus, which I highly doubt qualifies under WP:GNG. Google only returns results that are copies of this page's text. Chimneyrock (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The nearest thing I found in my WP:BEFORE was this article, which barely discusses him. The asparagus record is interesting but I haven't seen any substantiation of it (e.g., Guinness). Without more significant coverage, this fails WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, I added two sources (Boston Globe and New York Times) which confirm the asparagus record. (Both of the articles were published prior to this page's creation, so they are presumably not a case of citogenesis.) That said, I don't know if the Guinness record actually counts for notability. Gilded Snail (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best this boils down to one incident. The coverage all focuses on one records, it is not sustained, and the record itself is not the thing notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 30 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. Apparently WP:TOOSOON for notability under either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia McNamara[edit]

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

I appreciate User:Jesswade88's hard work on biographical articles on scientists, most of which are clearly notable. But an assistant professor with an h-index of 4 is unlikely to meet WP:NPROF yet. I don't see a WP:GNG case either. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with nominator. I don't see how she passes any of the NPROF criteria. Per my BEFORE, she doesn't pass GNG. Many of the sources in the article are not independent of the subject (i.e. authored by the subject, interview with the subject, profile of the subject probably written by the subject, etc.). Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really do wish that early career researchers were notable; but, per Icewhizz. ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that it's WP:TOOSOON for her to pass WP:PROF. The AmStat News profile is a reliably published in-depth independent source about her, contributing towards WP:GNG (ignore the "blog" in its link; it's the edited newsletter of a major statistical society, and this is a column they publish about members whose biographies they want to highlight, not just a profile available to all members). But it's only one source, and we need multiple sources like that for GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I realise that she McNamara is early in her career from a h-index/ publishing perspective; but from a science communication/education perspective, particularly in statistics, she has already accomplished a lot. This is very hard to evidence; coverage is in invited seminars/ keynotes rather than awards/ on the news. Her work in data visualisation and statistics education should meet criteria 4. Jesswade88 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Too soon. An early career scholar who is yet to accumulate enough achievements to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Toosoon. Agricola44 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Improve I feel like her work with UCLA's Mobilize project can meet criteria 4 and possibly criteria 1 depending on her level of involvement. It's tricky to write dataviz articles b/c a lot of the work is behind the scenes and doesn't get major media mentions. I'll look into it. Jessamyn (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Falls well short of NPROF and GNG. The article creator herself states above that the subject's notability "is very hard to evidence", yet we should only base AfD decisions on what is in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails to meet GNG standards. The subject might become enough notable later. Then an article dedicated to it would be good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article has been significantly improved and expanded since this discussion started and now has 24 references from a wide range of reliable sources. John Cummings (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you lay out which additions in particular add most to the case for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Haukur (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete My search of Google scholar and search for sources didn't show anything that meets WP:NPROF or that the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately. The AmStat reference is acceptable to me, but it is hard to find any other reliable sources for GNG. For specific academic notability, I think it is a bit too soon as an early career academic.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seems like the consensus is that the underlying concept is notable and worthy of being covered in some fashion - perhaps as part of a larger article, or in another article - even if the name is poorly chosen and the article in its current form inadequate (e.g per Epinoia's argument). Calling this a "keep" with the understanding that it is no prejudice towards merging or renaming the topic, although further discussion would be needed for either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Box[edit]

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

Article doesn't have any extensive coverage, so I think it fails WP:GNG Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added some references. Curb Box appears to be the primary name and there are a quite a number of plumbing websites and blogs mentioning it (although I wouldn't neccesarily use them as sources). --Spacepine (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are rather parochial U.S. semi-slang, though, which is possibly why web logs are the sources that you are coming up with. You will find that in India and several other parts of the English-speaking world, such as here and ISBN 9781139470414 chapter 26 for just two examples, that this is formally the boundary stopcock (or stop tap or stop valve), terminating the communication pipe that comes from the mains. See stopcock#Water service for how poorly Wikipedia covers this, compared to the book chapter that I have just cited. Uncle G (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with stopcock#Water service per UncleG and Tyw7 --Spacepine (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking about merger, too, but perhaps not to stopcock, because I think that Wikipedia should have a larger subject that explains all of the different pipes and valves, and things like why they are angled upwards and who is generally considered legally responsible for them, together. This is not really pop culture, per the deletion sorting. This is very much the sort of humdrum utilitarian subject that one would expect to find in a ″household″ or engineering encyclopaedia or suchlike. We should tap a WikiProject for some topic suggestions. Project:WikiProject Civil engineering, Project:WikiProject Home Living, and Project:WikiProject Water might be worth asking. Uncle G (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncle G, how do you del sort into Wiki Projects? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included at list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included at WikiProject Home Living. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included at WikiProject Water. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included at WikiProject Civil engineering. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 07:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Some research led me to a variety of sources ranging in reliability. While this is the case, curb boxes are a covered topic that receives enough attention to keep an article. Clearly this is not within my realm of expertise, but I trust that delegating responsibility to a plumbing WikiProject, if it exists, to patch up the article. This was suggested above, but I personally believe that the topic has enough potential to warrant its own article in this instance. However, a general piping article may be more aptly suited for the task of covering curb boxes if it comes into existence. Until then, this is fine in my eyes. Utopes (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Utopes, do you suggest the article be renamed? Did you find sufficient source to pass WP:GNG? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes to the rename. After looking into it further, I would personally prefer to rename the topic to be Curb Box. I added sources, but they aren't great. There was an old news article, and coverage by MW Dictionary. Will keep searching. The amount of coverage it has from a search seems to prove notability, but it's verifiable, reliable sources that it really lacks. If I could compare it to something, it's like finding sources for an article about a Chair. Everybody knows what it is, but you aren't going to find sources that cover it. That kind of stinks for the "Keep" case, but I'll continue on. Nothing decisive yet. Utopes (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Utopes, well the chair article talks about its history too. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I'm just referring to finding reliable sources about chairs. Searching for the word "chair" won't give you anything too great, so "history of the chair" would be the course of action........ wait..... As I was typing this, I realized that I should try more detailed searches, such as "history of the curb box." Already found an actually good source with this new mindset. Utopes (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all this article does is give a definition of the term, but Wikipeidia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC - article does not establish why this term is notable - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:23, 29 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. Unnecessarily detailed list per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Photoshop version history[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG, as it's entirely sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources such as the Adobe website. Part of it isn't referenced at all, which poses an issue of original research and its accuracy. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This information is not included in the main Photoshop history page. The version history either needs to be added to the Photoshop page or retained as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyancy (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOTCHANGELOG says "Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." Given long history of Photoshop, the article in question is not at all that detailed. And there is nothing wrong with WP:PRIMARY here: a serious no-nonsense company, info is reliable and there is no its interpretation in our article. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:GNG, a topic must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Note the word "independent". It doesn't matter how "no-nonsense" the company is, but simply citing the company directly does not prove notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To add on to Zxcybnm's reasons, the main article on photoshop seems to include plenty of detail on the version history. The only real addition this article makes is minute details that really are unnecessary, per WP:TOOMUCH. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or remove the massive version history section at Adobe_Photoshop#Version_history; honestly, we don't need both a tabular AND a prose version of the same material. And the intelligently put-into-context prose version is likely to be preferred. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Adobe Photoshop#Version history. Prose is more informative in this case, and as such more useful to the WP:READER. ——SerialNumber54129 12:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is fortunate that this page does not contain any instances of immediately detectable copyright violations. (Adobe is licensing some of its web contents under the terms of CC-BY-ND-NC.) Still, some these contents are rapidly dated. While it is very important for the posterity to know that it was Photoshop 2.0 that added paths and CMYK color support to its features, much of the content in this page are like "Enhanced video support", "Updated Printing UI", "Improved 3D painting", "New Creative Cloud Libraries capabilities", "Security fix for APSB18-43", etc. are too vague to mean anything, let alone have any impact on the world around. Perhaps we could salvage some of this information for Adobe Photoshop § Version history, if they had sources. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Serpent Society. RL0919 (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fer-de-Lance (comics)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_August_29&oldid=1142614609"