Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 January	28 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Alcatraz[edit]

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

An entire page of Scary Ghost Stories!!!!, with sources to match. Qwirkle (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (NB: It’s been a long time since I’ve weighed in on one of these — forgotten all my formatting and rules. But bored, so...). It looks like this article is nearly six years old, and that it was kept pursuant to a snowball keep in 2013. I don’t see a good reason to revisit that decision, as the reasoning in the original AFD looks reasonable. (Now how do I sign these things again?) TheOther Bob 00:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable, covered in lots of books and newspapers. And is also neutral and makes a counter claim. It got 2300 + hits this month, people search for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Herr Blofeld. Notability is well established through the references. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 30 January 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 2018 Maryland gubernatorial election per WP:ATD. Redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah[edit]

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

Article which was deleted in November, but then got recreated in December without actually building a stronger case for her notability than what wasn't good enough the first time. This is written differently enough that I don't feel comfortable immediately speedying it as a recreation of deleted content, but it isn't actually making a stronger notability case or referencing it any better -- in fact, by and large the referencing is even more dependent on primary sources that don't constitute support for notability at all (e.g. her speaker profiles on the self-published websites of conferences she spoke at, and Q&A interviews in which she's the speaker and not the subject being spoken about), and the small amount of stuff that is real media coverage is still just routine local coverage of her unsuccessful candidacy itself, rather than substantive coverage of her in any potentially notable context.
As always, the standards that an unsuccessful candidate would have to meet to qualify for a Wikipedia article are that either (a) she can be properly shown as having already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides being an unsuccessful political candidate per se (the Hillary Clinton test), or (b) her candidacy coverage exploded to the point that her candidacy can credibly be shown as a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies (the Christine O'Donnell test) — but this still shows neither of those things to be true at all. So showing a smattering of campaign coverage is not enough to get her over the bar, and the article still states nothing about her that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much more media coverage than this.
I also strongly suspect some form of conflict of interest editing, as the creator's username was "Marylandresident" and they've made virtually no edits to Wikipedia at all on any topic besides Vignarajah and her husband. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she remains a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apart from the sources included in the article, there's an article in The Frederick News-Post about her and the commencement address she gave [1]; the Sunday Times of Sri Lanka reprinted the Birchbox profile of her [2]; the Daily Mirror of Sri Lanka has a para about her in the article 'Hemas hosts Women’s Educational and Economic Empowerment Forum' (apparently she was Senior Advisor to the Asian University for Women (AUW), Bangladesh, in early 2017); India Abroad has a para about her in an article about Indian-Americans giving commencement speeches [3] (apparently she was founder and CEO of Spotluck Inc). So it seems like there were two substantial profiles of her, and some shorter coverage, before she ran for governor. I'm not sure that two counts as "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 Maryland gubernatorial election On top of the typical WP:NPOL failure (didn't win primary election. Candidates not notable), the article has some real POV issues bordering on WP:PROMO. The promo issues are reason to delete in and of itself, but I'm not seeing GNG. There are plenty of State Department personnel who don't have articles. Bkissin (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure that a redirect to 2018 Maryland gubernatorial election makes sense. The current lede of the article does not say anything about the subject's run for office (and she finished third in the statewide primary), suggesting she is more notable for other parts of her life. Nothing shows that there is "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources," and would fail WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Maryland gubernatorial election as per @Bkissin, whose argument I adopt. No sense repeating the exact same commentary. Rms125a@hotmail.com 02:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nicely written but not notable. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cedrick McDonald[edit]

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

Very little in the way of significant and in depth coverage outside of hyper local sources. Also seems like covert spam/COI. Might also just be too soon but at this point fails WP:GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly pr pieces, not enough significant coverage to establish it's notability. PlotHelpful (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

barely delete barely not notable. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sweta Rai[edit]

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

Moved from draft by article creator, sources are appalling and it fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete and Extended-Confirmed Create Protect as Conflict of Interest editing. The subject may be notable, but the author appears to be her ghostwriter. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)@Robert McClenon[reply]

I have made significant changes since the article was up for deletion. I have added references and deleted unnecessary materials. Please could you review the page one more time and advise if you still recommend it for the deletion? I am neither a publicist nor a ghostwriter, just a fan who got inspired from Sweta's journey(Suzzane lasale (talk))30th Jan 2019

Delete. The publicist who was churning it out certainly strove to drape the subject in as much notability as could be scraped up anywhere and further inflated, stretched, and rearranged. It's a publicity piece, not an encyclopedia article. I'd've G11'd it already if not for this discussion. – Athaenara ✉ 10:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple The article has been significantly improved since it was flagged for deletion, please have a look, Thanks (Suzzane lasale (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC))31st Jan 2019[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Bakazaka (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Athaenara, @Bakazaka It is quite surprising to read your comments, but I would like to thank you all for your advice as I am a new writer at Wikipedia. If I were Sweta Rai's publicist or her "ghostwriter" this article would have been live by now as I would have known the best methods to get it done. Sadly, I am not. Please look up Sweta Rai's IMDB- she doesn't have a manager, publicist or an agent. All the movies mentioned in her article are running on various platforms these days- Hulu, Showtime, Amazon Prime, iTunes, etc. These movies are also available across stores in America like Walmart, Best Buy, Target, etc. Along with this info, I have cited the latest articles that were published in the newspapers, magazines that demonstrates Sweta Rai's education (three master's) and her film career. A show on her journey was also telecasted on a National Indian TV channel where the journalist clearly talks about her achievements. Nowadays even the short filmmakers are there on Wikipedia, and it is still not clear to me that someone like Miss Rai who has studied from prestigious institutions like AFI, she has made 7 feature films in 2 years (all released), she was Discovery Channel global diversity ambassador and a national TV newscaster- is not worthy of being mentioned on Wikipedia? Her journey from a small town of India to Hollywood is incredible. Again, I am citing from the facts mentioned by newspapers and magazines. The moment I make changes someone immediately deletes it without even letting it on the draft for at least a day for other volunteers to review. In any case, I am not here to question your authority, even if the article is deleted, it should also be deleted from everybody wiki. It shouldn't be there as well. I do not have any personal interest in her article except for the fact that I wrote it, so please proceed with however way you'd like to. Thanks again.(Suzzane lasale (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC))30th Jan 2019[reply]

Delete May be WP:TOOSOON: the subject does not appear to meet WP:FILMMAKER yet, nor is there any coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, primarily to User:Suzzane lasale, and to anyone else: You wrote:

If I were Sweta Rai's publicist or her "ghostwriter" this article would have been live by now as I would have known the best methods to get it done.

Not necessarily. Publicists and ghostwriters usually think that they know how to work Wikipedia. They don't always. It is "well known" that hiring a paid editor is a good way to get yourself publicity in Wikipedia. Common knowledge isn't always true. The volunteer editors of Wikipedia do not always succeed at keeping Wikipedia free of spamming, but we often do very well at keeping it neutral and free of spam. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 1 February 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 withdrawn. clpo13_(talk) 22:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Pueringer[edit]

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

Can't see how the subject passes WP:GNG. I'm finding lots of passing mentions, but no substantial coverage in reliable sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I added three more sources. - User:Dflovett

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - those sources probably tip the balance for me - sorry I didn't look a bit harder before nominating. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cavallo[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography, though I concede that in itself is not enough of a reason to delete (more of an interesting aside). More importantly, the subject simply does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local office in a town of 13,000 is not enough for notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an article about a local officeholder. Does not meet WP:NPOL. --Kbabej (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable autobiography. Cabayi (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even city managers of places over 100,000 are not default notable. When the population is less than 20,000 they are closer to default non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable autobiography. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable autobiography. GPL93 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear if delete The bandwagon says delete but if there are really more sources, the head of the city may be notable. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Alexander[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. References are standard local news coverage. ... discospinster _talk 19:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per WP:NPOL "The following are presumed to be notable.... members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." As a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives the subject is automatically notable. --Kbabej (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of his notability as a politician, I would say the subject passes GNG. The LA Times, Seattle Times, and Yahoo Finance seem more than 'standard local news coverage'.Gilded Snail (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "standard local news coverage" test applies to mayors and city councillors and other officeholders at the local level of political office, but that's not the level of significance in play here. This subject held a seat in a state legislature, which is an WP:NPOL #1 pass right on its face — at that level of office, we don't have any conditions as to how local or non-local the sources need to be, because the office is an inherently notable one at the state level of government. As long as we can properly verify that the person actually held the claimed role and isn't an outright hoax, state legislators are guaranteed Wikipedia articles — when it comes to politicians, the question of how non-local their sourcing needs to be only comes into play at the county and city council levels, and is not relevant to state legislators or congresspeople at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Connecticut House of Representatives - passed WP:NPOL --Enos733 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a State Representative and therefore meets WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep being an elected official of a state is notable. Nominator must consider withdrawing this Loved150 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Sawaya[edit]

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

First off, he does not pass the notability guidelines for actors. As the opening paragraph admits all of his roles were minor. This kills almost all chances of passing actor notability, and there is not coverage of him as an actor to overcome that. Then we turn to the sources. The first is IMDb, which is both meant to be exhasutive while Wikipedia is not, and is not a reliable source. The other is a wiki devoted to Star Trek, which is even less a reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even the article says he has acted "always as minor characters" - rules out WP:NACTOR right there (I admit I laughed out loud when I read it). There is simply no independent, reliable, significant coverage of the subject that I have found. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a potential for confusion as there were two actors working in the same period (1950s to 1970s) known as George Sawaya. The other one, who typically worked under the stage name, George Murdock (actor), received extensive coverage like this and this. I am not finding such coverage for the former. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NACTOR as none of the roles done are significant.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 31 January 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brainerd[edit]

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

Delete Does not appear to meet the criteria for establishing notability. References are poor and not entirely reliable or are Primary. Biggest claim to fame is a claim to have coined the phrase "Desktop Publishing" Fails WP:BIO. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep I saw some decent sources in a search. There is recent news coverage regarding his philanthropy, and numerous book references on his computer career. They're not extremely strong, but they are enough for WP:BASIC.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ThatMontrealIP:, that's great! Can you post links? I am unable to locate any decent references that meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, @HighKing:, but next time maybe you can do the research before nominating? I found these by employing a standard Google search with the quoted phrase "Paul Brainerd", sometimes with "Aldus" or "philanthropy". Some are in-depth and some are passing mentions of the DTP phrase he coined. The sources deal with both his role in computer history and his more recent, widely covered, efforts in New Zealand to establish some kind of ecological retreat. There are at least a dozen more mentions of his role in establishing DTP that I have not included. So there you are.

US couple 'give back' with trailblazing Glenorchy camp ground
How Paul Brainerd’s extraordinary career went from revolutionizing publishing to empowering enviros:"The sale in 1994 of Seattle’s Aldus to Adobe for $525 million didn’t end Paul Brainerd’s entrepreneurial run. It just pointed it in a new direction. A personal windfall of roughly $120 million allowed Brainerd, whose PageMaker software revolutionized desktop publishing, to break from the business world and move to nonprofits. He spearheaded the launch of a series of organizations that sought innovative strategies for practicing philanthropy, education and saving the environment."
Foreign investment in the South Island: Strangers in Paradise
Meggs' History of Graphic Design
Glenorchy rift 'ripping the town apart'
Responsibility at Work: How Leading Professionals Act (or Don't Act) Responsibly
Type: The Secret History of Letters
Forbes: "Take Paul Brainerd, a former journalist who founded Aldus, the developer of the desktop publishing program PageMaker. After making millions from the sale of his company, he started the Brainerd Foundation, which focuses on environmental protection in the Pacific Northwest, in 1995. From there, he founded Islandwood, a 250-acre outdoor learning center that brings kids from urban neighborhoods to Bainbridge Island, Wash., to educate them about the environment."
International directory of Company Histories
Infoworld article
The Telecommunications Illustrated Dictionary
Infoworld again
Desktop Publishing: Anwendungen, Erfahrungen, Prognosen
Computerintegrierter Arbeitsplatz im Büro: München
Australian Printer Magazine
Business Week
Entrepreneur magazine encyclopedia of entrepreneurs
Computing fundamentals
PC world
Time Magazine:"Toward the end of 1984, a gentleman named Paul Brainerd, the CEO of PageMaker, showed Apple CEO John Sculley and his team a new software product. This was the first WYSIWYG program of its kind and as Brainerd pointed out at the time, the Mac made it possible for him to create such a product. The term “desktop publishing” came out of the union of Apple’s Mac, the laser printer and Aldus’ PageMaker. It changed the world of publishing forever."
Macworld
Macworld: the Macintosh Magazine
Inside Philanthropy
Cases in Corporate Acquisitions, Buyouts, Mergers, and Takeovers
US News and World Report
Personal Computing, Volume 14
This Place on Earth: Home and the Practice of Permanence
Design World
Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools for the Professional Programmer
Personal Publishing, Volume 7, Issues 1-12
Venture Philanthropy
Desktop Publishing in the University: Opinions and Experiences of Professional and Non Professional Publishers
New York Times
New York Times Interview
New York Times article on Social Ventures Partners, one of his philanthropy projects: "It has to do with a generational shift, said Paul Brainerd, who founded Social Venture Partners after he collected $150 million from the sale of his software company, the Aldus Corporation, to the Adobe Corporation in 1994. These are people in their 30's and 40's who have more to give than just their money. They have their intellects, their minds. Their idea is more than just charity. It's investing."
PHILANTHROPY: THE NEXT GENERATION - The Washington Post " Paul Brainerd and his friends don't have much experience being rich..."
Computer Age Millionaires Redefine Philanthropy, The New York Times

ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nomination claims coining a phrase isn't enough for notability. Fair enough, however in this case he did not simply make up a phrase. He co-founded a company that brought out the first WYSIWYG consumer Desktop publishing program. Then he coined the phrase. There's a bit of work there. Per WP:ANYBIO, he made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". That contribution to the field is widely recognized above, in the many different publications... Time, the New York Times etc. He is mentioned is just about every history of DTP.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think, thanks to ThatMontrealIP, that there are enough sources to show that the GNG is met. There are a lot of passing mentions, but also some good profiles.Sandals1 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too late for a Speedy Keep. Thanks to ThatMontrealIP for all his RS! StrayBolt (talk) 16:32, 28 January 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. Interesting discussion. It comes down to "what is best for the encyclopedia". Those who !vote "delete" have not given a strong case that deleting the article would improve the encyclopedia, they have instead made a strong case that WP:GNG is not met. It should be clearly shown why deleting verifiable information on what is used as a reliable source is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. On the other hand, there is also not consensus that keeping this article improves the encyclopedia, therefore the close as "no consensus".

This close does not contemplate whether or not the article contains biased language, an editing issue outside the scope of this deletion discussion as it appears it could be remedied without deletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EA WorldView[edit]

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

As per the analysis by Lopifalko at Talk:EA WorldView, this blog fails GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete: as creator of the article I’m happy with the explanations as to why it does not meet the notability criteria. Kittycat55 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep: I don't agree that the topic is insufficiently notable for a short article, as per my comments on the talk page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument at Talk:EA_WorldView appears to be that, to quote, "EAW is taken seriously as a source by reliable sources". You give a number of examples of reliable sources quoting EA WorldView. If EA WorldView is taken seriously in that manner, then it would be reasonable to use EA WorldView content for sourcing purposes. That is, we would be able to consider it a reliable source itself. I take no view on that point.

However, that is a different question to whether there should be an article about EA WorldView. There are many things that are reliable sources, but we don't have articles about them, and many things we do have articles about that are not reliable sources.

The question as to whether we should have an article is determined by WP:GNG. Notability is not achieved by others citing EA WorldView: it requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" and "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I see nothing like that. Bondegezou (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on balance, it is better to have an article for those sources we consider reliable, so that reader ws will know what they are. this is especially important for sources from this region. Thisis of course not a formal criterion of notability , but I think its an appropriate exception. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you say, this is not a formal criterion of notability. I don't see any reason to re-write Wikipedia notability rules. There are many reliable sources that we don't have articles about. Nor is there even a consensus that this is a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The quoting is of the Professor, who may or may not be notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. If an article is created about him, this may be merged there. Article is also slightly promotional. wumbolo ^^^ 10:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why one has to wait for the BBC , or some such, to run entire articles on EA World View, before accepting an article on it as worth having. I know the GNG say 'the topic has to have significant coverage - but why would the BBC give significant coverage to EAWorldView per se, unless it were involved in some egregious scandal or something. I would say its frequent recourse to EAWorldView, and Scott Lucas, for informed comment is in itself a kind of ongoing endorsement of it/him as notable. Bob from Brockley has provided imo enough evidence of its notability on the talk page of the article.Dan the Plumber (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) As per DGG, you seem to be saying that this doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard notability criteria, so we should ignore Wikipedia's standard notability criteria. That's not generally how AfD is meant to work. (2) Brockley Bob shows some evidence of the site being used as a reliable source, but that's not the question before us. There are hundreds of reliable sources that we don't have articles about (and thousands of articles about things that are not reliable sources). (3) The BBC does not make frequent recourse to EA WorldView. It has never, as far as I can see, made any recourse to EAWorldView. It has on a few occasions used Prof Lucas for quotes in articles, but, as per Wumbolo, that may be reason for an article on Prof Lucas. It isn't a reason for an article on EA WorldView. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegzou - you're kind of splitting hairs if you say this for eg. isn't having recourse to EAWorldView[4]; you're absolutely right that I am similar in my reasoning for keeping the article to DGGs point of view. Dan the Plumber (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mention of EA WorldView. The BBC don't cite something published in EA WorldView. They quote Lucas. Either way, doesn't matter, clearly doesn't meet GNG. Lots of things get mentioned on a BBC article but don't warrant articles. Lots of professors get quoted in the press. I've been quoted in the press. That doesn't mean the quoted person or the website they run meets notability criteria. This site doesn't meet WP:GNG, nor WP:WEBCRIT, nor Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#If_the_content_is_not_notable. I quote, "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content that, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for whom editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves." Bondegezou (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The practical rule here is that we keep whatever we have consensus to keep. The notability criteria are only guidelines, not policy, and like all guidelines they are only general expectations, not fixed rules.They are expected to vary in individual cases, whenever people have consensus to do so. That's why we have these discussions.If they were applied mechanically, we wouldn't need to talk about it. There is a fundamental rule, which is that we try to do what is best for the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling guidelines "only general expectations" isn't quite right. Guidelines are usually followed and exceptions are rare. WP:CONSENSUS makes clear that, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

There should be some reasoning behind exceptions. What makes EA WorldView exceptional? You argue above that "it is better to have an article for those sources we consider reliable, so that reader ws will know what they are." This is not some exception specifically to do with EA WorldView. There are large numbers (1000s?) of sources that we consider reliable, but we don't have articles about them. If the Wikipedia community had a consensus that we should "have an article for those sources we consider reliable", that would've been added to WP:GNG years ago and Wikipedia would look very different. (You do also add that "this is especially important for sources from this region", although that seems to me to fail under WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.)

Yes, we should respect consensus and that's why we're having this discussion. This discussion is not the place to introduce a broad new definition of what is notable ("sources we consider reliable", as you put it). We should respect WP:GNG. Best I can tell, nearly everyone in this discussion agrees this article fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. I find the arguments for keeping the page, which more or less concede that the subject does not meet our notability criteria and are based on IAR, to be unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 4 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phra Wimondhammaphan[edit]

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

Non-notable Buddhist monk Polyamorph (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just some passing mention in Thai news sources, therefore not a notable person.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article is cited to quite a few book sources, though the publishers are probably not independent. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 27 January 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 The Emperor's New School. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Emperor's New School Musical[edit]

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

This episode does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability, as it has not received enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to warrant its own article. While the Annie Award win may be an indicator of some notability, I do not believe it would be enough to support the episode having an article all by itself. The sentence about the award and its related source could easily be merged into the article on the show itself. Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or Redirect This is not needed on its own. Govvy (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to The Emperor's New School. Vorbee (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the vote. I have already merged the information about the awards into the parent article during my expansion of it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 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) 09:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NSCC Trabzonspor[edit]

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

A Lower tier team playing on county level.. No notability at all --87.170.47.134 (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Converted from CSD to AfD by ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 13:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. I can find this and this (and that's about it) which only confirm existence. Giant Snowman 10:18, 28 January 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. Yes, I know nobody has explicitly argued to keep here; but evidence of notability has been provided, nobody except the OP has argued to delete, and the OP has been blocked as a sock, meaning that I am ignoring their opinion. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerina Dunwich[edit]

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

No obvious notability Oathswarm (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some signficant coverage in two newspaper articles ([5], [6]). Also what could be more notable than being, according to the The Cat Book of Lists: Facts, Furballs, and Foibles from Our Favorite Felines, a "world-renowned authority on felidomancy".--Pontificalibus 14:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, appears to be quite a prolific author, and at least one of her books Herbal Magick is held by a large number of libraries (over 450, yes this includes ebook), but where are the useable reviews? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As well as the two articles with lengthy coverage which Pontificalibus found, I have found several 1-2 para reviews of The Pagan Book of Halloween (eg this [7], written by staff of the Dallas Morning News, though this link is to a Kentucky newspaper; this [8] by an Associated Press writer, published in several papers including this one in South Carolina; one in Publishers Weekly, 30/10/2000, Vol. 247 Issue 44, p70, [9]); and it's quoted in a 2013 article on Halloween in the Tennessean [10].

Ghostvillage [11] would not be regarded as a reliable source, but their reviews of her books can be critical (eg in the review of A Witch’s Guide to Ghosts and the Supernatural [12], "When Dunwich is describing the haunted houses she has lived in and some of the supernatural experiences that have happened to her directly, she is sometimes overly dramatic and sensational, which does slightly affect her credibility. As an example: “But the moment I placed my hand upon the knob of the bedroom door to open it, the music was no more.” She uses this touch of Edgar Allan Poe-style in many places while describing her haunted house experiences—probably in an attempt to set a scarier tone for the reader, but it often just leaves a bad taste.")

I also found a 1999 article in a Toronto paper [13], about the popularity of witchcraft, which has a long bit about teenagers reading and using spells from Wicca Love Spells, which it says was one of the most popular books for teens. An article in Publishers' Weekly about the publisher Career Press says that Exploring Spellcraft by Gerina Dunwich had sold more than 30,000 copies [14]. I also noted that Wicca Candle Magick was in the top 5 non-fiction Most Reserved books at Mesa Public Library in Phoenix, Arizona in 2001 [15], and a women's book group discussed it in 1997 in Stanton, Delaware [16].

Looking on Google Scholar, I counted just under 50 books and articles by other authors which quoted her works.

The book Poet's Market 1998: 1,700 Places to Publish Your Poetry (1997) [17] confirms info about the press she founded, although as the description of the press starts with quotation marks, it may not be an independent assessment of the press.

If her biography is included in various sources, it would be more useful for those sources to be used as references (and this para should be deleted!). The Who's Who in the East and Personalities of America may not be independent (I'm not sure how entries are selected and written), but The Wicca Source Book and The Modern Witch's Complete Sourcebook are by Dunwich herself, so are definitely not independent. Interestingly, her biography in the Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft has the exact same sentence about her memberships and where her bios are included - and the previous para about being a spokesperson and a guest on talk shows etc is almost identical to the Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft too. From the revision history of the article, I see that the paragraph about her bios has been in it from the beginning, with no attribution. In 2005, a large amount of text was deleted (but not wiped) as a probable copyright violation; it was reverted with the summary "permission granted - contact gerinadunwich@yahoo.com". So either we have WP:COPYVIO or we have WP:COI.

She maybe scrapes through WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR, but the article still needs a lot of editing and more inline citations, as well as addressing the WP:COPYVIO and/or WP:COI. So I am really not sure about this one. (Sorry for writing screeds!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stellaris (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked in the body of two articles (both of which are namedrops that could be deleted easily). A Google search for "stellaris marvel" didn't turn up any reliable sources. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: S or Annihilation (comics)#Annihilation: Ronan. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not independently notable. Does not meet my criteria for a list entry. The character's role in Annihilation is neither important nor the most significant appearance. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Argento Surfer. Not independently notable enough to merit a merge._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. Straightforward failure of WP:GNG. No other likely target. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:22, 1 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toos van Holstein[edit]

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

Article ona Dutch artist, without proper sources for the past 12 years. The only web sources I could find were commercial or wiki sites. I saw one decent book reference, and a couple of glancing mentions in news items. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are books used as sources, but the references are unclear. The books can be looked up by ISBN on WorldCat. I think having someone fluent in Dutch look at this is important. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to give more complementary information about Toos van Holstein and I hope that by this the deletion of the lemma about Toos van Holstein can be put out of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harm Witteveen (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harm Witteveen, the material you added had no sources, so I have reverted it as we do not add speculative material without sources. See the explantion I left you on your talk page. If you have independent sources, add them to the page. Also, someone named Harm Witteveen in real life is strongly associated with the article subject, so if you happen to be connected to Toos, please declare your connection per WP:COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Briljanten kunstenaar van het jaar"is part of the "Kunstenaar van het Jaar" (artist of the year) award, a popular vote to select the most popular artist in the Netherlands. The winners tend to be notable, for example, Marlene Dumas won in 2015. I'm having difficulties finding independent, reliable sources about van Holstein though. All the sources provided seem to be exhibition catalogues (co-authored) by a major contributor to the article. I have not been able to access these books, with one exception: https://issuu.com/donkigotte/docs/20130411_brochure_toos_def. It contains a two-page bio and an introductory text about the exhibition. It lists exhibitions in the Musee St. Paul de Vence, Museum het Peetershuis in Gennep, the Martinikerk (Franeker) [nl] in Franeker and Fort Rammekens [nl] in Vlissingen. I can't quite make out which museum in Saint-Paul-de-Vence the catalogue refers to; there are several, the most notable of which is the Fondation Maeght, but from what I can tell, it is likely the Musée municipal de Saint Paul instead. My take on those is that they are all rather minor exhibition spaces, not significant or highly selective museums with a reputation for curatorial excellence. Vexations (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this excellent research. As you point out, all of the article sources are written by an author named Harm van Witteveen. ::It seems like a clear notability fail, as there is no coverage in multiple independent publications. Instead, we a single author who ::wrote all the coverage, and a WP account by the same name who wrote the article and !votes above at AfD. Seems like classic ::promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read nl:Toos van Holstein, and failed to persuade myself (noting that all the citations were self-published) from what it says in main text that the artist would pass WP:NBIO in English WP. A Google search turned up no independent in-depth WP:RS sources. I concur with the analysis by Vexations, above: WP:TOOSOON at best. Narky Blert (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is an article on the dutch WP (here) but unfortunately (her paintings look pretty amazing, why isnt she held in notable collections?) it doesnt have any more. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 30 January 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. Sandstein 12:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sligguth[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked by four articles, all of which are only one-off mentions. Appears nine times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: S or List of Marvel Comics demons. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not independently notable. Not notable within the fiction either, so a list entry isn't warranted. The lists are not meant to be exhaustive. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Argento Surfer. Not notable enough to merit a merge._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:58, 29 January 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. Sandstein 12:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Prince Philip road accident[edit]

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

Adding for discussion per tag from 25th Jan. Does basically seem like WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Oathswarm (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while extensively reported, I don't think a collision that did not result in major injury or police charges need to be covered outside of the main subject page.Oathswarm (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although it was extensively reported because of the stature of the person primarily involved, short-term high profile news does not and should not result in an article where the subject doesn't demonstrate at least some historical significance. If the debate were to rage on for weeks and laws changed as a result of it, then there may be a case to say it's historically significant, but that isn't the case at this moment in time. It only made news because of the driver, not the incident. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sparked worldwide debate and articles such as "Prince Philip and telling your dad to give up driving" https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/21/prince-philip-and-trying-to-tell-your-dad-to-give-up-driving . Thousands of other collisions, even ones that make the local news, do not cause this reaction. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks after the accident, there is continued worldwide debate about Prince Philip, privilege, and elderly driving. This is from Canada https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/culture/article-prince-philips-accident-revives-the-debate-about-age-and-driving/ and from the UK 3 days ago. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/jan/27/prince-philip-car-crash-elderly-drivers-data-uk-us Much more lasting impact than just another accident. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning has already nullified your counter-argument. We aren't even talking about a criminal conviction - it is just a road traffic incident with no fatalities and no serious injuries. I accept if things escalate and there is a debate in parliament about laws being changed regarding old age driving or the like, and/or he himself is charged/convicted then there would be a different debate to be had on this matter (I am not saying that would justify an article, but the discussion would be different). At this moment in time, it doesn't justify an article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There can clearly be a mention of this in the article on Prince Philip, but the incident itself is just an ordinary road traffic accident. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:EVENT, this does not have enduring historical significance. Already sufficiently covered in Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.--Pontificalibus 10:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried to be tolerant here, but there are obvious problems with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RECENTISM. Not everything in the news warrants a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the WP:NOTNEWS concerns, I also think the article violates WP:BLP, given that this is a minor incident which has been blown up by a few media outlets (and yes, other media around the world has also reported on it, but those are short notices - there is no lasting impact shown). I removed a tabloid/gossip magazine style section but part of that content, which I still think violates BLP, was almost immediately restored. Any relevant and encyclopedic content can go in the article about Prince Philip; there is not enough such content about the incident to have a separate article about it. --bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Unemployed old bugger crashes car. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he qualifies as an Old Age Pensioner at that age. Someone Not Awful (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that's a entirely rational, or accurate, reason for deletion. I was scolded for suggesting the Kia passenger was being "untruthful". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Improper AFD. There was a tag that the article was PROD until 1 February. The AFD is improper until then.
Keep Sufficiently meets WP:N Significant coverage in hundreds of articles in many countries. Reliably covered. Has secondary sources. Article contents does not determine notability so if the article is written like crap now, just be patient and it will get better. Also useful in that the incident generated public debate on elderly drivers, was the subject to ebay listing of crash debris, generated debate about the Duke of Edinburgh's unwilling to say "sorry" but later remedied by a letter of apology, etc.

While Wikipedia users bring up the point "other crap exists", this is not crap and beats articles such as Health of Donald Trump. More likely to be read and have a lasting impact than this article, Korean Air Flight 8702 or JetBlue Flight 191

Another important point is that if information given here is inserted into the Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh article, it will be the source of fights and arguments. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For any of the Royal Family to be involved in a potential court case, or an RTA of any kind, is extremely rare. Wide news coverage across the world. Part of a wider debate about older drivers. I don't think the article is actually "written like crap now". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment a potential court case isn't yet an actual one though. And at the risk ofWP:OTHERSTUFF Princess Anne's actual criminal conviction in 2002 doesn't have a page. This is cast iron WP:NOTNEWS 213.42.159.218 (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with that comparison, although I think it's more borderline than "cast iron". I must admit that I saw the main benefit of this article as keeping detail out of the main one. It's highly unlikely there will be any criminal proceedings. I would imagine the insurance companies will agree between themselves on a no-fault settlement. But Philip does seem lucky be unscathed, or even alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Prince Philip was prosecuted, this article probably wouldn't meet WP:GNG. In November 2002, Princess Anne was convicted and fined £500 under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 [18], but it doesn't have an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remind you that bits of English bull terrier weren't offered for sale on eBay. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Are you saying that that ear that I bought was a fake? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a definite keep. Why is there this discussion anyway? Full of sources, major long term questions. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because something can have lots of sources without being actually notable, especially if it's WP:NOTNEWS as is the case here. And what are the "major long term questions" specifically applicable to this incident and Prince Philip? 94.57.67.156 (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about "long-term questions" is purely conjecture as I am not aware we can see into the future as to what may happen. Many here can identify with the fact that this is just a news story that has no place on wikipedia, irrespective of it being "well sourced" or "well written" (neither of which are compelling reasons). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of this article's content could be merged into Old age and driving, as it was "high profile" as far as news coverage was concerned. Although that might be making the assumption that Philip was to blame. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he was to blame it might not be his age that was the cause, but some other factor that affects drivers of all ages. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although you never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 3 February 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. Sandstein 11:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Nejati[edit]

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

The article is not notable as well as title is not supported by RS. please pay attention that Wikipedia is not personal blog or a newspaper. Saff V. (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ali Nejati has been in the leadership of a major trade union for over 10 years. There are news articles covering his activities going back to 2009. For instance this article and this one, both referenced in his article in the Farsi Wikipedia. From what I understand you do in fact read and speak Farsi so I have to conclude that you are aware of Nejati's notability but feel you have to sabotage his page anyway. Fredrick eagles (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs)
KeepI think there is enough secondary sources available in Persian for this subject.Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources exactly?Saff V. (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability of Ali Nejati is beyond dispute as manifest in his Farsi article. The article in English Wikipedia needs development. Fredrick eagles (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Farsi Wikipedia has different notability standards. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable labour activist/political-prisoner. Has fawiki entry (with quite a bit of Persian language sources). Has quite a bit of English coverage as evident even in a cursory google news search. WP:BLPCRIME not an issue as he's imprisoned for political charges and since he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE via his outspoken activism (that got him arrested).Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sepideh Gholian.فرهنگ2016 (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,I searched in different media and google and found quite enough material that shows he is notable and article has WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets Wikipedia:Notability, has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Pahlevun (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When wp:GNG confirm the notability, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, while there is no independent or reliable sources enough to cover the notability. Being famous in Link-din or Facebook differ from being notable.Saff V. (talk) 09:23, 2 February 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 Internationalization and localization. Sandstein 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical zoning[edit]

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

There are extensive and well-sourced articles on Internationalization and localization, Internet censorship and related topics. This unsourced stub adds nothing. Mccapra (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internationalization and localization, which has the subject well covered. Still a useful search term IMO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:21, 28 January 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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Irfan Waheed[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well WP:POLITICIAN. Not an elected member of the parliament. Saqib (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — but this demonstrates neither that he had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy (in fact it doesn't even try) nor that his candidacy was special in some way that would make him more notable than everybody else who ran but didn't win. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. samee converse 23:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
probable delete but can't figure out how notable that election is. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzi Unicem[edit]

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

Article version nominated for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buzzi_Unicem&direction=next&oldid=859752658

Non-notable business, fails notability requrements. References are both primary sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Beyond My Ken for inviting me to contribute. (The page history seems to suggest that I created the article which, though I have no particular recollection of it, seems perfectly plausible.) But perhaps you could explain why, having read the article, you believe this company to be non-notable? Which notability requrements do you think it fails to meet? I would then be able to form a view on whether it should be retained or not. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, WP:ORGSIG: "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." There are no independent sources cited in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems notable to me, and properly documented after I added three inline citations.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the rigorous WP:ORGCRIT criteria required for companies. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question In what regard does this article fail to meet WP:ORGCRIT criteria, when the three independent references are considered? Doubtless there is more in Italian, but it is not easy for me to use those.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two are standard company profiles, which do not go to showing notability. The third has two mere mentions of the company: one in the headline, and one in the body, with no elaboration whatsoever. The other two sources are primary. All this is sufficient to show the existence of the company, but not its encyclopedic notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, easy to source — I've spent some time adding content to the article, and it should be easy for others to continue to improve the article. I've put a link to the original version nominated for deletion up top so you can take a look at comparison to current version. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:54, 2 February 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. Michig (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pasaffe[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability - couldn't find many third-party sources that discuss this software. Doesn't seem to merit its own article. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Aside from wikipedia clones and source/binary repos, very very little. tedder (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage, no evidence that it passes WP:NSOFT. Lagrange 613 03:19, 1 February 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 Hitler Youth. To the extent it can be sourced. Sandstein 11:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks and insignia of the Hitler Youth[edit]

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

A page on the obscure rank system of the youth organisation of the Nazi party. Largely unsourced original research. Significant RS coverage to justify a stand-alone page not found. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks and fabricated sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I moved the two sentences that were sourced to the Hitler Youth article: diff. The rest is unsourced OR and I believe that the article should be deleted. Or can be deleted and redirected. WP:TNT still applies given the history of the creator. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; TNT needed here. I've prodded a sub-article, Oberrottenführer. b uidhe 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Plenty of sources, e.g (multiple paragraphs in this book, extensive detail in here, an entire book here, a paragraph on the insignia of the Naval HY here). I have no problem if this is merged into the main Hitler Youth article, I note the German version contains insignia information.--Pontificalibus 15:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt that it's a notable topic and well referenced, but I agree it would be better placed in the main article. Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the actual ranks into a section of the main article on the Hitler Youth. With that said, I added the only small amount of RS citing, which I had available and that only touches on the leader rank/title and officer holders. So, it needs more RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective) to Hitler Youth which is at 16kb of prose and does not need a rank spinout. Sources do seem to exist for ranks in the Hitler Youth - e.g. this seems like a RS at first blush. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: - the list of ranks and images of the shoulder marks do pass V from the book link above.Icewhiz (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notable but TNT, no prejudice to merging RS data to Hitler Youth given main author's record. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever content is RS-sourced to Hitler Youth. Any unsourced and OR content should be removed, given that the author is a proven liar and fantasist with a history of content and source fabrication. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge RS-cited content to Hitler Youth. No need for a spin-off. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. There is plenty of reliable literature about these ranks. They are clearly a notable topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hitler Youth. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hitler Youth. Subject is notable, and I would have no objection to the article being re-created if someone wanted to write about the subject rather than just displaying badges. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 1 February 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. Sandstein 11:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandakini Takhellambam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER, no significant awards, no major songs, just nothing there. Ravensfire (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why only awards makes or approves Wikipedia article to be applicable here.

I can give you links where her songs uploaded. People of Manipur have less internet user before 2016 . She has already a popular singer in Manipur (Meetei language) Since 2005 onwards. Awangba Mangang (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP: NMUSICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now but may be famous in a few years, then re-create. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 07:30, 3 February 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. Sandstein 09:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snowtab in the Void[edit]

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

Non-notable web series lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NWEB notability requirements. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems like someone just trying to increase publicity for their own "series" which is getting next to no views (a video posted 5 months ago has just 95 views). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator blanked the page today. I reverted having missed that it was an author blanking. I'm not sure whether WP:G7 still applies when an AfD discussion is in progress, or what happens to the AfD discussion in this scenario. — Smjg (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. G7 per author request. Worked on at Draft:Harssh A Poddar (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 18:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harssh A Poddar[edit]

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

Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable to me. Just sayin'. – Athaenara ✉ 18:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on citation formats and hope it can be raised to The Heymann Standard. – Athaenara ✉ 19:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable and I am working for making improvements in this article. - Workmk ✉ —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that the article has been deleted as CSD G7 but the discussion at User_talk:Athaenara#Thanks shows that Workmk has already removed the G7 tag. But the article has been deleted, so most likely the CSD tag was not removed. Athaenara and Workmk. What is happening here ? would you guys clear up your intentions ? you should let the AfD run its course, if you have plans to recreate this again. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: There's no "you guys" here. I saw the page tagged for deletion, thought it might be saved, worked on its citations for a while, then saw it thrown away some hours later. I never heard of Poddar before yesterday, or Workmk either. – Athaenara ✉ 16:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DBigXray I added G7 tag again because I think that a lot of work on the article is needed to give it a better shape. Further references from independent sources too are needed. I am working on it and will be back with article after few weeks. Thank You – Workmk ✉ 15:41, 30January 2019 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 09:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Guasch[edit]

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

Not all actresses are notable. Wikipedia is supposed to be built on reliable, secondary, 3rd party coverage. This is doubly so for articles on living people. The two sources are the subject's own website, which is clearly not secondary or 3rd party, and IMDb, which is not at all reliable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started reorganising this article, and have created tables for screen and theatre performances. There is still a lot of content that needs to be deleted or placed in a suitable section. Looking at the Spanish version of this article, it seems that she has appeared in significant roles in multiple notable shows (or anyway shows that are blue-linked in the Spanish Wikipedia) - hopefully it will be possible to find references for them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR .Went through her Her Spanish wiki article and it is also tagged and further none of her roles are significant hence fails WP:NACTOR upcoming at best a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niv Art Centre[edit]

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

No seeing in-depth coverage on the topic in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG (a lot of passing mentions though). GSS (talk|c|em) 10:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sathyamvada (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC) New references with in-depth coverage on the topic in multiple, independent, reliable sources and more content has been added. Kindly review the debate.[reply]

Sathyamvada (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per improvements made since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Shortland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, plus it read like a promotion with all sources within the article come from IMDb, Twitter and Facebook. Sheldybett (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Twitter, Instagram and IMDb are three non=reliable sources, so we lack any reliable source. Not everyone who has acted is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I am a SAG actor, with roles on 4 television shows, and in the last year have worked on 4 features. I don't intend it to sound like a promotion, so if I can help to make this page fit the guidelines, please help me. I am new to using this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanshortland (talk • contribs) 01:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Deanshortland (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS, which explains that, in order to have an article, you must have significant coverage from reliable sources. That link will show you what qualifies as reliable coverage. Also, please see the WP:Yourself link I've posted below. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article is an autobiography see WP:Yourself. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Aurornisxui (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately for Deanshortland, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Entry fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. Cabrils (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 07:12, 28 January 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. Sandstein 09:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illumine Lingao[edit]

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

This novel has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article provides two reliable sources about the subject:
1. 徐东东 (6 September 2015). "500个现代失意者坐大船穿过虫洞，跃入明朝的南海". thepaper.cn (in Chinese). Retrieved 24 September 2018.
  There is more information about The Paper at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/business/international/china-media-the-paper-english.html.
2. 郝志舟 (September 2017). "萧峰和他的500个"奇葩":一部真正的互联网小说是如何诞生的". China Youth (in Chinese) (17): 34–37. ISSN 1002-9532. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  There is more information about China Youth at zh:中国青年.
Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The substantial reviews in The Paper and the Chinese Youth journal, clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the article's sources. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can't fully understand the Google translations of the sources identified but they appear to show coverage. The only argument for deletion here is the nomination, which makes a statement backed up by no explanation or analysis of the sources. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Rugrats episodes#Pilot (1990/2001). Nothing sourced to merge. czar 05:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Pickles and The Great White Thing[edit]

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

This episode does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability, as it has not received enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to warrant its own article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to List of Rugrats episodes, which more or less contains the same info as the stand alone article SBSPfan (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 27 January 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damieon Pickles[edit]

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

Not notable Mccapra (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject doesn't seem to reach notability standards for rugby league players --Lockley (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a clear violation of WP:BLPCOI. StickyWicket (talk) 13:17, 27 January 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Long[edit]

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

Long has neveractually played a professional game. He has bounced from practice squad to practice s1quad, but being on a practice squad is not a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pro Football Reference reports that he played for three games with the Dallas Cowboys in 2013, which passes #1 of WP:NGRIDIRON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which goes to show this is an absurdly low rule. This guy clearly has not had significant coverage, so we should just delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you should take up the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) rather than nominating articles for AFD. What you are doing is a violation of the behavior guideline Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point which states "If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics." Consensus is abundantly clear on this issue. The behavior guideline also states "Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban." Please withdrawal the nomination and cease this disruptive approach. If you want to change WP:NGRIDIRON then you should discuss it there, not by continuing to nominate articles for AFD in the hopes that others come to your point of view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, I might end up agreeing with the point that #1 for WP:NGRIDIRON should be amended/adjusted/deleted/or something... but this is not the way to get that done.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Paulmcdonald: FWIW, the start of WP:NSPORTS does say: conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Johnpacklambert: The AfD should either be withdrawn or a new rationale given. The nomination is incorrect in stating that he "never actually played a professional game."—Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still say delete. He does not meet high level coverage, and just playing a few games should not always lead to an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Sources linked to in the article confirm that Long played in the NFL. Yet another bad/POINTY/no WP:BEFORE sports-related AfD nomination from this particular user. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contrary to the nom, reliable sources show that he did play professional games, and so passes WP:NGRIDIRON. Rlendog (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously passes WP:NGRIDIRON. Ridiculous, WP:POINT-y nomination from a user with a lengthy history of such behavior. Smartyllama (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GRIDIRON. With the slightest grain of fairness to the nominator, the article did not clearly demonstrate this when it was nominated and now does thanks to work done by PaulMcDonald. The research is easily done, so there's no excuse for the nomination – but there's been a couple times where I've missed a SNG being passed at AfC because it wasn't obvious from either the article, the references in the article, or from a quick search. SportingFlyer T·C 19:28, 30 January 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. Sandstein 09:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kaufer[edit]

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

Small time producer, no real coverage and claim of being "head of comedy" at WB is unsourced and I can find no evidence that it's even a notable position. Praxidicae (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe subject in question has a career spanning 21 years in the film and television industry. He has written at least 28 hours of prime-time television and produced at least 117 hours of primetime television. Furthermore, "head of comedy" is clearly sourced on the page, see "Syd., Field, (2005). Selling a screenplay : the screenwriter's guide to Hollywood. New York: Bantam Dell. ISBN 9780307570642. OCLC 741176953". A simple google search will show that "Head of Comedy" or also called "Head of Comedy Development" is a very notable position, especially at a gigantic media company such as Warner Bros. Scotchisgood77 (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scotchisgood77 is this a comment or vote above?? Loved150 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentLoved150 not sure if I’ve formatted it correctly, but that was a comment and a vote to not delete. It doesnt serve the public at all to delete this page. Only the egos of overzealous editors who enjoy deleting others’ work. But that’ll be the last I’ll comment on it. I’ll leave this in the admins’ hands. Scotchisgood77 (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the quality indepth sourcing needed to pass GNG. television writers and producers are not default notable, and mere large number of works do not give notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources listed in the article are mentions of Kaufer, no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG Aurornisxui (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 05:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick West[edit]

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

There is no assertion of notability. Sources must be about the subject, not written by him. The two sources on the article are unacceptable, being blogspot and twitter. Tagged for notability since 2017. Kbabej (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP; not notable. Meh, even at twitter: [19] Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 16:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but revdel copyvio). At minimum, Conspicuous Compassion appears to meet WP:GNG (and possibly WP:NBOOK) with sigcov[20][21][22][23], being used in at least one university course[24] and having a bunch of cites. That means that at least one article and a redirect would reasonable. Prefer redirection from book to author over the converse. The Poverty of Multiculturalism has also been cited a number of times, and there's also at least one small review of Beating them at their own game[25]). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 22:10, 19 January 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from those found by Hydronium Hydroxide, I see a few more [26][27][28], suggesting that his work has received the attention of the mainstream media, therefore may qualify under WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Hzh (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patently notable writer in dire need of willing and capable editor to create decently written and sourced Wikipedia page. BBC: In his report, Conspicuous Compassion, author Patrick West said people were trying to feel better about themselves by taking part in ... and in this gNews search [29]], for starters. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the responses to Conspicuous Compassion" in The Guardian alone [30] (hits #2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per the sources identified by Hydronium^~Hydroxide. Recommend the sources be copy-pasted the article's TP. I'd add them to the article but am currently in the middle of the creation of a large one on a diff subject. XavierItzm (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Illinois vs. a Mummy[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not all films ever made are notable and no higher standard would make this film notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A student film screened free at the university campus, according to the best source I could find, an online event listing. Utterly non-notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really wish that I could keep this because the title and premise are just bonkers, but there's just not enough coverage for it to pass NFILM. It is mentioned occasionally as an example of a mummy themed horror film in some academic texts, but it's predominantly in a list of other, similar films. Ebert commented on it, but at a film festival at the Urbana–Champaign campus of UoI so its probably not really a secondary source unless we were able to find a written review. Hopefully this gets discovered later so it can be re-created, but until then this is regretfully a delete from my end. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:35, 30 January 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.