Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 August	13 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sebastian

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Of the leagues he's played in, only the AHL and DEL count towards #2 and he played a total of 129 games where at least 200 is needed to pass. If the I-divisioona was to count like its current form Mestis does he would have 153 games which still leaves him short of 200. He also has no preeminent honours of note and never played for Canada in the IIHF World Championship. Tay87 (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Fails NHOCKEY. William2001^(talk) 23:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep under the snow clause (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Farber (artist)

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

Fails WP:ARTIST OrgoneBox (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. OrgoneBox (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources that show that the subject meets the GNG: "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Vexations (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Museum of Modern Art in NY think he is notable by placing him in their collections, he probably is. He also meets our WP:ARTIST 4d standard for several museums. Vexations and I have added many sources; there are now 14.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of references, death noted in The New York Times, art pieces in the collection of major museums, the subject of a major retrospective accompanied by a 70-page booklet about his art. This is a no-brainer. Pichpich (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in fairness to the editor who sent this to AfD this was the state of the article when it was submitted. Under those circumstances, it probably could have even been speedied as not making a claim of notability. As it stands now, notability is not in question. ♟♙ (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ARTIST by having work in MoMA and V&A's collections. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Statements are reliably sourced. Barca (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY the article clearly establishes him as a notable artist with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Pawiak

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

Article about footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league. All of the online coverage appears to be routine (database entries, match reports or transfer announcements) except for a couple of brief mentions in the Newcastle Herald (i.e., local coverage) noting that he was an unused substitute for the local club twice in the A-League. PROD was removed without explanation. Jogurney (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @GiantSnowman: - the Philippines Football League is in the list of fully pro leagues. even though the article states he made zero appearances there, he actually made at least one (see 1 and 2). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I stand corrected that Pawiak made 1 appearance in the fully-pro Philippines top division. That said, the only coverage I was able to find was that he "rattled the crossbar" with a shot during his club's scoreless draw with Davao. The article doesn't satisfy the GNG in my view, so it fails the spirit NFOOTBALL (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). Jogurney (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jogurney:, If all articles that met WP:NFOOTBALL had to meet WP:GNG, a lot would have to be deleted since they have few sources; for example, the Russian Professional Football League players who all have a page (e.g. Aleksandr Maslov). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - All articles on footballers should be able to satisfy the GNG as NFOOTBALL is merely a presumption of notability. We generally expect sources to exist unless someone rebuts the presumption. Pawiak is a footballer working in places like Australia and the Philippines during the internet era so it ought to be pretty easily to find significant coverage, yet we really can't. Jogurney (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no fully pro play.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No wide coverage. Sorely fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and player is only 23 years and currently playing and there is some local coverage about him [1] [2] [3].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – 1 FPL appearance isn't a reason to keep. The links above all come from the same source (Newcastle Herald), so they're not independent of each other; they count as one GNG source for me and we need multiple. If the player were playing in an FPL, I would normally !vote draftify, but in this case, after the one FPL appearance two years ago, the player has been playing semi-professional ball, so there is no reason to think they will become notable in the next six months. Without two GNG sources or reason to think a second one will be written in the next six months, my !vote is delete. – Levivich 19:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and I'm not convinced Philippines have a fully professional league either - it's kind of in turmoil, is it not? SportingFlyer T·C 01:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eueller Eduardo Silva Couto

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

Article about footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league (he played in the TT Pro League, but a recent discussion at WP:FPL concluded that the sourcing was insufficient to demonstrate the league's asserted full professionalism). All of the online coverage appears to be routine (database entries, match reports or transfer announcements). PROD was removed without explanation. Jogurney (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable footbal player. Barca (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. William2001^(talk) 23:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional heirs apparent who never acceded

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

Fancruft; no references suggesting this is a notable topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic WP:LISTCRUFT. Predominantly unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The rationale for this list is stated on the talk page. It was made in 2013 from Category:Fictional heirs apparent who never acceded, which was created in 2012 by Andrei Iosifovich (talk · contribs). The category was converted to a list before deletion per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 1#Category:Fictional heirs apparent who never acceded.

For the record, as the page name is not fully self-explanatory, the intro is as follows: This is a list of fictional characters who were legally heirs apparent, but never acceded to the throne or title to which they were entitled. This may be because they died before inheriting it, the throne was abolished, a usurper took the inheritance, or they simply chose not assert their birthright. While claiming a birthright can be a powerful motif in literature, some stories instead draw upon the tragedy or frustration of not being able to claim a title to which a character seemed destined to succeed. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but this is completely everything wikipedia is not in my opinion. Not to mention failing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The majority of the information contained in this list is un-sourced, and while there may be sources found on some of the individual entries on the list, there are none that actually talk about the concept or grouping as a whole to show any sort of notability to the topic. As such, it pretty much fails WP:LISTN, along with being pure cruft. Rorshacma (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nobody, but nobody (except Fayenatic), goes around wondering about such an obscure set of criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a list of real-world people with this attribute can be appropriate (and exists within Heir apparent), this is an arbitrary and in-universe subset of characters. Wholly implausible that anyone would search this. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bizarrely specific category. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, WP:LIST, and discussion above, not even wrong. Most of those listed were not actually named or legally heir apparent. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources suggest this is a coherent topic of interest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoxton Ventures

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

advertisement, and probably not notable. the large $ figures cited are not the size of its own investments, but the size of total investments by much larger investment companies in firms in which this rather insignificant company has invested quite small amounts.

The commentary by its partners is the usual PR and notices, not third party sources. The references otherwise are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC) � DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per the previous AfD at which it was deleted: 'Run-of-the-mill venture capital company. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP'. This current article, though not blatant advertising, was tagged as promotional on creation but the author has done nothing to address the issues. The prose is clearly in the style in which a company would write about itself such as, for example, in a press release, and has the hallmarks of a commissioned work . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem Solved

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

WP:NOTNEWS: although this incident made the news in 2006, it does not appear to have had any enduring impact. gnu 57 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the outcome is keep, the article should be renamed to Problem Solved controversy. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A garbage shirt by garbage people quickly thrown in the garbage by retailers so they wouldn't be called garbage. People print dumb messages on t-shirts, retailers don't check the message and accidently put them out, and the media needs a minute or column space to fill (it's about once a month now) before they inevitably head to the incinerator; it doesn't need permanent archiving here. Nate • (chatter) 00:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor incident without enduring significance. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Sandy

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

Non-notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meed WP:SPORTCRIT, has not been "the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources" - article was created by "Dsandyfanclub", which appears to be an undisclosed conflict of interest WP:COI - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ANYBIO. Sources are too weak. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irma McClaurin

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

~~Fails WP:GNG. One of the currently used sources is her own website, while the other says she joined the Federal Executive Institute, which doesn't make her independently notable.~~ ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. I have rewritten the article, which now documents passes of WP:PROF#C5 (named chair), #C6 (president of a university), and plausibly WP:AUTHOR (two well-reviewed books, although one is edited rather than authored by her). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, I will now rescend the AfD nomination because of this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Earth Organic & Natural

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

local reviews only for a localstore DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii is located thousands of miles away from other landmasses. What do you expect? The state’s largest newspaper and the state’s biggest TV station are in Oahu and they have covered it. A major news outlet in Maui covered it as well. Therefore, I think your characterization is misleading. Do you think a news source that is not located in the state of Hawaii must report on it? I say keep it. Jasonagastrich (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What would evidence of notability look like to you for a notable health food store chain in Hawaii? Jasonagastrich (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same as for any other business in any other state - sustained coverage in reliable independent sources that not mainly local. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am uncertain whether or not that is a fair and legitimate criteria because Hawaii is separated from landmasses by thousands of miles. It is one thing to expect a Los Angeles-based health food chain to be covered by the New York Times, but it is quite another thing to expect a Hawaii-based health food chain to be covered by the Los Angeles Times. Be that as it may the largest newspaper and the largest TV news station in Hawaii along with other smaller media outlets have covered Down to Earth. Jasonagastrich (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian O. Musser

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

Non-notable distant family member of Dwight D. Eisenhower. The subject has a lack of WP:RS and fails WP:ANYBIO. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being an uncle by marriage of a future president of the US does not make one notable, unless you get lots of coverage for being such, which Musser didn't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While being a relative of the president may be plausible grounds for SIGCOV existing, in this case in my BEFORE I see mainly genealogy books, brief mentions of the marriage to aunt, brief mentions of a creamery job (Musser was the foreman) for Eisenhower's dad in 1892, and what I see in Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life does not seem sufficient for a standalone bio. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Relatives of a POTUS are included where (a) they helped raise, employ, or teach the future president, and/or (b) made a contribution/inspiration to the private side of such an important public figure, and/or (c) in whose home the famous forebear lived is now a national historic site. For example, many early Presidents were home-schooled by their father or other close relatives, were employed by a relative or close family friend, or otherwise made a meaningful impact in the life that helped the future Commander-in-Chief to start his path towards making history. John Adams, Sr and Madelyn Dunham come to mind. I don't see any of that here; some guy getting the president's dad a job once is too tenuous for me. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- obviously NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

All the citation are from independent news sources so WP:RS is not applicable. Moreover in awards and recognition section, there is indication of notability from high authority news sources.

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohina Anand-Khira

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

Lacks WP:RS, very easily fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ORPHAN created by new account, with no credible claim of notability per se and supported mostly by web pages. Seems like a possible fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - player has now made his professional debut. Giant Snowman 09:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serhat Tasdemir

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

Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has never played in a fully-professional league). PROD contested by article creator on the basis he has signed for Peterborough and will play for them soon - that is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify in case he does soon play for Peterborough. Doesn't meet GNG or NFOOTY as yet, though. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Tasdemir has been included in this evening's lineup vs Oxford United, meaning he now has a professional appearance for Peterborough.[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY He has made his debut ina cup game today against Oxford and this.He is playing in a WP:FPL league. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw given that he has now made his professional debut - @Sir Sputnik: do you wish to reconsider your !vote? GiantSnowman 07:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: Don't let me stop you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shathra

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

Sources do not exist to establish independent notability for this character, who is exceptionally minor within the Spider-Man fiction. Not worthy of being included on List of Marvel Comics characters: S, which is meant to be a repository for characters important within the fiction that do not meet GNG. I could not identify an appropriate redirect target. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Grade-A 100% fancruft, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies. That covers the basic info. No other likely target, and nothing worth merging. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies. Only appeared in Spider-Man comics. A heavy hitter enough to appear in that list but nothing else. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romain Carbonnier

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

Article about former footballer who made a 2-minute substitute's appearance in France's fully-pro Ligue 2, plus a handful (I haven't been able to find proof of an appearance, but an article indicates he and three other international players made no more than 10 appearances each) of appearances in South Africa's fully-pro Premier Soccer League. Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage in French- and English-language sources appear to be routine (database entries or transfer announcements). Jogurney (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond brief notes and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage. Our inclusion criteria for footballers are currently too broad at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least four appearances in FPL (meeting WP:NFOOTBALL) and enough coverage out there for me to be comfortable keeping. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct that Carbonnier also made 3 appearances in the league for Ajax Cape Town per espnfc.com, but I'm concerned about the lack of local coverage of his time with the club (all of it is passing mentions - none flattering). I don't see how this article would satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't meet GNG, just brief mentions and routine game reports [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. I did get a kick out of this (What has Mohammed Diallo (Ivory Coast) brought to Ajax Cape Town? What did the four they signed last season offer? ... Romain Carbonnier (France), nothing to write home about really… none played 10 games. All have a single thing in common; they have all left the team after just a season!) and this (With Ajax skipper Brett Evans suspended, influential winger Franklin Cale injured, and coach Craig Rosslee resting a few regular players, squad members like ... Frenchman Romain Carbonnier ... played a part during some stage of yesterday's 90 minutes. And they failed dismally ... In ... Carbonnier ... , Ajax have simply wasted their foreign quota.). Query: can an article subject be notable for not being notable? – Levivich 19:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think a footballer can be notable for widely-publicized poor play, but the minimal coverage of Carbonnier doesn't suggest he was a focus of the media or fans (he was just one of a batch of infrequently-used and underperforming international players on Ajax CT). I would need to see much more coverage to believe it passes the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Good point, I'm reminded of Bill Buckner. – Levivich 00:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually think the sources provided by Levivich, along with the sources in the article, pass WP:GNG, especially the iol.co.za article and the goal.com article. He did appear in more games in France than the article currently shows. One potential source just says "Gone" [9]... SportingFlyer T·C 01:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ligue de Football Professionnel records a single 2' Ligue 2 appearance for Carbonnier, and they are the most reliable source on Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 appearances from the 2000s and later. Jogurney (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, that La Parisien article covers his time with amateurs Franconville - he played in the Coupe de France with them, but it's still amateur football. Jogurney (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "most reliable source" does not include his appearances for Ajaccio [10] and at least the Clermont-Ajaccio cup match (cannot find a lineup though), and the South African league is also professional - the 2' would be relevant if he never played in another professional match and there wasn't anything we could write on him, but that's not the case here. Thanks for looking into the La Parisien article, I couldn't get it to load. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stand corrected (again). Corse Football (a blog, but a reliable one for clubs AJ Ajaccio) has him making a single substitute's appearance against Angers SC in Ligue 2 during 2007. The Coupe de Ligue match was against amateurs Clermont, and is effectively a friendly. I added the appearance to the article's infobox, but it really changes very little as far as establishing notability or passing the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I mean, we're going to disagree here - I think the African articles show he passes both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and is eligible for an article, and this is a more substantial career than some of the technical WP:NFOOTY passes we end up deleting - but just to make an additional correction: Clermont finished 5th in the fully professional Ligue 2 the season of the league cup match (and Ajaccio 9th), equivalent to the English League Cup with the winner receiving a UEFA Cup qualification spot, so Clermont are neither amateurs, nor was the game effectively a friendly. SportingFlyer T·C 04:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry; I rushed to the conclusion that Clermont were amateurs because they were competing in Championnat National during 2007. However, you're right that they achieved promotion to Ligue 2 before the Coupe de Ligue match in question. Still, Carbonnier's 3 competitive substitute's appearances with Ligue 2 clubs total less than 40 minutes - so let's keep that in perspective. Jogurney (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not agree that [11] and [12] amount to significant coverage. The "in detail" requirement just isn't there. Yes, Charbonnier is mentioned in the headlines, but each article swiftly moves from routine news about him to other unrelated matters about the team. The handful of league appearances are close to irrelevant in the absence of significant coverage. And on an intuitive point: the article says he "is last known to have played for FC Montceau Bourgogne". If no-one knows where his career ended up, he can't really have been that notable. Significant coverage really means a global overview of a player's career; otherwise we can't have a biography and need to make silly statements like "is last known...". --Mkativerata (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage, failing GNG Taewangkorea (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lil oself

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

Non-notable fails WP:NMUSIC, sources are unconnected. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This is a recreation of the speedy deleted Lil_O'self, I've nominated it for CSD again, and the user has been blocked due to disruptive editing. viz ✦ 00:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Romeo

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

Article about footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league (he played in the TT Pro League, but a recent discussion at WP:FPL concluded that the sourcing was insufficient to demonstrate the league's asserted full professionalism). All of the online coverage appears to be routine (database entries, match reports or transfer announcements). Jogurney (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. Consists of brief notes only. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bærum mosque shooting. The WP:BLP1E- and WP:BIO1E-based (nobody has explicitly linked BIO1E, but arguments like "not independently notable from the event" are about that guideline) arguments carry the day, as even going by the arguments provided by the few keep !voters do not show much evidence of substantial notability independent from the event. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rafiq (retired army)

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

This is a person who is known for his involvement in one event, not to a scale which warrants his own bio. Any information not already covered at the appropriate event can be easily merged there. Kingsif (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. 65-year-old immigrant single-handedly overpowering an active shooter is a badass hero, regardless of independent criteria-box-checking coverage which he has and will continue to get. First reactions of people I've seen hear the story are all about more details on him: diet, training, workout routine, etc. Details of his own life inappropriate to shooting page should have a home here. Obviously the dab should be better. — LlywelynII 14:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, every "badass" old person who stops people in any old armed barfight deserves an article - but generally that barfight is not going to get an article itself! He's a pretty cool guy, but until coverage shifts to him over the web messages of the shooter (you'll see there's no EndChan messages sent by Philip Manshaus article...), he's not got enough for a bio. Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you consider this a single event compared to a barfight while the person is considered a hero in an extraordinary event in a peaceful country, an event with international scales that is rooted to New Zealand Attack and El Paso shooting. Sattar91 (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In WP terms, it is. It is one event, in which one person stopped another from attacker others. You're looking too much at emotion rather than simple facts. Context can matter - specifically for the event, where the intentions of the attacker make it obviously very different to a barfight, but you want to establish notability on this man's actions, where he can be simply described as an unarmed man stopping an armed assailant. You can call him a hero, the media can call him a hero, WP policy won't be swayed by emotive language. Kingsif (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:BLP1E. He's known only for his involvement one event. Jim Michael (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bærum mosque shooting per WP:BLP1E. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information is already in that article. Kingsif (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is not an isolated event for a low-profile person. The incident has significant domestic/international dimensions and was extensively covered both for the event itself and also the central hero of that, which is Mohammad Rafiq. There are several standalone articles and interviews with this specific person (as referenced in the article), suggesting that he may be a notable subject by himself. The incident will remain in the historical memory of people and its hero will also be remembered for years to come. Therefore the subject will be independently notable as soon as he has been characterized as the one tackling the terrorist and taking him down. The person has been portrayed in multiple independent credible sources both in Norwegian and English, including but not limited to Reuters, BBC and Wall Street Journal. It has been said that the attacker does not have an article to justify deleting this article. It seems that there is a tendency not to give space to terrorists in Wikipedia as New Zealand attacker also did not get an article, but I don't see this an excuse for removing a positive human being's article.Sattar91 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care how good or bad someone is, it cares how independently notable someone is. It has space for as many 'bad people' bios as good, but the fact of the matter is that (at the moment) neither the attacker nor the 'hero' have any relevance outside of the one event and can be satisfactorily covered there. Kingsif (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC) ETA and how is it not an isolated event for a low-profile person? Has he done anything else of note? Outside of this event is he known to the media at all? No and no. Anyone would be delusion to think otherwise. Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

This person is independently notable now. Of course there is always a starting point, but then the world has a notable person forever given that the event possesses large enough dimensions. In this particular case I think the terrorist can have an article in Wikipedia too but I obviously can not bring up reasoning on why nobody started that yet. Breivik's article is a clear instance for a person who became notable in one single event and remained notable afterwards. He will be always remembered as a negative character. Likewise, Rafiq will be always remembered, however as a positive character as a National Danish newspaper writes: "Rafiq is Norway's new hero ...he acted instinctively and courageously and prevented a terror attack from developing. This is the opinion of Norwegian police, Prime Minister Erna Solberg and many other Norwegians".Sattar91 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have false expectations of Wikipedia. Every time I try to make the article neutral, you come and change it to worship the man. Wikipedia reports facts, it doesn't want to create a reverent praise song because you think the guy's the best. Without all the praise you are heaping on him, there is even less notability. You may really like him, and many people around you may be talking about nothing but him, cheering, wanting his autograph, but that doesn't make him notable in Wikipedia terms. So I feel for you, but I could name you my little old teacher who singlehandedly took down a kid trying to stab people and, guess what, she doesn't have an article. Hero to some, but widely unimportant. From your edits it appears you are too invested in this man and think too highly of him to understand or accept that he doesn't meet WP criteria. Kingsif (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're also not looking at how much bigger Breivik's attack was. 70-something people died, many children. He spent two hours spree shooting after bombing the capital. That's on a whole other scale to this attack. Some single events are massively notable. The events the news stops around the world for. 22/7 was one. This was not. Kingsif (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice point. The size of the events are different, but the natures are not. That only means that the size of the articles will be different spontaneously as a result. It will never mean that one of these events gets an article and the other one is just deemed irrelevant for WP.Sattar91 (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both events have pages. But sizes of events also determine their global effect/impact and importance. Kingsif (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both events have pages, but you keep saying that only one can have article for its character. Global effect/impact and importance? how do you judge that this person/event does not have that? Reuters, BBC and Wall Street Journal and 20+ references that I have added and you did the favor of removing some of them. 2011 Norway attacks and Bærum mosque shooting both have the same roots in Islamofobia and far-right extremism and the characters of both events can have an article in WP given that they are covered extensively with multiple credible independent source.Sattar91 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being simply named in multiple RS is tantamount to "this exists, and media tells us this exists". There's no added notability since all the RS just repeat the same tale where 'X did Y one time' and nothing more of note - 100 RS with the same story, some down to the same wording, is no better than 5 RS. And that doesn't get a bio. If something more transpires of his 15 minutes of fame, like if there's a beautiful shift of media coverage of future attacks to not give details of attackers but look at victims' actions after this guy highlighted strength of resistance or something, or there's new legislation in Norway, or people planning attacks stop and release statements saying they were scared of being stopped by a badass old man, you can revisit making an article, but it's not widely notable atm. Kingsif (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But in all events, this huge, all media will do the same, repeating 'X did Y and Z was the aftermath'. Repeating, per se, does not void the credibility/notability of the event nor its characters. I still did not get the answer to this simple question: what is the difference between the characters in Breivik's story and Bærum shooting, other than the size of killing? Nobody knew Breivik before the incident, so it was a single event, made him (in)famous. The root cause for both act of terror are the same, the motives are the same, the terminology utilized by the perpetrators before committing the act are almost identical, the type of weapons are similar, but the number of innocent human beings murdered are different: so will be the size of the articles for the events and their characters.Sattar91 (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bærum mosque shooting - BLP1E, not notable outside of the context of the event. Can have a short mini-bio there. Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those with votes to delete or merge base this on policy, whereas those with votes to keep base this on the media referring to him as a "hero", which they argue denotes importance enough for an article. I'd also like to quote from WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." and WP:NOTWHOSWHO: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Kingsif (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A deletion discussion where the two active is one that created the page and the other is the user nominating the page for deletion tend to be not very convincing for neither deletion or keep. I find the whole situation a little amusing; an unarmed person single-handedly apprehended an armed attacker and stopped an on-going attempt of terrorism. That is reason enough for me to vote keep, but I would rather prefer a real biograph about the person that just a note about the fight with Philip Manshaus. Jeblad (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I collapsed the discussion for a reason... Thing is, there is no other information to create a "real biography" as you like. Hence, AfD. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the AfD has any merit, then you don't have to argue on every post. Jeblad (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...I never thought of it as arguing, I hope nobody else sees it that way. I thought I was discussing to come to an educated conclusion. Challenging reasoning that either goes against policy or seems illogical, so that views come from an informed base. That's valuable no matter where it's done. Kingsif (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to main article. Not notable independently, comes under WP:BLP1E. Störm (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the same applies to Philip Manshaus, who's more notable than Rafiq - yet no-one appears to want his redirect to be turned into an article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge now that there's more information. Note that the 2019 Sydney stabbing attack, where the media coverage is entirely focused on how the attacker was taken down by pedestrians, hasn't had any new pages made for these "heroes" (one already had a page, made nearly 10 years ago, as he is a professional footballer). They've been similarly named and profiled, and are of more focus in relation to the event, but no pages. Kingsif (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Link to comments from 85.166.160.249: Why not incorporate into "Bærum Mosque Shooting" article?.
Accept He is insignificant to other terror related events --RazorTheDJ (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bærum mosque shooting per BLP1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eco-anxiety. RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate psychosis

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

This article asserts a medical diagnosis based on a small number of primary sources, most of which are not medical, which use different terms. This is not distinct from anxiety due to any other cause, as far as I can see. As-is, this looks to me like WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't see the case for this right now without WP:SYNTH but the concept that climate change impacts mental health is notable enough that I could be persuaded to change my !vote if compelling academic sources were provided. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is either WP:TOOSOON or a WP:POVFORK. Either way, not appropriate for the 'pedia. jps (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pass The article provides two primary sources: One of Australian psychiatrists clinical diagnosis and one of Swedish psychologists specifically working with "climate anxiety". The article is good enough, if you ask me. --Albert Falk (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those substantiates the article title as a clinical syndrome, and the two cases are different. So there's that. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eco-anxiety which is the term that those discussing this phenomenon seem to use, [13][14][15][16]. Stress regarding climate change can cause "acute and transient psychosis and relapse of bipolar disorder" but I'm not seeing reliable sources using the term "climate psychosis" except for when quoting Marine Le Pen. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eco-anxiety per Þjarkur. Changed !vote Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the two previous proposals, however, climate psychosis is still a term, not officially as it implies a political controversial aspect, but which non the less exists describing delusions and psychotic behaviour related to environmentalism. There is for example "Eco-terrorism". --Albert Falk (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eco-anxiety This appears to be the usual term used to describe this. Perhaps the bit about the patient who refused to drink water could be added to that article, but I would want to see a better source. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article. It is a delusion that has been proposed by the Aussie psychs, which is very separate to eco-anxiety after reading the full text of the article --[E.3][chat2][me] 20:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this should be renamed Climate change delusion I WP:BOLDly changed that redirect, previously to climate change denial - I dont think all people with climate change denial have delusions in the medical sense --[E.3][chat2][me] 20:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed an improvement. However, only one case of "Climate change delusion" has been described, in that 2008 paper. I don't feel like a single case of delusions can be a standalone article, especially since nothing more has been written that uses this term. I still !vote to merge this single case into the Eco-anxiety article. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a rename to Mental health effects of climate change for both articles --[E.3][chat2][me] 21:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with [E.3][chat2][me]. And changing it to "eco-anxiety" is not the same as a delusion. And mental health effects of climate change is a very big euphemistic word. I prefer "climate change delusion". --Albert Falk (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a mental health effect of climate change, it is a mental health problem that leads to irrational beliefs about the climate. --mfb (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, this seems to be an article about a single case over a decade ago that fits into the general category of Eco-anxiety. It's worth noting that the original version of the article(from two days ago) was about two sentences of coverage of that one unique case before launching into a *much* more dubious discussion that borders on climate change denial. If this article is kept, it should be watched carefully to make sure it doesn't become a home for fringe ideas. ApLundell (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - 200 Google hits for "Climate psychosis", not a common term but still used sometimes. --mfb (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as argued above. The current version of the article suffers from a mishmash of denialist and denial-ish sources, and is basically a grab-bag of uses of the word "psychosis". I'd call the last two sections WP:SYNTH, but I'm not sure they're coherent enough to qualify. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly weep buckets if it were deleted, either. There are basically two sources worth using [17][18], and anything based on them could be rewritten from scratch with nominal effort, so keeping the page history available isn't necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most sources are useless propaganda, the term is used almost only by fringe proponents. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete POVFork. Presenting the topic removed from the context of climate change denial and eco-anxiety has no place in a serious encyclopedia. I started going through the sources looking for something to salvage, but it looks futile. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete The lead is okay, and could almost bw merged with eco-anxiety, but everything after that is just a WP:COATRACK Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 14:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apparently there is no sourceing here which would establish notability, plus other concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of North Coast Section Basketball

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

Fails GNG and LISTN. It's a list article about a specific California high school conference's basketball champions. SportsGuy789 (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reasons listed in the basketball nom:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CIF North Coast Section is not a conference, per se. It's a high school sports administrative section of Northern California with probably over 100 schools. While the current state of the lists might be WP:UGLY and lacking citations with independent sources, I'd be surprised if the newspapers from the cities of the various schools didn't talk about the championship grouping, which would satisy WP:LISTN: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. This is distinguished from a standalone list about one high school conference, which would likely only have the city's local paper covering it.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete -- at worst merge to CIF North Coast Section, if that is what it is about, which is far from clear. Is it is list of league champions by year? Nevertheless I would question whether a school basketball league is WP notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's probably technically a WP:NOTSTATS failure, and if we keep it, will still be unsourced. If we can source it I don't mind if it's merged somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally we find that articles such as this one do not generate enough press to surpass WP:GNG. This discussion has been open long enough that any sources should have come to our attention by now. I'll admit that I do find some articles with mention [19], [20], and [21]. These articles are about specific games and tournaments, so maybe the organization itself could pass WP:GNG, but none of those articles are really about the history of the organization. So then it boils down to this for me: there seems to be no sources for the history of the organization, so this looks like original research or perhaps a case were someone is trying to use Wikipedia as a free web-hosting server. On those grounds, it definitely needs to go. I have no objection if the data can be sourced and then operationally it may be better to merge to CIF North Coast Section.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Colossal (blog). Skipping the side discussion about nominating an article so soon after it's created, there's basically universal agreement to redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jobson

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

A quick google search shows very little of this person or how notable he may be. I will let the community decide as i was a borderline decision of QD or AFD 10MB (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the discussion. I'm happy to go with whatever direction the community decides, but I will mention that the website he created has 10 million monthly readers and the breadth of references I included in the article span almost 8 years and include the National Endowment for the Arts, Fast Company, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Jobson--and his website--seem to have staying power. Within the art world he is very highly regarding. In fact, they included the blog in a Apple TV ad a few years ago.

Thanks again, Fullrabb (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Fullrabb[reply]

Comment Fullrabb just created the page and you're nominating his work straight away for AfD? 10MB Wouldn't it of been more prudent to discuss concerns with Fullrabb first? Govvy (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the blog. The blog is notable , but he does not appear to have any separate notability DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Colossal (blog) per DGG as, some basic biographical information aside, this article is mostly about the blog anyway. Notability outside of that has not been established. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT @Govvy: I had a search of the person and found his website seems to be more significant than the creator. I thought it would be more premature of me to put it on direct QD. However, i am willing to withdraw should there be shown prof of his notability beyond his blog 10MB (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The fact remains, the article was created at 12:37, 12 August 2019 and you sent it to AfD 15:46, 12 August 2019‎ of the same day by my timestamp. I also thought it was of poor etiquette that you didn't question or ask Fullrabb, give him time to find more sources to improve it. If the article was highly contentious material I would understand the quick AfD, but I didn't feel this needed a speedy delete. I did read through the article and thought the sources a little routine. I am in agreement that a redirect is appropriate, however it's down to how we process AfDs and at times I question the methods of people who deal with them. Govvy (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went in today and fleshed out the information on Jobson's imprint on the art world. I added more references and found examples of his curation work. You will notice he was asked by Banksy to curate a short film collection for one of his installation projects. I believe there was feedback that we needed to show more importance from Jobson's non-Colossal work. Let me know if you think this improves the article. Best, Fullrabb (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Fullrabb[reply]

Comment @Fullrabb: I am still not really seeing enough to pass WP:GNG in my view, there are a good few references however they don't really go into much detail about Jobson. Govvy (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation of the Heart of Mary

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

There is no such thing as "Congregation of the Heart of Mary". This page simply lists unrelated religious congregations whose names happen to contain "Heart of Mary". Neither a broad concept article or a disambiguation page is suitable (because none of those listed here is actually called "Congregation of the Heart of Mary"). This might have been a useful page in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, where it was copied from, but Wikipedia does not lump unrelated things together like this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator see the reply below. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nom is essentially correct in saying that this article does not describe a single entity or concept, and thus should effectively be treated as a disambiguation page, with the relevant policy essentially coming down to something like MOS:DABMENTION. I note that one of the linked groups, CICM Missionaries is known as "Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary." How important is the distinction? Is the phrase overly general such that a redirect would be inappropriate? I'm not certain and will wait for others to weigh in. MarginalCost (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, or failing that, split into an article/stub for each of the separate orders so as not to lose content. But I think the reader is probably better served by this long-standing multi-topic article. If gathering them under the title "Congregations of the Heart of Mary" seemed appropriate to the editors of the Catholic encyclopedia, experts in the subject area (I'm not), we're probably best to continue with it. (Our title was plural until a recent page move). PamD 16:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks to me like a Wikipedia:Set index article: a list article about a set of items of a specific type (Roman Catholic religious Congregations) that also share the same (or similar) name ("Heart of Mary"). The plural title might well have been better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think you're right, Shhhnotsoloud. It being a SIA didn't occur to me. Withdrawn. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Azzam

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

Would have sent it back to draft, but there really doesn't seem to be any point. WP:BIO1E would seem to apply here, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E applies; GNG and NSOLDIER are not met. This has been draftified twice and made its way back to article space without significant improvements that may show notability . AfD was the right course of action. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER and WP:BIO1E applies here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asurankundu Dam

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

Minor geographical feature failing WP:GEOFEAT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The dam and associated reservoir are clearly a significant geographic feature in the landscape. It is similar in size to Toddbrook Reservoir, and we shouldn't forgo an article on it simply because sources are harder to come by, per WP:WORLDVIEW.----Pontificalibus 10:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a combo article about a dam and reservoir and forest and recreation area, and as noted in the article it can potentially become a bigger tourist attraction. See really excellent essay wp:ITSATOURISTATTRACTION. Could/should be developed more about the latter aspects, and perhaps eventually moved to a broader title such as "Asurankundu Dam and Recreation Area" or whatever term properly describes it in larger terms. As Pontificalibus notes, just covering the dam and reservoir suffices already. --Doncram (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOFEAT and WP:ITSATOURISTATTRACTION. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Dale (New York politician)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a former member of a county government. This is not a level of political office that gets an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL -- but the references here are 50 per cent primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and 50 per cent deadlinked routine local coverage in a smalltown community hyperlocal. This is not a sufficient depth, range or volume of coverage to make a county councillor notable. Bearcat (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Clear WP:GNG and WP:NPOL fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really need to do better at cleaning out these articles on non-notable local level politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I'm torn here. Normally, articles about a county official are deleted, but this might be a special case. He did garner ongoing coverage in reliable sources. I recall this scandal; it was big news in Upstate New York. The community would have to decide if that's enough. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, non notable politician who fails NPOL yet passes WP:GNG. Subject became notable by being disbarred in 2005 for malfeasance, and a felony arrest and conviction 2012 for practicing as a disbarred lawyer, and denial of appeal in 2016. I added several sources including New York State Court of appeals and Buffalo news. Lightburst (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total WP:NPOL fail and now that we've included details of his malfeasance in the stub, a negative WP:BLP for a relatively private individual. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors use the WP:BLP argument far too often. Subject is not a relatively private individual...was a Erie County Legislator (during his bitter campaign there was a NY State Supreme Court decision about Dale's residency), he was a Village attorney, he had a very public conviction and 2 very public appeals, one in 2013 and another to the New York State Court of Appeals. Was convicted and served time for his crime. Notable per WP:RS. Are we going to scrub court records and news articles from the public domain? We do not serve our readers with deletion. WP:ATD WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Lightburst (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for local politicians is not just the ability to demonstrate a local profile in their own local area — every local politician can always claim to be locally prominent, by the very definition of being a local politician. The notability test for municipal or county level politicians, the thing that has to be satisfied in order to claim that they're "high profile" enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, is the ability to demonstrate that their profile and/or importance transcended the purely local and turned into a nationalized profile. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Even taking into account the controversies about his disbarment and jail sentence, I couldn't find any national-level coverage of any of this beyond the paltry local Buffalo coverage. Whatever exists doesn't seem to point to a reason why this suburban disgraced politician (who served for only a year) deserves an encyclopedia article. StonyBrook (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As far as notability is concerned, there is no rule anywhere that says that non-English sources do not contribute to notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Aichinger

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

Notability, not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vmavanti (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search throws up multiple hits. I've added two pieces that look good quality to the article and there appears to be more available. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not in English, because I checked. What language do you speak? This is the English Wikipedia. Although the documentation doesn't forbid foreign sources, it does discourage them. For one reason, machine translations are terrible. For another, most readers of the English Wikpedia speak English and English alone. Therefore it is a real slap in the face to expect them to read a language they don't understand.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NONENG, a Wikipedia policy, while English-language citations are preferred where possible, "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia." If non-English sources exist, that satisfies notability criteria.

Your own tone, comments like "What language do you speak?" and "a real slap in the face", are inappropriate and I would remind you of WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, my tone is completely appropriate and my arguments are sound. Let's stay on the ground. If you think I am being sarcastic when I asked what language you speak, you are reading between the lines. If the subject in front of us is foreign language sources, then of course it's logical to ask what language you speak, esp. if one is enthusiastic about foreign language sources and has recommended them. My question was serious and stated in plain language. My point about favoring foreign language sources OVER English is also serious and not all sarcastic or a put down. Imagine a Wikipedia article in English where all the sources are in a different language. That's a slap in the face of English-speaking readers because they have no way of using those sources. You repeated a point I already made about policy, and there was no need to do that, so I could question your tone but I won't. Let's try to stay on Earth and speak plainly. You said "A Google News search throws up multiple hits" but you neglected to mention that every one of those hits is in a language other than English. I return to the point I made earlier: English is preferred. Given that it is preferred, let us use English on the English Wikipedia nearly all the time for the benefit of English speaking readers, hundreds of millions, rather than privilege those few who happen to speak other languages. There are other Wikipedias in other languages. No one is being marginalized except English speaking readers.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, English-language sources are preferred. However, that is irrelevant for the purposes of determining notability. If there are reliable sources, then WP:GNG is satisfied and the article should not be deleted. It does not matter what language those sources are in with respect to a decision about the article's notability. Your comments have no basis in Wikipedia policy.

Where possible, we should replace non-English-language sourcing with English-language sourcing. Where not possible, we use non-English-language sourcing. I have added sources to the article. I couldn't see any English-language sources containing the same material, so I used non-English-language sources. As per policy.

What language I speak is irrelevant. See WP:ADHOM. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consider false accusations and distorting comments acts of incivility. Fortunately, facts and solving problems are more important to me than the futile attempt to control whether other people are nice or good. There's no point in repeating the points I have made, and there's no point in your repeating points I have made. Sources are necessarily at the heart of notability. Therefore the language of sources is relevant, especially when there are few sources available or when all the sources available are in a foreign language. There's really no way to avoid common sense, even when you are interpreting policy. Your language is relevant if it influences your judgment about what sources are acceptable. The language that readers of English Wikipedia speak—English—is most important of all. Any writer, editor, teacher, or Wikipedia policy pedant will tell you to keep in mind the audience first over one's own preferences. Let's put the interests of readers first. That is policy.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Foreign language sources are perfecly acceptable, particularly for non-English subjects, and using google translate is easier for readers than tracking down off-line sources Atlantic306 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article further, with citations. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate can't even get the pronouns right. I have seen that many times. I can't even persuade you to use colons instead of asterisks. Do you really think the asterisk is an easier key to hit than the colon? Of course it isn't. Do you think it looks better? Of course it doesn't. When you use an asterisk, you get two large black dots with a gap between them. Debate privileges reason, but if people can't be reasonable about something as simple and obvious as using colons on Talk pages, there will be no real debate. Let's not make this another "Do it my way just because..." power struggle. The mature, down to earth method is to argue these points and consider them carefully and thoughtfully.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve added a bit more material and a couple of refs. There is clearly enough in German to support the notability of the subject, and I’m afraid the idea that we need to avoid sources from languages other than English is completely wrong. Mccapra (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. F. and A. P. Squire

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

A writing duo that appear to fail WP:AUTHOR. The article provides no evidence that any of the criteria of that guideline are met, and Google searches give me no further suggestion that they meet either the SSG or the WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 09:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 09:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 09:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- it's possible that the book they wrote has more claim of notability than the authors. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR - not widely cited (I can find a few citations and it appears in more lists) or work which is more widely significant. I can't find anything to suggest GNG is met in any way for these chaps either. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Blue Square Thing. StickyWicket (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seems like there are a few issues here. The first is whether this is a vexatious renomination of an already kept article; it seems like there is no consensus for this idea owing to e.g a deletion review on the last deletion nomination that explicitly allowed for renomination.

The second is whether there is enough coverage of the phrase to establish notability and to defeat WP:DICDEF concerns, and whether the available sourcing is adequate for this or merely a bunch of unrelated things synthesized into an article. Most of the commenters are addressing this question, the headcount is almost evenly split and while most keep arguments do not mention any source, some of them (such as GirthSummit) do point out the existence of potentially valid sources and it's not clear that they have been conclusively refuted. My sense is that there is no consensus due to several uncontested sources and some statements by delete arguments that may or may not refute the keep arguments, as well as disagreement on whether some usages are suitable proof of notability where both sides have raised rational arguments. There are some uncontested concerns that at least part of the article is WP:OR but that does not automatically establish a reason for deletion; sometimes such issues can be resolved solely by editing.

Finally, Uncle G has proposed a rewrite/repurpose of the topic. It seems like it has gained a little support and no explicit opposition, but by my reading just not enough support to classify the rewrite/repurpose as a consensus. Thus I'll play safe and call the conclusion "'no consensus"', but that Uncle G's proposal should be further considered e.g in a talk page discussion or just by bold editing including redirection. And editors may want to address any WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues the article may have, as the concerns about the adequacy of the current content are reasonably supported. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popular beat combo

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

This is a non-notable term. Most of the references used in the article are examples of it being used (ie that WP:ITEXISTS) but this doesn't make it notable: see WP:EDPN. Some of the references are about the stereotype of British judges being out of touch with the common man, and use the term 'popular beat combo' as an example, but this does not amount to significant coverage of the term itself. WP:NOT#DICT etc.
It is not Wikipedia's function to record every term or phrase that is used in a humourous context: WP:IINFO. We areonly here to cover topics which meet our notability policy's threshold of having "received significant coverage, directly and in detail, in reliable sources".
Please note that the page was nominated for deletion earlier this year but the result of 'keep' was held to be "questionable" given the high number of non-policy-compliant !votes. Amisom (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The renomination is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." It is counterproductive to create multiple AfD pages to try to remove an innocuous page of this sort -- this adds to the clutter rather than reducing it. As for the supposed case against, it's quite false. It's clear that the late Marcel Berlins put some effort in researching this and this is well-documented and sourced. Policies which mandate that we retain this include WP:ATD; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The DRV explicitly concluded that a renomination would be appropriate. Also none of the policies you’ve listed have even the slightest relevance here so whose being vexatious? Amisom (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Andrew D., every time you cry CENSORSHIP over a silly little AfD you make that phrase sound more hollow. Seriously--that's ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - As this matter concerns the Beatles, see Blue Meanies. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policies that I cite are quite relevant and their general point is that we should be constructive rather than destructive. In the first AfD, I suggested that we develop this into a broad topic about being out of touch. Others are now following a similar train of thought below. So, this AfD is following the same pattern as the first and, as that was quite recent, we should expect a similar outcome. Repeating the process is therefore unproductive and it is generating wasteful heat and noise per WP:LIGHTBULB. That's what makes this discussion vexatious and that's why it would be sensible to speedily terminate it. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CENSOR is totally irrelevant and you know it. WP:NOTPAPER is irrelevant and you know it. You're just being over-dramatic. As for the renomination, I was urged to do so by the DRV. If you disagree,t hat's fine. It's difficult for anyone sensible to classify it as vexatious though. Amisom (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, exactly the same as when you nominated the same article in April. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And when you then took it to DRV. Which is easy to see, because you seem to have done almost no editing since. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - How much I edit or don’t edit is my free choice and has no bearing on this. Don’t troll. Amisom (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The DRV explicitly concluded that a renomination would be appropriate. Amisom (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - And as nothing has changed about its notability, then re-keeping is equally appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which one of the speedy keep criteria applies? I’ll wait. Amisom (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I think Nomination by a TBANed user has a nice ring to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I’m not topic banned. Outright lie. Amisom (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Not a lie; more of a suggestion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Andy Dingley, it might have a nice ring, but you know we can't do that, not like that. I think the AfD is leaning weakly towards keep--you don't need to undermine the nominator here. Amisom, you are not likely to be topic-banned over one double AfD nomination. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I observe that Davies 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDavies2018 (help) indicates there to be a topic there, but just as with What is black and white and red all over? (AfD discussion) Wikipedia editors have built an article cargo-cult style using a line of a joke as a subject name. This can, I suspect, similarly be renamed and refactored into a proper article without deletion. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And as a quick headcount, there are more sources cited for 'beat combo' than 'newspaper riddle'. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's measuring quantity over quality, though, as several of the sources here are just occurrences of the title phrase in running prose. Whereas I tried to pick for newspaper riddle the name that folklorists, who actually study this stuff, use. I am interested to see that we finally gained neck riddle some years later. Interestingly, that came up as I was reading sources for this. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But re COMMONNAME, what else would be more readily recognisable? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - See below. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage discussing the phrase in detail. The claim it "may be used as an ironic or journalistic synonym" is followed by four references, none of which are secondary sources supporting the statement, but which appear to be given as examples of usage which would be appropriate for a dictionary but not an encyclopedia, WP:NOTDICT.----Pontificalibus 12:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Looking through the article, most statements lack sources. The ones that have sources are dubious at best. The article seems to be based on WP:Original Research and WP:Synth. I know deletion is not supposed to be a way to get articles improved, but, likewise, wikipedia is not supposed to end up with a large collection of permastubs. If there is any actual, reliably sourced information in the article, put it in another article. Rockphed (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What's a "permastub"? It has doubled in size since the previous AfD. There are a dozen sources there. "AfD is not for cleanup", and yet for once, that's the effect that first AfD has had. Which of these "most statements" are you concerned about being unsourced? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - By my count there are 2 sources that might provide reliable, independent, and significant coverage of the article topic. Each is used as a source on a single sentence in the second section. No amount of flowery prose (or bad sources) will make a non-notable subject notable.Rockphed (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed vote to move. Uncle G has put forward not one, but 3 articles that cover this topic space. Some of the sources we have been discussing can be used in all three, some can only be used in one or another. A significant portion of his proposed articles talk about British judges, but that is largely because the page we are picking apart is decidedly British. Rockphed (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article was only nom back in April. Refs have been improved since then.--Mervyn (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- This wouldn't be the daftest article we decided to have, but I can't disagree with Pontificalibus and Rockphed's analysis of the sources. I don't really think Wikipedia should be a catalogue of awkward phrasing or slips of the tongue. DRV explicitly allowed renomination, so the existence of a previous AfD is irrelevant. Reyk _YO! 14:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. The article is not a stub; it covers this small subject pretty adequately, though more refs would be nice. I don't see how it can be said that "The article seems to be based on WP:Original Research and WP:Synth." Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnbod, here is an example. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drmies, Well, that was very easy to sort! Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That didn't sort anything, so I undid it. A further example is "It may also be used to ridicule legalese, antiquated courtroom practices, and eccentric judges" for which two references are given, both examples of usage but there is no secondary source stating it my be used thus.----Pontificalibus 14:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - And I adjusted the claim and restored it. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Johnbod, I like what you're doing; if you and my uncle got together y'all could work this out very nicely. I particularly approve of the term "trope". But I think my uncle's criticism still stands, and I also think that more work needs to be done to appease User:Pontificalibus, whose OR/SYNTH concerns are still valid. I do believe that Uncle G's suggestion is the most valid and encyclopedic one: rather than attempt to bolster this particular little incident, it is better to write on the trope. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, an article on Out of touch British judges or similar would be supported by multiple sources discussing the subject in detail (e.g. this one already in the article and this one not yet mentioend here).----Pontificalibus 15:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per keepers above. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rockphed. There is no topic here, just a "dictionary definition" of a beat combo that is popular, with a collection of refs that mention the phrase "popular beat combo" in passing. There's possibly a topic in "beat combo", but calling one "popular" is not even at all common; compare stats. Perhaps a Beat music#Popular beat combos section would be a better place for some of this info. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read the article? This is not an article about beat combos and their relative popularity. But I rather suspect that you knew that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I studied the attempt to dress up what was a simple dictionary definition into a topic about a cliche phrase. I think it still fails GNG. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should have said that the phrase could also be discussed there, not just the sampling of popular beat combos themselves as now on the page I pointed to. And a redirect would be fine. That's what we typically do for minor topics that fail GNG. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, you evidently haven't read it. At some time, this was a phrase spun off from beat combo. But that was over fifty years ago, whether it was first done by Justice Cocklecarrot or by Peter Cook. Since then, long after beat combos ceased to be any popular source of music, it has been a three word phrase, used deliberately and humorously because of its cliche. This topic, this article, have nothing to do with music, or even The Beatles. They refer to the 1960s satire boom and its children, possibly (Marcel Berlins remains silent) to an apocryphal judge as well. But not music. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Beat music. This is not a specific kind of band, it is just a combination of three English words: "popular", meaning lots of people know about it, "beat" meaning, well beat music, and "combo" meaning "band or musical group". The only part of that phrase that has any need for specific article is "beat", and we have one already, which is beat music. --Jayron32 15:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing the point by a mile here - this is emphatically not an article about music, nor does it pretend to be. It is about a British media trope suggesting ignrorance of music. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I got that. However, citing a small handful of jokes that happen to use those three words in order doesn't make it worth creating an entire article about. --Jayron 32 15:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources about the phrase itself to make it notable, and the article goes beyond a simple dictionary definition. Redirecting to Beat music wouldn't be appropriate - this article is about the phrase itself, not about the music. GirthSummit_(blether) 15:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you identify at least one source that discusses the phrase and its usage in detail? A phrase doesn't satisfy WP:N simply through usage.----Pontificalibus 15:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Davies book and the RSS editorial both talk about the phrase itself, rather than just using it. The mention in the Guardian is brief, but it too is about the phrase rather than just using it, and I note that Marcel Berlins claims to have spent an inordinate amount of his journalistic career researching it - assuming that to be true, there are likely more sources that could be found in his writing. I'm content for it to survive on the strength of the current sourcing - it's not promotional, it's not disparaging anyone, basically it's just about notable and it's not hurting anybody. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, [edit] or merge into a spinout list of tropes from Private Eye. I am sorely tempted to point the nominator to the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only hope you're making some kind of obscure joke, because otherwise telling a newbie editor to fuck off just for nominating a bad article for deletion is completely reprehensible. Reyk _YO! 15:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't a newbie editor, they have been here since January 2012, and much of their activity is nominating articles for deletion via PROD. You should also check the etymology of popular beat combo, the nationality of the publication in which it first appeared, and the name of its most prominent benefactor. The user's edit history indicates to a very high degree of probability that they are also English (as am I) so is likely to interpret the usage int he English, not the more prudish American, sense. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guarantee that if I said, "Delete, and the article creator should go forth and multiply" I'd be facing a pitchfork mob at ANI. Reyk _YO! 08:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An anecdote mentioned in passing in a handful of sources (even the reliable ones, which is not true for all the cited sources - forums, blog crap) does not meet WP:GNG. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but where are the "forums, blog crap" sources here? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing some reading.
First, as far as Wikipedia is concerned we can verifiably source this to James Pickles, because there are umpteen obituaries of xem asserting this. If this were all that there were to this, I would suggest a merger there, for being an anecdote about M. Pickles that was so significantly representative of xem that it made it into xyr obituaries ahead of the person whom it turns out really did once scrub things for a living.
However, if one does the usual AFD trick of phrase matching with Google Books and does not actually read Davies 2018 one will miss the scholarship by a large distance. Davies is talking about judicial anecdotes, and makes the point several times over, in a chapter which does not document this one anecdote in depth other than to hold it up as an example of how such things follow a narrative script of an ″out of touch judge″ stereotype, that such anecdotes are often misattributed or indeed non-factual.
(If you think that ″stuffy reactionary conservative″ is the British newspaper stereotype of judges, be aware that there are sources out there — e.g. ISBN 9781841134956 p.51 — that note how this stereotype changed to quite the opposite in the 1990s, so if your view of this comes from a satirical magazine from the 1960s it's that magazine that is now out of touch. ☺ Also, the Wales Online article that Pontificalibus points to is a fairly bad source. It is fairly reliably sourced that journalists like that more interested in sensationalism than fact invented the ″Is Gazza an opera?″ question and that was not what was actually asked.)
The rest of the book that Davies 2018 is in also discusses judicial humour, including judges making jokes. To counter Pommiepedia bias, it is worth nothing that there is a significant body of Australian work on that subject including (for starters) SSRN 2623443.
I think that we could rename and refactor this into an article on judicial anecdotes, not least because there is an anecdote entry in Gibson's Pocket A–Z of Criminal Justice (albeit a very short one); retaining the link to M. Pickles and using this as an example, which is really what it is, not a subject in its own right.
Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I rather doubt it originates with Pickles, who only became a proper circuit judge in 1976, which I think is some time after the phrase became current. I can well believe that he encouraged the belief that he had started it. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that if someone refactors and renames the article it can be saved from deletion, but I do not think this article can survive in its current form (hence my above delete vote). I agree with your analysis of the current sources. I like your suggestion and the real question is what to name the resultant article. Do we want to include judges making light in their courtrooms (as in this article that was the first hit on google under "supreme court humor"? Or do we just want an article about jokes about judges (which a quick google under "jokes about judges" analysis turns up some scholarly papers)? Rockphed (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - See below. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I haven't been able to find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. There is some coverage that uses this phrase, but very little that discusses it. The sources that do discuss the phrase amount to a series of trivial mentions, and so fall short of the requirement for significant coverage. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came here from ANI, apparently I said I would !vote delete if this came up at AfD, and I still agree - this violates WP:DICDEF and the references do not support anything beyond the fact the term has been used, along with potential WP:OR explaining how the term has been used. SportingFlyer T·C 20:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- When did you last actually read WP:DICDEF I wonder? It clearly isn't one of those, and the context is adequately referenced. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm familiar with WP:DICDEF, and in no way is this adequately referenced. Admittedly two of the sources I don't have access to (the website is down for one of them) but every single reference I have access to simply uses the phrase without defining why the phrase is important or commenting on the phrase's colloquial usage. Therefore, the entire article has to be WP:OR, since it draws conclusions not adequately supported by any of the source material. SportingFlyer T·C 00:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - What nonsense! This, for one is clearly talking about the phrase rather than using it. It isn't a monograph, but it doesn't have to be. I doubt if any of the references actually uses the phrase, ie as a straight description of a musical group. Which do you think do? Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm incredibly surprised you consider that source to "clearly talk about the phrase," considering it appears once in the article, with no other context. Most (if not all, I don't remember) of these articles use "popular beat combo" exactly once, and in passing, without continuing to describe it. In no way is that significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I fell to the floor in amazement on reading this (no injuries, don't worry). The whole piece is about judicial ignorance or being out of touch. That is the context. It doesn't need "describing" or grammatical analysis, nor repeating. Anyway, what about Berlins? Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        This still doesn't discuss why the phrase itself is notable - it's possible there's an article on British judicial ignorance which would be notable, but the phrase itself still isn't, and that's what I'm reviewing here. The Berlins link is one of the websites I have not been able to access, as it has been down for at least 24 hours, but searching "Popular beat combo" "Marcel Berlins" on two different search comes up with only forums. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Since there appears to be at least one entire book on the subject, not to mention much other coverage ( also, only a few pieces cited here, saying "it's possible there's an article on British judicial ignorance which would be notable" illustrates rather well your personal attitude to notability. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        My "personal attitude towards notability" certainly cannot be established by a theoretical topic I've done no research on. Just drop this plase, we're not even commenting about this particular article anymore and unless some much better sourcing is found you're not going to get me to agree with you. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term is primarily notable because various humorists, most obviously Private Eye, have used it as a regular catchphrase for over fifty years. There is no need to analyse its origin, it merely exists. And since then, it has been used so much as to become notable, as that catchphrase.

I don't know a US equivalent. Maybe "What, me worry?". You might as well ask for sourcing of Saturday Night Live Samurai and question why Belushi is playing a samurai. It doesn't matter: it's just the context, it's the repetition of the performance which makes it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which source discusses it in that context? SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this just scrapes through notability, per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, namely: "such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry... and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." Whilst one could linkspam the page with examples of this terms in use, there are just enough enough sources like this one to demonstrate that this ironic term is of note and of social significance (and us Brits are rather good at our irony). Being an avid Have I Got News For You watcher (who has heard the term used to mock well-educated Private Eye magazine editor and panellist, Ian Hislop for being culturally_out-of-touch), I didn't think it acceptable to add this source for verification as, sadly, it links to a user-edited site. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you just said is either wp:or or wp:synth. While I appreciate that this feels like something everyone knows, we can not build an encyclopedia on things "everyone knows." Rockphed (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes our notability guidelines... also It is disruptive to keep nominating the article until you get a different result. WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE WP:NOTPAPER. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Renominatiom was explicitly urged by the independent voices at DRV, and you have failed to give any reason as to why it is supposedly a notable subject. Amisom (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everyone knows that "no prejudice against renomination" is just a euphemism for "NOTAGAIN! disruption! REEEEEE!" Reyk _YO! 07:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Reyk I hadn't thought about that but you have a point. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get back to the proper subject of an AFD disussion, now? Do we rename and refactor? Do we delete? What sources exist? How in-depth are they? What subject(s) do they actually document? I put forward one suggestion above. Uncle G (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly wouldn't rename. What on earth to? This is a cliche (therein lies the humour), so we ought to use it, not move to something without the catchphrase recognition. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - See above. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to criticise User:CAPTAIN RAJU, who does sterling work, but this has wrongly been included in the Music and bands sorting lists, which may have confused some above. The only wikiproject the article has is "popular culture" (though it surely should have UK or England banners, and probably a legal one). Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothng wrong at all with the sorting. Read the first sentence, check the categories, and then see if you can claim it has nothing to do with music. If people are confused it is because there are no sources explaining the topic in detail, so we can't write a proper article for readers who are unfamiliar with any of the context.--Pontificalibus 21:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But as you have already explained, a cliche is a phrase which has become devoid of meaning. Therefore it has lost any reference to actual beat combos or their music. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it truly is a cliche and has nothing to do with music, why doesn't the first paragraph of the article explain this rather than state "Popular beat combo as a synonym for "pop group" is a phrase within British culture. It may also be used more specifically to refer to The Beatles, or other purveyors of beat music."? Perhaps it's because there aren't any sources explaining it's supposed actual new non-musical cliched meaning? ----Pontificalibus 07:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that CAPTAIN RAJU does a great job, adding afds to afd subject lists (have just sent them a kitten of appreciation:)), as someone who also adds them just wanted to say that on reading the article i would have probably done the same. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a very brief demonstration of what I am thinking, presented as I would structure it for my personal Articles For Creation service, although there I would put all of the sources and cross-references in. Drmies is probably enjoying seeing AFC at AFD. The first is where I would envision refactoring this. One poor article titled after the tagline of an anecdote is actually hiding three rather more substantive ones if the sources are anything to go by. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G's example

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

judicial anecdotes are anecdotes told about judges.

Unlike judge jokes, judicial anecdotes are intended to be taken as true; however, that is often not the case as they frequently are misattributed or misquoted. They are also not necessarily humourous in intent; as often the intent is to exhibit the character of the person about whom the anecdote is told.

One such was widely attributed to James Pickles in his obituaries. Anecdotally, he asked "Who are The Beatles?"; to which a barrister answered "I believe they are a popular beat combo, m'lud." This anecdote demonstrates one facet of such anecdotes, namely that they play into stereotypes. Here, the stereotype is that of a conservative, reactionary, out of touch judge. This stereotype was common in British newspapers in the 1960s and 1970s, albeit that the 1980s and 1990s saw it entirely reversed as a Conservative Party government saw many of its actions thwarted by judicial rulings, prompting the newspapers (those that supported the Conservative Party, that is) to lampoon judges with the opposite stereotype of being excessively liberal and trendy.

It also demonstrates the problems of correct attribution. Marcel Berlins, legal correspondent for The Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to track down where, preciseley, this was said, when, and by whom. He twice offered, with no result, a magnum of champagne to anyone who successfully did so. (The later obituaries did not say where and when Justice Pickles wa supposed too have said this, and the accepted view that the anecdote dates from the 1960s pre-dates Pickles' joining the circuit in the 1970s.)

Anecdotes can involve misreporting. Anecdotally, Jeremiah Le Roy Harman, in a case involving Paul Gascoigne who was widely known as ″Gazza″, asked ″Is Gazza an opera?″. This was, however, a construction by journalists looking to sensationalize, Gascoigne's life being a favourite subject of the newspapers of the time. In fact Judge Harmon had actually asked ″Isn't there an operetta called La Gazza Ladra?″.

Given Gascoigne's nickname and his then image of being a ″lad″ this may have been an instance of judicial humour, which has a tendency towards puns and witticisms, falling flat because of its sheer obscurity. Judicial anecdotes also exemplify such things; another such being an anecdote related about A. H. Bodley who, in reponse to a witness, a young lift-boy, describing a mezzanine floor as a ″Mazarin floor″ in testimony, noted that ″It is but a cardinal error.″, an obscure reference to Cardinal Mazarin that the lift-boy and others present were unlikely to have understood.

Publishing collections of such anecdotes has been a regular activity since the 19th century. Two such recent collections are Miscellany at Law …

… and so on, you can see where this is going.

References

Reference bibliography

Davies, Christie (2018). "Judges and Humour in Britain: From Anecdotes to Jokes". In Milner Davis, Jessica; Roach Anleu, Sharyn (eds.). Judges, Judging and Humour. Springer. ISBN 9783319767383.
Le Vay, Benedict (2012). "Fleet Street". Ben Le Vay's Eccentric London: A Practical Guide to a Curious City. Bradt Travel Guides. ISBN 9781841623948.
Stevens, Robert (2005). "The Years of Conservative Government". The English Judges: Their Role in the Changing Constitution. Hart Publishing. ISBN 9781841134956.

… and some of the ones in the original article for the refactored content.

judicial humour is the use of humour by judges, in court, in judicial opinions and otherwise.

References

Reference bibliography

Oakley, Jack; Opeskin, Brian (2016-03-09). "Banter from the Bench: The Use of Humour in the Exercise of Judicial Functions". Australian Bar Review. 64. SSRN 2745611.
Duncan, John Allison (1940). "Judicial Humor". The Strangest Cases on Record. Chicago: Reilly and Lee.

References

Reference bibliography

Galenter, Marc (2018). "Funny Judges: Judges as Humorous, Judges as Humourists". In Milner Davis, Jessica; Roach Anleu, Sharyn (eds.). Judges, Judging and Humour. Springer. pp. 75–100. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76738-3_3. ISBN 9783319767383.

Thank you! I lacked the creativity to see what to do here. This looks absolutely perfect. My only question is if we want to keep the edit history for popular beat combo? If so, which article should we attach it to? Rockphed (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I'd rename it to judicial anecdotes and refactor that there. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with something along the lines of Uncle G's proposed new article, and a redirect to it from the article's current title - certainly that is preferable to deletion, or to a redirect to an entirely irrelevant article like beat music, which would fail to explain anything about the meaning and history of this well-known (in the UK) phrase. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and redirect to Beat music. ♟♙ (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever target is chosen, that is definitely the wrong one. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the kind of article I would wish my wife or servants to see. After all, the subject matter is only a minor expression, comparable to one among the many that very rightly are chucked together within Recurring themes and in-jokes in Private Eye. Redirect it to User:Uncle G/drafts/Judicial anecdote or similar (let Uncle G be the judge); and later, when Uncle G's ready, the world will be enlightened by such insights as "judicial anecdotes are anecdotes told about judges". -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC) NB I did not say, and have no reason to think, that this rather delightful turn of phrase was either dreamt up or popularized by Private Eye. -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with the previous response. I've heard of the expression and understand the joke, such as it is, but it is not in wide use. Readers of Private Eye would know of it and my suspicion is that many of those who want to keep the article may be readers of the magazine and think the expression is more significant or worthy of note than it actually is. Regarding the comparison with "wrong kind of snow", I think that one is much more widely understood, but even that is borderline from the point of view of notability and having a lengthy article dedicated to it. Dubmill (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW (which is admittedly very little), I heard and used this phrase before I ever read Private Eye - indeed, before I got involved in this discussion, I didn't know that it was particularly associated with PI, I just thought it was a thing that everybody knew about. Full disclosure: I do now subscribe to PI, but I only started doing that in my thirties, whereas the 'popular beat combo' I sang in during my university days described itself as such in our side-splittingly ironic posters. People seemed to get the joke, but maybe they were all PI readers. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Above: "it has been used so much as to become notable ... it's the repetition of the performance which makes it"; "it is not in wide use"; "It is NOT 'a very common phrase in widespread use in the UK'". No evidence seems to be provided for either its claimed wide use or its claimed rarity. So, is it widely used? I can't provide a quick answer, but I can suggest how widely it was used in Britain from circa 1980 to 1993. The British National Corpus, which covers this period, has no hits, zero, for "popular beat combo". For comparison: "tired and emotional", 12 hits; "since sliced bread", 11; "crocodile tears", 22; "economical with the truth", 16; "mistakes were made", 11; "wrong kind of snow", 3. -- Hoary (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wot, no comment on my comment? It could be claimed that BNC is dated, and that the popularity of "popular beat combo" has leapt up since 1993. I therefore looked in the iWeb corpus, a humongous corpus compiled from either 2017 or 2018 (Davies' own explanations disagree on this), from websites that may well predate this but can be expected to postdate 1993. There's no limitation to British sources, but British sources are included. And so: "popular beat combo" gets 18 hits; "tired and emotional", 148 hits; "since sliced bread", 2407; "crocodile tears", 1032; "economical with the truth", 276; "mistakes were made", 1644; "wrong kind of snow", 21. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that this phrase has ever had more than the most minor use. In its current state, the article tells us that The deliberately out-dated cliche may be used as an ironic or journalistic synonym, or by someone to denigrate a pop group referred to, or may be used of another person's views to imply that they are "out of touch". It may also be used to ridicule legalese, antiquated courtroom practices, and eccentric judges. "May be", "or may be", "may also be" used -- but very rarely is used (and above, I present the numbers to demonstrate this). Not notable. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions missing the point

Comment - am I missing the point here in these discussions? The article is not mainly about pop music or about courtroom exchanges, but about a very common phrase in widespread use in the UK - in the same way that "The wrong type of snow" ("wrong type of...") is often not used to refer to the weather. What needs to be done to get this across clearly? Is it the muddled intro sentence that needs re-writing? --Mervyn (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that Wikipedia isn’t a dictionary and the phrase isn’t encyclopedically notable. Amisom (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having already ivoted, and seeing no reason at all to change my response to this, I thought I'd check for Leaves on the line. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The content about the possible origin of the phrase shows it is far more involved than a dictionary entry. --Mervyn (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could write a very invovled article about my dog. It doesn't mean that the article should be kept. The question is whether it meets the GNG, not whether WP:ITSINTERESTING. Amisom (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is NOT "a very common phrase in widespread use in the UK" - that's why there aren't any sources discussing its use in detail, and why the article is confusing. The wrong type of snow specifies multiple sources discussing usage of that phrase from its origin to its cliched use in wider context - however we don't have that here. ----Pontificalibus 11:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The wrong type of snow includes several references to books and articles that deal with "the wrong kind of snow" as a topic, rather than just in passing. While I will admit to having only scratched the surface of the possible sources on popular beat combo, there do not seem to be any that use it as their subject, all simply use it in passing. That said, does anyone have access to Rules Britannia: the 101 Essential Questions of Britishness Answered, from how to keep a stiff upper lip to who ate all the pies? If you do, can you check if it has a section on "Popular beat combo"? Google books doesn't think it does, but it is worth a check. Rockphed (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim is DICDEF, let's define accurately. Popular beat combo, n., humorous or ironic. Chiefly British. "The term is regarded as being archaic and overly formal in relation to the subject matter, and is intended to reflect the way in which an old-fashioned or older person would refer to a contemporary pop group." (OED) Drmies (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UAE T20x

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

Arguably, there is enough source material for this to meet GNG, but in reality, it was just another proposed T20 league that failed to raise enough money to happen. If at some point they get their act together and get funding, this article can be resurrected and the content here can form part of the history, but I don't think we need an article about something that never actually happened. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm finding it hard to think of a good keep rationale. However, the alternative could be to redirect/merge into the history section of the Emirates Cricket Board article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd delete it on the basis it never happened, kind of like a reverse CRYSTAL! StickyWicket (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article can be recreated if this tournament actually takes place. Dee 03 04:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Premier T10 Cricket League

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

Non-notable cricket league. Note that WP:CRIN only covers "players, teams, venues or matches". Accordingly, WP:NSPORT relies on WP:GNG, which the subject fails to meet. Coverage for this event which is due to take place later this year is exclusively promotional at the moment. If it happens, and if it garners more significant coverage at the time, then an article will probably be suitable, but right now, this does not have significant, in-depth coverage, and appears to fail WP:CRYSTAL. Harrias ^talk 08:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 08:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 08:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. This league simply isn't notable and has poor coverage. It would be nice for tournament articles to be restricted to first-class/List A/Twenty20 cricket, or otherwise historically notable, e.g. the Minor Counties Championship or the Hawke Cup. StickyWicket (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lorenzen

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

Self promotional puff piece full of citations that primarily consist of paid articles and little to no organic content. Fails to meet standards set forth in WP:BIO. History of edits are dodgy and some seem to be from SPAs. Notability guidelines are not met and the page is just a litany of facts surrounding the basic biographical information of a non-notable individual from an average family. Richard Lorenzen doesn’t meet WP:GNG and in some instances violates WP:BLP as there is a substantial amount of unsourced information.

The article in and of itself seems to be largely self-promotional and may be penned by the subject himself. He’s a small business owner with a self published book and his desire for self-promotion with titles such as “philanthropist” (no sources) and others clearly violates the letter and spirit of GNG or any low standard set for special notability.

In-depth internet research demonstrates that while Richard Lorenzen has indeed been quoted in a few newspapers and publications, this does not immediately usher one past the threshold of the notability guidelines.

Also, the page was nominated for deletion in the past, and that AfD tag was suspiciously removed. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Promotion piece. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Blatant COI. Deb (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sinulator

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

Non-notable teledildonic device: mentioned in one Wired article, can't find any other reliable source for this, link to website is dead. The Anome (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it counters with both WP:Notability and WP:Verify. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Was created by SPA, probably as advertising. -Crossroads- (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so no need to make a redirect to Teledildonics as a wikipedia reader lookup? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just gonna concur with this, but then I googled the term and found it is apparently a variety of sound modulator, so we probably should not do that. The company appears to be defunct; their website redirects to Trivago of all places. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lorenzen

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

Self promotional puff piece full of citations that primarily consist of paid articles and little to no organic content. Fails to meet standards set forth in WP:BIO. History of edits are dodgy and some seem to be from SPAs. Notability guidelines are not met and the page is just a litany of facts surrounding the basic biographical information of a non-notable individual from an average family. Richard Lorenzen doesn’t meet WP:GNG and in some instances violates WP:BLP as there is a substantial amount of unsourced information.

The article in and of itself seems to be largely self-promotional and may be penned by the subject himself. He’s a small business owner with a self published book and his desire for self-promotion with titles such as “philanthropist” (no sources) and others clearly violates the letter and spirit of GNG or any low standard set for special notability.

In-depth internet research demonstrates that while Richard Lorenzen has indeed been quoted in a few newspapers and publications, this does not immediately usher one past the threshold of the notability guidelines.

Also, the page was nominated for deletion in the past, and that AfD tag was suspiciously removed. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Promotion piece. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Blatant COI. Deb (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prevale (DJ)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - all sources are WP:PRIMARY, no chart placings or major label signings. Just download links and blog posts could be found. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not entirely convinced by the amount of coverage out there on this DJ. While the article is full of puffery and the grammar as is is terrible, both of these issues could be fixed. But from what I can see most of the references are indeed primary, and from what I can find—very, very little—it looks like Prevale has barely charted on any charts. Ss112 15:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to EWR VJ 101. Tone 11:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heinkel He 231

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

Unnecessary article on an obscure project that wasn't even slated for a prototype, let alone production. A better outlet would be a generic article covering ALL the 1950s and 60s German V/STOL projects Petebutt (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there isn't much here, but this seems to be a real project, and sources are not too hard to find [22]. Either keep or merge to EWR VJ 101 if there isn't anything more to say. —Kusma (t·c) 09:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there seems to be enough available to show notability. Although I wouldn't disagree if a page was created for the V/STOL projects, and this material was merged there.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the de-Wiki article shows that GNG can be met, and a decent article written. Struck - woefully lacking sources. Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems enough to justify an article, subject to expansion with more sources to meet GNG. Otherwise, a merge should be considered. I think deletion at the moment would in haste. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into EWR VJ 101 and redirect. Not enough sources out there to establish notability as an independent design project, but it is certainly part of the development history of the VJ 101. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to EWR VJ 101 - this one of the two first prototypes in that project (VJ 101A by Heinkel and VJ 101B by Messerschmitt - [23]). While plausibly this could be a standalone (not sure regarding GNG of VJ 101A by itself - but it could meet it) - we don't need a short little WP:SPINOFF stub on VJ 101A while the main project is much more developed. Barring a major expansion of this 46 word article - this could easily fit in a subsection in VJ 101. Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Odd that the German and Japanese wikis have an article on this design but the English one is about to be deleted, the English WP generally leads the other wikis on aviation subjects. This is a very interesting period in aviation and the origins of aircraft that did materialise from these design projects can be traced using these articles. The German article is a good size and is sourced from FlugRevue (equivalent of the UK Flight magazine). The Japanese article links this source where photos of two distinct designs appear, they are either full-size mock ups or models, we don't know without further research but it is obvious that some effort and expense was involved. As I researched and created NBMR-3 I would be very happy to work with the article creator to build this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into EWR VJ 101 and redirect. - From 1 2 3 and others, it seems like there were at least three designs for the He 231, the first, a tailsitter one, the second, with internal engines only and a inlet cone for a nose, and a third one with engines on the ends of it's wings, later referred to as the VJ 101A. The current article specifies VJ 101A in its lead, but shows a diagram for the second design. I believe the first two designs never went beyond the drawing board and the third only had two miniature wind tunnel models made. As it's last version before being merged-into/succeeded by the EWR VJ 101C was referred to as the VJ 101A I feel that this should be covered in the article EWR VJ 101 and treated like the "A" variant/prototype of the VJ 101 series alongside the "B" "C" "D" and (if it exists) "E" variants/prototypes. - Scio c (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Dennis Fogell

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG for non notable roles in acting and as a director. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undoubtedly fails the WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ABRY Partners

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

No references to assert notability. Isingness (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP. No source meets the requirements of being significant, independent, reliable and secondary. Most simply report of regular business processes such as mergers and acquisitions. I could find nothing better on a brief web/news search. Jbh ^Talk 19:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sol Wachtler. Tone 07:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Silverman

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

The subject is not significant on its own. No substantial coverage. Also, the page is clearly negative in its tone beyond the point it can be edited. I would have tagged it with G10, but DGG thought it needs discussion. Dievans (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , tentatively. I declined a speedy on the basis that she has political importance, and the figures she has been involved with are important enough that she will remain of historical importance , and the negative information is therefore appropriate--and also very reliably documented). But I leave this to the community. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. It seems clear that all sources discuss her in relation to her affair with Wachtler. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Roscelese. The only reference not about Wachtler is a tiny squib from 1990 that would never amount to political notability. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The full bio, especially the details about her connections to Bush 41, would not fit in any other article. Subject is notable enough for a standalone article based on national-level coverage. StonyBrook (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sagarmatha Higher Secondary Boarding School

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

Not notable school. ~SS49~ {talk} 10:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify the rankings claim. Both links are same lists and the list has Sagarmatha schools, just not this one. The third source is a primary source, by all appearances. The building on that (ad) one looks big! I don't know what policies apply, but there is no source to keep. Can we keep an article without references? Or maybe someone could try and find a source to verify it's a real school that's as big as in that photo? Otherwise, I'm inclined to think Delete, until we have RS's to maintain it with. I found this in edusanjal; unfortunately it's a cut and paste of that ad-looking third source that's in the article already. I don't know if it's enough to verify that the school is real. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school exists, but there is a lack of adequate references to support the article. There is no notability established through the references that appear as they are primary or just listings. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – bradv🍁 14:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohana Krishna

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

Sources are all merely routine, and do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 04:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 04:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 04:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 04:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calia (company)

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

routine notices only -- no substantial coverage for this small restaurant firm DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A business with outlets in only one city where the article makes no credible claim of importance or significance. Sources, which would need to be strong for businesses in particular, are a collection of a) non-reliable (see WP:ORGCRIT); b) routine business announcements (see WP:CORPDEPTH); and c) just the one feature, in Broadsheet (website), which potentially is not a reliable source. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems to fail to meet the WP:Notability criteria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To Lopifalko's reasoning I can add only one thing: that Broadsheet is not potentially, but certainly, a non-reliable source. [24] and [25] are back-scratching industry puff pieces. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are mentions-in-passing or routine business announcements. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION, and no substantial sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Elwoodin hiljaiset värit

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

PRODDED for lacking sources. DePRODed by another editor who added a single source. Apparently no other RIS to be found. Therefore fails WP:ARTIST. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BAND recommends notability for bands be judged by: "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country" -- check (which presumably also satisifes the other criteria of "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart"; "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" -- The Finnish Wikipedia article on one of their albums here tells us it was released on EMI, other albums would need to be checked; "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" -- it needs sourcing, but the article says "They are renowned for a distinguished style with heavy basement jazz influences." As for sources, the second page of a Google search on the band's name gives me this at TV Finland and the third page this at MTV Finland. It is also a well written article that it would be a shame to lose. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added these sources to the article. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of charting records in Finland, both singles and albums [26], two gold discs [27]... clearly a popular group in Finland and easily passes WP:BAND. Richard3120 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I'd also add that they pass criterion 5 of WP:BAND as well... they were signed to EMI Records for 18 years, during their greatest period of success, and since 2010 they have been signed to a Finnish label which is a fully-owned subsidiary of Sony Music. With so many top 20 singles and albums over the last 30 years, it would be amazing if there weren't any print sources in Finnish, if not online ones. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In agreement with the previous voters. The article could use some improvement but the band has clearly had several charting records in their country and reliable media notice in that country's media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes both criteria 2 and criteria 5 of WP:NMUSIC regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Abrea

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

No sources independent of the organization from which he draws his notability. p b p 14:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history is independent of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC, as per my previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ángel Abrea (2nd nomination). No adequate evidence of notability was provided at that time. One source that might possibly provide significant coverage is not enough. Multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one that may possibly have the required depth-of-coverage, or maybe not. Furthermore, there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. The subject may be important in the LDS church, but is not notable as per Wikipedia's standards of notability at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per comments above and in the prior nomination decision. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amere Lattin

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Silver medal 🥈 at Pan American Games and qualified for World Championships.-Binbaksa (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. Despite the stated qualification, it also fails NATHLETE. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
probably you do not read well wikipedia:NTRACK… because it fulfills all the criteria !/Binbaksa (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific and state precisely how it meets the criteria. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
”Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international”: he finished second at 2019 Pan American Games… -Binbaksa (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[28] Houston Chronicle is not enough? -Binbaksa (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Part of the US team in Pan Am Games and in World Champs.--Arorae (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international” WildCherry06 18:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep Making it clear we are quoting WP:NATHLETE "Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition" Silver medal at the Pan American Games clearly satisfies that before we get to his selection to next month's World Championship. This NOM is pursuing other irrational deletions against policy. As I have proposed before, I think editors who push for improper AfDs like this should lose their rights to propose AfDs. Trackinfo (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Johnpacklambert who voted above here was previously banned for his overzealous efforts to game the system in order to obtain deletions. He continues to make delete votes constantly. It is a malignant fraternity of deletionists trying to censor wikipedia. I suggest a similar solution should be in order for Onel5969. Trackinfo (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have said he meets the requirements listed in WP:NTRACK. In the 400 m hurdles event, he was 2nd at the Pan American Games and was 3rd at the London meet in the Diamond League circuit. Jozape (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Runner-up at the Pan American Games, which is the highest level of the sport in the Americas. Currently ranked 13th in the world in his event, so he is clearly competing at a notable level. SFB 14:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Mancini

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. A very important fencer in Italy and in the World (World Senior medalist). Exists in 4 other languages already.-Binbaksa (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ NATHLETE requires participation at the highest level, not youth events; lack of substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 03:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
she won the Gold medal at 2017 World Fencing Championships… and what about Women's team foil at the 2018 World Fencing Championships? There are no upper level !-Binbaksa (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, then why didn't you include that if you wrote the article? I still expect to see a substantive source for GNG but that should be enough to pass NATHLETE then. Reywas92^Talk 03:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a couple of brief notes, probably derived from a statistical source. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, theres more info about her wins at the Italian WP article (see here) now all we need are significant/indepth sources? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quoting WP:NATHLETE Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition I see two here. There is no additional sport specific guideline for fencing. Another irrational AfD from the same NOM who apparently can't read. Also nominating Lucia Lucarini and Michela Battiston also medalists from the same competition. This one has additional history, of a previous gold medal at the same competition, another gold medal at the [[Fencing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Cadet female foil|Youth Olympics which also fits Have won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, or Youth World Championships which the Youth Olympics clearly satisfies though not by exact name. I think this NOM should be blocked from further disruptions.

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) Rollidan (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Bradford

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. One of the 30 best pole vaulters in the World. Qualified for Doha 2019.-Binbaksa (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet NATHLETE. @Binbaksa: that site you have just recommended is inaccessible for "legal reasons". I suggest you withdraw your statement. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not withdraw my statement because I have seen the article (before it was forbidden only to EU CITIZENS for legal reasons. This article meet NTRACK as this athlete is selected to participate to the next World Championships. I suggest you to read more accurately the ATHLETES notability.-Binbaksa (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That same article comes up for me, in my search from the USA. I suggest you are having internet issues, but have no right to cast aspersions, or asparagus [29] against Binbaksa or the source. Trackinfo (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That source is not independent, being from the university he played out, therefore has zero weight towards notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He is selected as a USA representative to the World Championships in a little over a month which will guarantee satisfying WP:NATHLETE and by being selected is not WP:CRYSTAL now. He is currently ranked #15 in the world which makes him a serious contender. Here's the official list. He has already represented the USA in International competition, twice [30] coming away with a Silver Medal both times. Here's some news reporting [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Each of those are reporting on different achievements through his relatively short career. I suggest this AfD be withdrawn. Trackinfo (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the sources are all routine coverage of sporting events, not the in-depth coverage needed to meet WP:GNG, and still does not meet WP:NATHLETE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It frustrates me the depth to which some people will stoop in order to get deletion brownie points. Since you have chosen to misrepresent the sources lets analyze. WBNQ local source reports on local kid who wins a silver medal in international competition. They would not cover the competition if it were not for the local athlete. Zach Bradford is named in the headline. Vaulter, a sport specific website, reported on both he and teammate Hussain Al Hizam breaking the Kansas Indoor stadium record. Because of tie braking rules, he finished second in the competition but both get credit for the record. And might I point out the mere fact that they are talking about a record means it is not routine. LJWorld is the local paper in Lawrence, Kansas, where he now goes to the University. The headline Zach by name talking about the outdoor record he set, exclusively, breaking a 36 year old facility record. Not routine. KAGS, local TV station for Sam Houston State where his USA teammate Clayton Fritsch goes to school. Yes the article focused on Fritsch, local boy makes good again, but it also mentions Bradford, who jumped the same height . . . those tie breaking rules again . . . both dominating the other international athletes when he won the silver medal. Still not routine. And pantagraph is his Bloomington, Indiana hometown newspaper reporting when he signed to go to University of Kansas out of high school. His name again appears in the headline, local boy makes good, and is not routine. Now lets carry this a little further. Since you have continue to press the argument; you are wikilawyering the letter of WP:NATHLETE. If he had been on the favoring side of either of those silver medals, he's have an international junior gold and you'd have zero argument. He has already been selected to go to the World Championships. The moment he sets foot on that track he will fulfill the letter of WP:NATHLETE and this article will be back up. Even if he doesn't show up, there will be a story about that. In that month, as that competition comes closer, his name will show up in entry lists and dope sheets around the world. You are pressing to deny the journalists of the world easy data on this college sophomore, #4 American, coming in to the championships ranked #15. What is there to gain by pursuing this AfD, other than stupid deletionist brownie points? Trackinfo (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep based on the sources found.--Arorae (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WildCherry06 18:44, 15 August 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 redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Tone 11:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Teachers Tournament

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

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! College Championship (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament

Tournament episodes of a game show. While Jeopardy! is a widely notable television show and part of pop culture, an unreferenced article about a week-long tournament every/every-other season does not meet WP:N. Google search produces promotional links from the Jeopardy! website and local news coverage of winner (which does not meet WP:SIGCOV), links back to this article and to the production website. Subject is adequately covered in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Only source in article is to confirm death of a contestant who earlier competed in the tournament. AldezD (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. It is adequately covered in that article. (The college championship recently got closed as redirect as well.) AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Anderson (American football)

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

Simply does not meet WP:GNG or the SNG for college coaches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being on a coaching team (or several) does not automatically bring notability, lack of sources to establish it. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never a head coach. WP:GNG doesn't appear to be satisfied either. SportingFlyer T·C 06:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a back team member of the coaching staff isn't enough for sport-specific notability and the coverage is inadequate for the GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing anything that passes WP:GNG nor any other notability guideline. Typically assistant coaches do not generate the press to pass notability standards. It's possible he could achieve notability through extensive coverage with his college play (or something else) but I'm not finding any evidence of that. Would change my position if it were discovered and presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like this one's headed to deletion, but I'm finding a fair amount of coverage for a guy who is the associate head coach (here) and defensive coordinator for a Power Five program. Examples of coverage include: this and this. Cbl62 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The ESPN article is interesting, but I'd classify the Stanford article as not independent... hard for me to find more as "Lance Anderson" is a lousy search term. Considering...--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few more: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The previous AfD raised issues around what is considered "independent" sourcing for notability, but did not reach consensus. This AfD raises similar issues, but there is neither sufficient participation nor sufficient agreement to resolve them. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Octaviano Tenorio

AfDs for this article:

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

Several WP:BEFORE source searches are providing no evidence of this subject meeting WP:BASIC. Searches are providing affiliated (non-independent) sources and primary sources, but finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I supported keeping this article in the first AfD three years ago. I explained my reasoning in great detail at that time, and feel the same way today. I encourage people to read that debate and the closing statement carefully before coming to a decision. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. p b p 13:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple indepdent reliable sources, such as the Salt Lake Tribune article, the section from Hearts Turned to the Fathers and others. Those pushing for deletion are using a far too broad criteria to exclude far too many sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is actually said about Octaviano Tenorio in the Salt Lake Tribune article, though. It is mostly about ARTURO Tenorio, who found himself in hot water a few years back. The only mention of him is: His brother, Octaviano Tenorio, was a member of the LDS church's First Quorum of the Seventy. The Salt Lake Tribune article fails the WP:NOTABILITY's mandate for significant coverage. p b p 13:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Salt Lake Tribune article only has a one-sentence mention of the subject. This certainly is not significant coverage, and does not qualify notability. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. This is not an overly broad interpretation of notability guidelines to exclude sources, it is an accurate and correct application of guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in the Tribune does in fact add a smidgen of notability; the article mentions him because he held a major position in the Church, and names the position, so it is an independent source on the fact that he held that position. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, though, is that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. The subject may be an important person in the LDS church, but passing mentions do not qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that footnote 6, an article in the academic journal BYU Studies Quarterly, see the discussion at RS Noticeboard entitled "Are university presses legally affiliated with the Univ. independent of the parent ORG of the University?" This scholarly journal is WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock Rollidan (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Catalano

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

Fails WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC. The subject has no peer reviewed papers according to GScholar, only one paper not published in a plant society magazine (a society called AIPC which he set up), and a self published book. The subject also has no academic ranking in any standard index such as Researchgate. The primary author of the article User:Rafflesiana also appears to be the subject of the page which suggests a possible COI. Propose to delete. Nyababair (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF Taewangkorea (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

Reference bibliography

References

Reference bibliography

Further reading

References

Reference bibliography

Discussions missing the point