Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 September	21 September >

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott MacAlister

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject co-wrote two hit songs 16 years ago, but that is WP:INHERITED notability, and there is no discussion at all online of the subject himself. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, WP:COMPOSER#1, which is the relevant WP:SNG for "Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists", specifically states "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Having "discussion online" is not a criterion of any Wikipedia notability guideline. It's also not true: this article in the Scotsman has a para about MacAlister [1], including that he was a former steelworker at Ravenscraig when was made redundant aged 22, which can be added to the article, and might help in finding additional sources about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: the criteria of WP:COMPOSER only says they "may" be notable, it's not a definite sign of notability. In this case we only have one source, and only two sentences, so that fails the WP:GNG of multiple in-depth sources. If criterion 1 of WP:COMPOSER is going to be considered a definite pass, then that means that every person with a writing credit on a charting song somewhere in the world is going to be considered automatically notable, even if we can only write one sentence about them, which clearly doesn't make sense. The "discussion online" was not meant to be a criterion, it was a statement as to where I had looked for sources, because I don't have access to print media. Richard3120 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Rebecca. Notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Sneddon. The article is essentially a repete of content found in that article and in the articles Don't Let Go and Best of Order. There's nothing new here.4meter4 (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Balistreri

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

Stub article with no sources that suggest subject meets WP:NPROF or WP:ARTIST. Curt内蒙 22:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curt内蒙 22:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Curt内蒙 22:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no indepdent sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- With minimal effort, I found two independent sources: https://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/visual-arts/article691800.html and https://www4.toledoblade.com/Art/2017/11/17/BGSU-professors-inspire-in-and-out-of-the-classroom.html Vexations (talk)
Keep. More coverage: [2] [3]. Some additional non-independent coverage that doesn't really help for notability but provides depth: [4] [5]. And he's in at least two museum permanent collections: [6] [7]. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability criteria for WP:ARTIST. The article needs considerable development but that is not a reason to delete. There is also coverage of his work in journals and books. Netherzone (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The coverage and biography should be added to the article but passes WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD seems to be headed for keep. It would demonstrate good faith on behalf of the nominator and the supporter of deletion if they expanded the article with the provided sources. Vexations (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Curt ^内蒙 16:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, in addition to above, his work is also in collection of Canton Museum of Art - see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some independent coverage of the artist (though not a lot), and his work is in the permanent collection of a number of galleries and museums [8] (most appear to be minor, but a couple could be considered notable), therefore he just about satisfies WP:ARTIST. Hzh (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we have found sufficient evidence that the subject meets the notability requirement outlined in WP:ARTIST, specifically 4(d) Vexations (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find the arguments in favor of keep very compelling. Indeed we are nearing consenus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Book of Mormon people. Sandstein 06:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amoron

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

Declined prod 3 years ago. This article is about a very minor figure in the Book of Mormon, whose extent of mention in the book is one passage. There are virtually no sources, independent or not, which one could find on the subject, and thereby fails WP:GNG. Rollidan (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rollidan (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rollidan (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rollidan (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Book of Mormon people. Haukur (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would support those as well. Rollidan (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a total lack of secondary source coverage. The verse mentioned gets at the sume total of his mention, this is not Teancum or Captian Moroni who generate at least some coverage, although I am surprised we have not had much in the way of debates on the political wisdom of Teancum's resorting to assasinating the leaders of the rival army.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge,I agree that this should be merged to some other related articles. Alex-h (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge That sounds like a reasonable idea. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to List of Book of Mormon people.4meter4 (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud Sulaiman

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

Malaysian officer of doubtful notability, sourced to a single book. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We usually keep articles about verified general officers per WP:SOLDIER. Is there any reason why a Malaysian major-general should be treated differently from an American or British one? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it’s not clear to me that the rank of Major General gives an automatic pass on notability. Is that the case? It’s also not clear to me from the article whether his role was local or national. He ‘has been credited’ with success but was not promoted, according to our single source. So as I said, notability seems doubtful to me. If the consensus is that being a Major General automatically demonstrates notability that’s fine, but otherwise I’m not convinced notability is clear. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All general officers are considered notable per WP:SOLDIER #2. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER #2.4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:SOLDIER #2.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great Battles

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

Non notable tv series; no reliable independent sources found. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it actually aired on television? Hyperbolick (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it did according to comments from other editors. Mccapra (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Which battles were "great" ones is a matter of POV for the presenter and compiler. I do not think we need to have an article on every TV series. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Barca (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found nothing in a pretty extenzive search. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elders of the Universe. RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Runner (comics)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Elders of the Universe. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elders of the Universe. No secondary sources indicating any independent notability seems to exist for this character. However, an entry for the character also exists on the main page for the group, so redirecting there would be appropriate. Merging is not necessary as the target article already includes basic information, and there is no reliably sourced information here to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as stated above. WP:CHEAP and already there. @BOZ: can you point out what might be worth merging as opposed to just a redirect? -2pou (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elders of the Universe. History is still available if anyone wants to merge any details into the target article. RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obliterator (comics)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Elders of the Universe. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elders of the Universe. Like the other articles on the various Elders, there are no secondary sources demonstrating any independent notability for the character. As the character is already listed with basic information on the main Elders article, and there is no reliably sourced information here to merge, redirecting is sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as stated above. WP:CHEAP and already there. @BOZ: can you point out what might be worth merging as opposed to just a redirect? (this guy looks to have the least distict bio of the elder noms) -2pou (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BLPCRIME. RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Pavlov (mass murderer)

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

From-the-start violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Article was created for the suspect in four murders with the presumption of guilt. This person was later cleared and he does not appear to meet WP:PERP for the crimes for which he was convicted. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a borderline WP:SPEEDY G10 with that article title. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. This appears to be a notable case (a murder of four people generally is), but shouldn't appear under his name if he was found to be innocent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a soapbox slathered in BLP violations. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operational headquarters of the European Union

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

unnecessary parial duplicate of Common Security and Defence Policy DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not correct, as the content isn't in the CSDP article. Moreover, the article has a clear purpose; to outline the EU's list of options for choosing operational headquarters in each mission. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forks are addressed by merger, not deletion. The Common Security and Defence Policy page doesn't seem to say much about operational headquarters and this page has plenty of content. Not seeing a problem requiring any action. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell [9] has not be new page curated reviewed which is a significant milestone and content was recently previously present in source the article as recently 20th September 2019: Old revision of Common Security and Defence Policy and that should probably be the comparison point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ssolbergj is the main contributor for both pages. If they feel a split is appropriate then we should just let them get on with it. Andrew D. (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My understanding of the background is as follows: Operational headquarters of the European Union was a Wikipedia:Splitting by Ssolbergj from the Common Security and Defence Policy article. The Operational headquarters of the European Union was PRODed my myself (and content restored Common Security and Defence Policy) to for non-attribution and dePRODed by Ssolbergj on the basis of I wrote more or less 100% of the content in the first place, so this is not a valid reason for deleting the article.. That claim may be sufficiently true, or perhaps it might not, but quite honestly too much pain for me to check, but regardless I chose to add the attribution for the copy to the talk pages as that covers the problem. The nom. (an admin and therefore with page curation rights?) has claimed the split was unnecessary. dislosure: I've had interactions with Ssolbergj recently. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Weak draftify (and restore content to Common Security and Defence Policy): There may well be an article here but in its current state is a hard read (at least to me). Article claims to be amount Military but then does Civilian. Headquarters seems to be used in both a singular and plural context. I'm not sure all relevant claims are cited, and some may be significant. But I am not particularly strong and confident in my critique here. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does not "claim to be about military"; it clearly differentiates between what OHQ is used for military and civilian missions, in separate sections. Some, but not all, EU military missions are referred to as operations. All EU missions, both civilian and military, have OHQs. In any case, the article Structure of the Common Security and Defence Policy is this article's 'parent'. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The military in the hatnote (oldid=917156975 & earlier) This article is about the list of operational headquarters (OHQ) that may be selected for the planning and conduct of individual European Union military missions ... perhaps gives me the impression about military; but perhaps it is just me who reads it that way.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: changing my !vote: I see improvement since the point at which I said draftify and sufficient to move my earlier !vote. I might have a couple of points and concerns with the current version but not relevant to AfD. Article might have benefited from a Template:Under construction up to this point but that could have caused a WP:NPP to flick it into draft anyway so pays money takes choice. Nom. originally tried to WP:PROD but couldn't as I have previously so had no choice but to go to AfD. I'd also comment if an article is prod'ed it is often better to try to improve it rather that immediately de-prodding which leaves it vulnerable to AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Different content here than elsewhere, If you wanted to discuss a merge, then use the talk page and do it properly. Dream Focus 18:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Can I ask who you mean by you? Is that me on the posting immediately above ... or is you referring to any reader of this page? In either case I see this as a bold split without discussion which I believe has not been page curated especially at the point the AfD was raised. But in all events the article has been somewhat developed since nomination and I am to a degree curious if the nom. feels the reasoning of the nomination still holds? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark" DGG nominated the article with "unnecessary parial duplicate of Common Security and Defence Policy" so I speaking to him. Dream Focus 19:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. This is not the place for a merger discussion.4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the sources (or the lack thereof). Sandstein 06:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Allen (Gloucester, Ontario politician)

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only as mayor of a suburban municipality. As always, mayors are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist; the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantial article about their political career, not just the ability to offer technical verification of his term in office. However, this says nothing substantive about him at all except that a bridge was named after him two decades after he left office -- but at least half of everybody who's ever been mayor of anywhere has had a piece of municipal infrastructure named after him or her, so this is not an instant notability freebie that exempts the article from having to be substantive and well-sourced either. But the only references shown here at all are the regional council's own self-published meeting minutes, which are not a notability-supporting source, and a single article in a neighbourhood hyperlocal, which is not enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG by itself if it's the only media source you can show. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write something much more substantial and much better sourced than this, but nothing stated here is enough in and of itself to make a mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being mayor of Gloucester meant serving on Regional Council, which is the predecessor of today's Ottawa City Council, whose membership we've deemed to be notable. Also, Gloucester had/has a population of over 100,000 which is usually good enough for the mayor to be presumed notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, serving on regional council confers no special status over any other municipal politician, and secondly, the idea that a city's population confers a magic "no sourcing required" notability freebie on its mayors was deprecated almost a full decade ago — regardless of whether a place has a population of five hundred, five thousand or five million, and regardless of whether its mayor served on the wider regional council or not, a mayor's notability always depends on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage that can be shown to support an article, and never on the raw population of the city itself. The only way this can be kept is if you put in the work to make it substantive and well-sourced enough to clear WP:NPOL #2, and no size of city ever exempts a mayor from having to meet that standard. Ottawa City Council was the pre-merger predecessor of Ottawa City Council, by the way, and the Regional Council was not. (And no, Ottawa isn't being treated differently from Toronto in this regard, either: even in Toronto, old metro councillors from the pre-merger suburbs of Etobicoke, Scarborough and the Yorks are regularly deleted if they can't be referenced well enough to clear NPOL #2 on the sourcing.) Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in the case of the city of Ottawa there is a strong case for the Regional Municipality being considered the predecessor of the new City of Ottawa. Before amalgamation, the regional councillors and chair came to be elected separately. The Region was responsible for transit, roads, sewage, water, garbage collection, social services, policing and arterial roads. In the act which created the new city of Ottawa, City of Ottawa Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 14, Sched. E, the "old municipality" is defined as "The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton" [listed first] and "each area municipality under the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act on December 31, 2000" [listed second]. --Big_iron (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about people's differing legal interpretations of what they are or aren't under law; I was talking about how regional council works in relation to Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians. Suburban city, county or regional councillors are not retroactively massaged into "global city" councillors, or handed an automatic notability freebie, just because their suburb got amalgamated into the central city 10 or 20 or 50 years after the person themselves left office — they still have to clear NPOL based the title they held during their own time in office. Prior to amalgamation, the only people in Ottawa-Carleton who get the global city pass for city councillors are those who served on Ottawa City Council itself, and anybody who served only in the suburbs or on the regional council clears the bar only if they can do it on quality and depth of their sourcing. And again, that's the same way it works in Toronto and Montreal: municipal councillors from the former suburbs are not deemed automatically notable just because their suburb got amalgamated into Toronto or Montreal after they left office, and still have to clear the same "sourced well enough to be special" notability test as any other non-global city councillor whose municipality is still a suburb today. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mayor of a city of three million might be presumed notable (since that gets us 86 mayors worldwide, and we can probably get reasonable coverage on most of them). A mayor of a city of 100,000 who has a single hyperlocal article written about him is about as non-notable as they come. Rockphed (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - A city of 100,000 is the same size of a federal electoral district in Canada, and MPs are definitely considered notable. So, 100,000 is definitely large enough to confer the same amount of sources for its mayor as a Member of Parliament.-- Earl Andrew - talk 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of voters in a district isn't what makes MPs notable; the fact that they serve in a national legislature, and are thus notable to the whole country and not just to one geographic cluster of 100,000 voters, is what makes MPs notable. Cities aren't nations and their councils aren't national legislatures, which is why they're not handed "no sourcing required" freebies just because their population is technically comparable to that of a federal riding. Even MPs don't get "no sourcing required" freebies either — they're notable because they always have the required sources, not because being an MP exempts them from having to have any. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local politician who plainly fails WP:GNG from the sources in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Local media coverage isn't enough. I'm nominating two other Gloucester mayors: Mitch Owens (interim and lost the following election to Allen, so even less notable) and Claudette Cain. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. There are also a more numerous bunch of reeves, most of whom are equally unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local politician. LefcentrerightTalk 10:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well referenced article on the mayor of a sizeable town. - SimonP (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-referenced"? Two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, the two that are real media are just about the naming of a bridge rather than anything relevant to whether Allen gets over NPOL or not, and two pieces of local media coverage is not enough to deem a suburban mayor as clearing NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it bears restating here that GNG says Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article so I take issue with the original nomination beginning with the first two words. Retrieving news sources before 2000 does present somewhat of a challenge because Google News does not provide reliable coverage. --Big_iron (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't presume that the "existence of suitable sources" has been satisfied in the absence of hard evidence that the existence of suitable sources has been satisfied. If "retrieving news sources before 2000" is a problem, then that's precisely the issue — we do not keep inadequately sourced articles on NEXIST grounds just because people speculate about the possibility that the subject might have received more coverage than the article shows, we keep inadequately sourced articles on NEXIST grounds only if somebody finds better sources and shows the results of their effort (preferably by actually expanding and sourcing the article, but at least by showing the actual results of a search for sources in this discussion.) You are allowed to cite print-only sources if you can find them, but NEXIST only kicks in if such sources are actually found and shown — merely speculating about the possibility that sufficient reliable source coverage might exist, without putting any effort into actually proving that sufficient reliable source coverage does exist, does not change the equation at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the hypothetical existence of sources is not sufficient for notability in the Wikipedia sense. However, my main point was that the nomination was based on minimal sourcing which contradicts the spirit of the standard, which even goes so far as to say "Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." I don't think that anyone supporting deletion has met that standard. --Big_iron (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATTP: "As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No attack or comment on anyone's abilities or diligence was intended. My comments were based on the content of the posts which appeared to be inconsistent with the approach expressed in the standard. --Big_iron (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Macias

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

All of these lack notability per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL and were created by the same editor. As politicians in mid-size cities there is Verifiable information that could be included if these people were notable. However, as non-notable people we run into potential BLP issues with the information that has been presented. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all. Fail WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. El Monte CA is not a global city for the purposes of securing the notability of a city councillor, and Norma Macias is not referenced anywhere near well enough to demonstrate that she's much more significant than most other non-global city councillors. Huntington Park and Lynwood are large enough that substantive and well-sourced articles about mayors could potentially be kept, but both Karina Macias and Aide Castro are referenced mainly to primary sources and community hyperlocals rather than to sufficient evidence of notability-supporting coverage in major media. They both cite the Los Angeles Times once or twice, but this represents local coverage as both of their cities are suburbs of Los Angeles — so one or two hits in the main local daily is not enough all by itself to overcome how bad the rest of their sources are. Making a mayor or city councillor notable requires much more than just being able to cite one or two local media hits as verification that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all But the reasoning is different for each as Bearcat describes well (but they should not have been put together in an AfD discussion. Bundles should only include mayors [or councilmembers] of the same jurisdiction for clarity of discussion.). --Enos733 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I agree these probably should have been separate. Note also that failing WP:POLITICIAN isn't on its own grounds for deletion, failing WP:GNG is. Hydromania (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a councilor of a small town she is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Model engineering clubs of New Zealand

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

Completely unreferenced list of non-notable topics. As always, the primary purpose of most Wikipedia lists is to help people find Wikipedia articles, not to create comprehensive directories of every single thing that exists in the outside world -- so if none of the entries in a list have Wikipedia articles at all, then there's no value in Wikipedia maintaining the list. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is mistaken as per WP:LISTPURP, lists are not exclusively indexes of articles; they also provide information and encourage development. The topic in this case is notable per WP:LISTN as such societies are listed in sources such as The New Zealand Railway Observer; Live Steam; and The Railway Enthusiast's Guide to Railway Societies and Clubs, Museums, Preserved Locomotives, Railway books and Periodicals, etc., etc. in over 40 countries. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mistaken about the purpose of lists. They exist to provide information about notable things that have Wikipedia articles, not just to create indiscriminate directories of everything that exists without regard to notability issues. And whether the class of thing is a notable concept or not is irrelevant — the individual clubs listed here do not have their own standalone Wikipedia articles, and are highly unlikely to qualify for them. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still mistaken. WP:LISTN states that "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable'". Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to closed-ended and finite lists, such as lists of holders of notable political offices, where it's genuinely more important that the list be complete than that it consist exclusively of blue links — however, we also have many other lists where we do limit the entries to topics that already have Wikipedia articles to link to, because the list topic is open-ended and potentially infinite and highly prone to being misused by every self-promoting wannabe who thinks they can add themselves to a Wikipedia list for the extra publicity. A list of mayors of a specific city, for instance, is more valuable if it's complete, so a person who can be verified as having been mayor of that city should be in the list whether they have an article or not — but an open-ended list of writers should be restricted to blue links, because its value would be impaired by permitting an entry for every single person who ever published a poem in their high school yearbook without regard to whether they passed WP:AUTHOR at all. And the lists where we do impose the "article must already exist" restriction actually far outnumber the lists where we don't. LISTN does not mean we just indiscriminately keep every list of non-notable things that anybody could ever possibly want to create; the "any verifiable member of this class of topic can be added here whether it has an article or not" condition only applies to certain specific lists, and not to many others. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat's theories seem to be all his own invention as WP:LISTN doesn't say any of that. I quoted the actual guideline; Bearcat just makes things up. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make things up. What I said is a 100 per cent correct summary of Wikipedia's consensus around how lists work: we very frequently do apply a "the article must already exist before an entry may be added" condition to lists, precisely because some lists are highly vulnerable to the addition of non-notable wannabes who are trying to promote themselves by adding themselves to our lists, and our list policies most certainly do distinguish between lists that are allowed to include unlinked entries and lists that are not. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generally we should start with something like model engineering. If there is sufficient information, we might make model engineering club and model engineering in New Zealand. We might even make model engineering clubs in New Zealand. It is only when we either have a large list of notable entries in that last article that this article would be appropriate. I suppose if the entries all had marginal notability we could have a single list to collect the information (like how we make lists of integers that have a single interesting property between 400 and 499). I am fairly certain that WP:LISTN requires the group to be discussed in secondary sources, not just listed together in secondary sources. I cannot find any indication online that model engineering clubs in New Zealand are discussed as a group.Rockphed (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Almost all entries have no articles implying they are non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As frustrated as I am with the "we can't have lists of entries unless those entries merit their own articles" (which essentially makes all lists into lists of links to articles, which is redundant with categories), due to incidents like this and especially this, this list is really pushing it. The following entries are particularly entertaining. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Name	Location	Raised track gauges	Raised track length	Ground level track gauges	Ground level track length	Notes
Experimental and Model Engineers	Hamilton	unknown	unknown	unknown	unknown	Private.
Unknown	Christchurch	n/a	n/a	7.25"	600m	Private.

To be fair, lists are not always automatically redundant with categories. They can (a) be organized on a different basis than the categories (e.g. List of Canadian writers is not duplicating Category:Canadian writers, because the list includes everybody while the category sorts them into many different subcategories rather than directly containing any individual writers itself), and (b) they can include referencing to support inclusion (e.g. our lists of LGBT people require a legitimate reference before a person can be added, due to their past misuse as a form of attack editing against non-LGBT people) and additional contextual information (e.g. the cities of license and brand names of radio stations), which categories cannot do. So they aren't always redundant with categories just because we restrict most lists to notable entries with Wikipedia articles, because the category and the list can present the information in different ways. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marlen Garcia

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor. As always, city councillors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they are accepted as "inherently" notable only if they serve in an internationally prominent global city, and otherwise clear the bar only if they can be referenced to a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that marks them out as much more significant than most other city councillors. But this is referenced exclusively to her own "staff" profile on the city's own self-published website and a Blogspot blog, neither of which are reliable sources that contribute anything at all toward making a city councillor notable enough, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Councilmember from 1999 - 2013 of Baldwin Park, California. A claim is that the subject was the first Latina elected to the City Council, but that claim is not sufficient to merit inclusion (above any other councilmember). There is a bunch of local news about the subject, but no national or international coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Alvarez (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor. As always, city councillors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they are accepted as "inherently" notable only if they serve in an internationally prominent global city, and otherwise clear the bar only if they can be referenced to a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that marks them out as much more significant than most other city councillors. But of the eight footnotes here, three are primary sources and the other five are purely local media coverage of the type that every city councillor in every city can always show, which does not constitute evidence that she's special. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bigotted, antisemitic city council members do not get articles just because they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Byrd

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as mayor of a city that is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of much better sourcing than this. There are also WP:PERP overtones here, because this basically elides any substantive content about his mayoralty and instead concentrates entirely on corruption allegations. And of the five footnotes here, one is a primary source table of election results that is not support for notability at all, one is a user-generated discussion forum reposting the primary source text of a court ruling that isn't really about Byrd at all but just mentions his name a single time by way of background context, and two are just glancing namechecks of his existence in newspaper articles about other things -- and the one source here that is actually about Byrd in any non-trivial way is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself as the only substantive source in play. A mayor's article has to be a lot more substantial and a lot better sourced than this to get him over WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: D#Destiny. As a compromise. It's up to editors to decide to whether to merge anything from history. Sandstein 06:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny (Marvel Comics personification)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. BOZ (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Quite a few pages of comic characters that only appeared in a small number of issues have appeared here lately and they all consist of one or two paragraphs of text that could easily fit on more general lists of characters, like the one mentioned by the user above me. It would be a shame to delete them and lose useful text contained by these pages, but I also understand why they shouldn't warrant their separate articles. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. A more reasonable solution to this minor character. bd2412 T 01:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with merge. Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D as per the context in WP:MERGEREASONPATH SLOPU 08:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be a ridiculous un-notable character, only appearing in a single canon issue. According to this very article, and anything else I have found, she appeared exactly one time, and everything else about the character is nothing but fan speculation. She certainly should not be kept as an independent article, having zero notability, and I really don't think that the various lists of Marvel characters needs to have every minor, one-shot character, or they would be even more bloated messes than they already are. Rorshacma (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the character does not pass WP:GNG, and does not deserve their own article, why do we insist on keeping the article in another location? I don't even see a reason to redirect to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics given how ambiguous the character's nature is. Too minor to be worthwhile here. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor character who appears in one comic book issue is non-notabl, and does not merit a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birds Barbershop

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

It's unsourced, but it also...isn't. There are potential sources in the External Links section, but 4 are from local newspapers, and 3 of those are from the exact same publication. There are only 2 others from Reuters and Newsweek. Most of the sources also don't appear to focus on the barbershop, instead just being lists or using the shop as an example. Only the Newsweek article appears to focus on it. I'm not even sure since the Newsweek website made it too hard to read the whole thing. Overall, this is very iffy as to whether this should be deleted or not, at least from what I've seen. Invalid^OS (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Invalid^OS (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Invalid^OS (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I click the Google news search at the top of this AFD and right away I see Forbes giving them ample coverage. [10] Other significant coverage is at [11]. Dream Focus 16:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RS I have been adding sources. WP:NOTCLEANUP. Notable company asses GNG Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have good coverage from Forbes and Newsweek.Itsabouttech (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something for the weekend, sir? Here's another source. Andrew D. (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early on the basis that the nominator stated in their nom they want an early close if a relevant guideline exists. Since WP:CLN has now been cited, and nobody has recommended delete, speedy close would seem best. SpinningSpark 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish painters

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

What is the practical use of this list provided the existence of a relevant category? I don't know about any English Wikipedia policies (or practices) regarding this issue, so if there are any, feel free to snow keep (or snow delete) this list and I'll take it into consideration for future uses. Piramidion 13:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Piramidion 13:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The advantages of a list like this is that it can be annotated, it can include redlinks (preferably with a source to show some notability or at least verifiability), it can include painters without an article here but with an article on another Wikipedia (e.g. the Spanish one). At the moment, it doesn't have many of these advantages yet, but e.g. List of Belgian painters shows a bit of what is possible over time. Fram (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the guideline states that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." I guess this means a 'snow keep' in this case...--Piramidion 17:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep Although I agree with you that the list needs improvement, List of Belgian painters being a good example of what it could become, this is no reason for deletion and the list should be kept. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I read the wrong thing, ignore. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, incorrect reasoning, per above comments. Deleting because of the "better as a category-list-template" argument (or any combination thereof) does not only not fit the guideline, but turns the guideline on its head. These arguments have always been and are always invalid. The guideline says that the three ways to create maps on Wikipedia - lists, categories, and templates - complement each other. They are separate. And are encouraged to be separate. Deleting any of these three ways to map Wikipedia because there is an existing category, or list, or template, violates the guideline. They are, by existing language, useful partners. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above editors. The existence of a category does not make a list redundant. Lists can (and often should) include more information than can be seen in a category listing. --Michig (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Street workout isometrics

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

This looks an awful lot like a how to guide to me. If there is encyclopedic content on the workout as a subject, then that's perfectly fine, but we really don't give detailed workout instructions. Probably more appropriate for something like Wikibooks. GMG ^talk 17:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual WP:NOTMANUAL - does not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - notability not established - Epinoia (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm struggling to appreciate what the difference is between street workout isometrics and just isometrics. If there isn't one, then this should be deleted per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The list of equipment required (bars, rings etc) leads me to believe these aren't street exercises at all. SpinningSpark 23:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelaziz Khourdifi

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

Fails WP:GNG ,WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable body of work that has made an impact per WP:AUTHOR - no reviews or writeups or profiles in major magazines - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BASIC - there may be more Moroccan sources, but I couldn't find any; if anyone can find them I would be happy to change my !vote to Keep - Epinoia (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Martinez

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Martinez, the subject still fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus at the last AFD. I can't see what's changed to make her more notable per WP:POLITICIAN since then. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a city council member, subject fails WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Santa Ana is not a global city for the purposes of handing its city councillors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2, so her only path into Wikipedia is to be referenceable to a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that marks her out as much more special than most other city councillors — but the ability to cite a handful of local coverage in her own local media market does not do that, because every city councillor everywhere can always show a handful of local coverage in their own local media market. People are also not notable for running as candidates in elections they did not win, so neither running for mayor nor running for the state legislature boosts her notability at all — and having been named in a "top 40" listicle is also not a notability claim in and of itself, so a 111-word blurb in the Huffington Post's "40 Under 40: Latinos in American Politics" is not the magic ticket either. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more than just one blurb of extralocal coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOLITICIAN --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, largely per Bearcat: WP:NPOLITICIAN is clearly not met, which leaves WP:GNG, but GNG requires in depth coverage of the article's subject within (ideally at least a handful of) reliable, independent sources. The closest we have to in-depth coverage focused upon the proposed article's subject comes from the HuffPost article, and even that source contains merely a three sentence paragraph regarding Ms. Martinez. Unfortunately, despite the fact that there are technically nearly a dozen citation in the article, collectively, the content within them that is directed to the subject does not meet the notability threshold, even when we aggregate them. Further, if this is the second time we have had to delete the article in three years, we may want to consider salting the title. That would be a shame, in that its possible this woman's profile could raise in the coming years, and then there will be hoops to be jumped through to get a (then justified) article into existence, but given there is a possibility that the subject's supporters may re-add the article again without meeting notability standards, it may be called for. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Male

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

Player fails WP:GNG. Article has WP:COI problems with the creator having the same Twitter name as Jack Male. Dougal18 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no indication that this individual is notable. My own search did not find any sources that would pass WP:GNG. Rollidan (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is routine reporting of youth darts events. There is no significant independent coverage and he has yet to compete at the highest level in adult competitions. Papaursa (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meher Baba. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discourses (Meher Baba)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK.

Nil coverage or reviews or commentary in independent reliable sources outside Meher-Baba-Universe (stuff published by his follower-trustees; biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest associates et al).

Seeking redirect to Meher Baba per this discussion. ∯WBG^converse 13:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Redirect This seems straightforward and uncontroversial in light of the lack of sources. Rockphed (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redirect to Meher Baba. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect – I agree with Rockphed exactly, straightforward and uncontroversial due to lack of sources. – Levivich 15:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per the nom, and the fact that I cannot find enough coverage to require a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. Sandstein 06:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion (comics)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Marvel Studios has already announced a forthcoming Eternals movie, and Oblivion will inevitably play a substantial role in that movie, which will lead to continuously increased coverage over the next several years. bd2412 T 01:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Notable fictional character, if it is apart of forthcoming Eternals movie. This will increase its coveragePATH SLOPU 08:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge basic info to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. Note that there is no indication that this character(?) will have anything to do with the Eternals movie. Besides, WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (soft redirect). Feel free to restore and improve when the expected new coverage actually happens. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics- Much like in the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternity (comics), the assertion that the character will get more coverage because of The Eternals (film) is nonsensical. There is, as far as I can see, absolutely nothing to back the claim up that the character will have anything to do with the movie. Arguing to keep the article because of that runs completely afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Rorshacma (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics per Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Back from Rio. RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Hill (song)

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

Not notable in its own right. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It’s a pretty terrible shape, but hitting #2 on the Mainstream Rock Charts is a notable feat. Could this just be a case of sources being trapped in print magazines, because it’s a song from 1991? I wouldn’t oppose redirecting if no ones going to actually bother to write a decent article with any content, but I also wouldn’t oppose undoing that redirect if someone actually put effort into writing it, because I believe it’s likely the sourcing exists. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, all I know is its been in this state for a while. Never sure about billboard, I know the main chart is enough, but am none to sure about the genre charts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”A while”? You nominated it today, less than 2 hours after it was created. It’s only existed for a few hours. And you didn’t even try boldly redirecting. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It came up on the new articles feed as created in 2009, by banned user XxTimberlakexx.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is because it was originally created as a redirect in 2009. The actual article was only created on Sep. 20 2019. Rlendog (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my confusion, as it showed up (as I said) in the new pages feed as an old article created in 2009. So I clicked on the link and saw this article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Back from Rio (the album it was on) if nothing new is found, but I'm pretty supportive of a #2 charting song keeping its own article overall. Nate • (chatter) 15:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Back from Rio. Charting, in and of itself, does not make a song notable if it hasn't otherwise received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Back from Rio. I agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Chart placement does not make a song notable; significant coverage in reliable sources is a better indicator of notability. Since there does not appear to be significant coverage on this subject, a redirect seems like the best option. Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Wrong forum. Merge can be proposed on the article's talk page, or alternatively if there is no opposition expected, just go ahead and do it. Michig (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Euroflag

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

merge with Airbus Defence and Space and keep as a redirect, not notable enough for its own page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per WP:BEFORE AfD is NOT the or procedure to propose merges. Incorrect use of AfD. Use WP:MERGEPROP instead. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a little background this is one of three article merges to Airbus Defence and Space that were done and backed out by myself as a group as I believe possibly controversial and definitely without attribution by the merger. I note the nom. is a new page patroller and seems to have raised the AfD as part of his work. My understanding is this would have been very notable in its day, and extant in the literature of its day, and therefore always notable. As per the comment on the take there are at least two merge targets, albeit one is likely more sensible, but that is a merge discussion not an AfD discussion and one of the targets may likely be itself a merge at some point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I say on the talk page, I am in two minds about the need to merge as I am not sure there is much to merge. Hence why I thought a delete discussion was best, I want to see if anyone else thinks there may not be enough here to merge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven To keep it simple if you accept the speedy keep I undertake to do a redirect (within 3 days) to Airbus Defence and Space which has sufficient already to avoid WP:SURPRISE. I can't do this immediately as I have to go do RL things and cant do Wikipedia while driving. If you do the redirect that's fine but I might add some Rcats etc or tweak to a redirect to section or anchor. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AS I said I launched this to get a bit more input as to its actual notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of notability then please comment on suitably of the existing references added to the article. Note also the links from the books link above. Also Google scholar. Meets WP:GNG etc.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, both are about the Airbus A400M, not the company. Thus it is not notable in its own right, but rather it inherits its notability from the aircraft.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Martinez

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Martinez, the subject still fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus at the last AFD. I can't see what's changed to make her more notable per WP:POLITICIAN since then. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a city council member, subject fails WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Santa Ana is not a global city for the purposes of handing its city councillors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2, so her only path into Wikipedia is to be referenceable to a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that marks her out as much more special than most other city councillors — but the ability to cite a handful of local coverage in her own local media market does not do that, because every city councillor everywhere can always show a handful of local coverage in their own local media market. People are also not notable for running as candidates in elections they did not win, so neither running for mayor nor running for the state legislature boosts her notability at all — and having been named in a "top 40" listicle is also not a notability claim in and of itself, so a 111-word blurb in the Huffington Post's "40 Under 40: Latinos in American Politics" is not the magic ticket either. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more than just one blurb of extralocal coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOLITICIAN --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, largely per Bearcat: WP:NPOLITICIAN is clearly not met, which leaves WP:GNG, but GNG requires in depth coverage of the article's subject within (ideally at least a handful of) reliable, independent sources. The closest we have to in-depth coverage focused upon the proposed article's subject comes from the HuffPost article, and even that source contains merely a three sentence paragraph regarding Ms. Martinez. Unfortunately, despite the fact that there are technically nearly a dozen citation in the article, collectively, the content within them that is directed to the subject does not meet the notability threshold, even when we aggregate them. Further, if this is the second time we have had to delete the article in three years, we may want to consider salting the title. That would be a shame, in that its possible this woman's profile could raise in the coming years, and then there will be hoops to be jumped through to get a (then justified) article into existence, but given there is a possibility that the subject's supporters may re-add the article again without meeting notability standards, it may be called for. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haelyn Shastri

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence she played a significant role in films listed in the article. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The article was created by an undisclosed paid editor who has been blocked for the same. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable actress. At first I thought she wasn't even mentioned as being in the cast of Inspector Dawood Ibrahim, the film she is supposed to be most well known for, but that was because she was credited as Hinal Bambhania there. Nevertheless, the role appears to be a rather small one and, in fact, all her roles seem to be small or support roles. No significant coverage is to be found about her (on any of her names), excluding fluff pieces in celeb magazines and announcements of upcoming movies. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Almost brand new, probably could have benefited from draft review process in the first place. If notable, can be developed there. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick: Kindly see WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTAL. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why "move to draft" not "keep". Hyperbolick (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject fails WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG, as I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR and is WP:TOOSOON. FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 08:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. If she does more notable stuff one day, we can have an article then. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MacMahon family

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

This family has only one notable member: Patrice de MacMahon. One notable person does not make the whole family notable. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks do not necessarily mean nonnotability. So on what basis do you claim there is only one notable entry? postdlf (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per postdlf, a lack of articles doesn't automatically mean a lack of notability. (Otherwise, if the project already has an article on everything that is, or ever will be, notable, then we might as well just disable the "create article" button :) ). Jokes and deliberate exaggerations aside, I would note that, while it is true to say that we currently only have an article on one MacMahon family member in the EN project (i.e there is only one member of the related/primary category in English), there are articles on multiple MacMahon family members in the FR project (i.e. there are about 10 members of the equivalent category in French). And it is perhaps unsurprising that the various holders of the titles of 'Marquis d'Éguilly' and 'Duc de Magenta' are better covered in the FR project. Per WP:WORLDVIEW. Anyway, while the sources in the article could certainly be bulked-up (to better establish notability of the subject/family as a whole), I don't think that "only one family member meets the criteria" is a viable argument for deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Guliolopez. The article is clearly in need of development, but Irish families in possession of French marquisates are potentially of significant historical interest (cf. Lally-Tolendal) and the first Dr MacMahon is likely to have done something at least modestly notable in order to be ennobled by the French King (even if the article does not yet impart to us exactly what).45ossington (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - members of a family cannot inherit notability from other members per WP:BIOFAMILY and WP:INVALIDBIO - this article also lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources and so does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO - while individual members of the family might be notable, that does not mean that the whole family is notable - Epinoia (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The family was listed in the Almanach de Gotha which I think means they are notable as a family. And as Guiliolopez says, just because some individuals are red links doesn't mean they always will be. The second Marquis was created a peer of France in 1827 so would meet WP:POLITICIAN, and he and his brother Maurice-François were both general officers so would meet WP:SOLDIER. Opera hat (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Opera hat. If other reference works view the family as notable, wikipedia should too.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Wilson

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

Non-notable actor, has only done dance appearances (what they call Item numbers in Bollywood). She fails WP:NACTOR and lacks independent and in-depth coverage. FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 08:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 08:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing if she has done anything notable and there is no evidence of satisfying either WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaty Kouami

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

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has never played in a fully-professional league; being on the roster is not enough). Giant Snowman 07:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY, not quite enough here to draftify, no prejudice on re-creation if he plays for NEROCA or gets written about substantively. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails GNG. – Levivich 02:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McMahon (director)

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

Tagged as {{BLP IMDb refimprove}} since 2007. The other four citations (ELs) in the article are about films, not about him. His IMDb entry is that of a minor figure on the fringes of the film industry. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that such an under sourced article existed for at least 12 years shows that Wikipedia needs better article creation control procedures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't think we are making any real progress likely to lead to a consensus. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hossein Tahuni

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has played minimal game time for Esteghlal in the 2014-15 season in the Iran Pro League with only two games where he was subbed on. A check on the English side of things also produced barely any results for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG comprehensively, which is more important than him technically scraping by on NFOOTBALL following 2 sub appearances many years ago. Plenty of consensus to support this view. Giant Snowman 10:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NFOOTY pass with career ongoing, enough to satisfy GNG: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Probably more out there, esp. for those more knowledgeable with the Persian language. R96Skinner (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He played in fully-professional league (for example). In addition he played for two popular club in Iran (Esteghlal and Nassaji) and I think It is enough for notability! --Maometto97 (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per R96Skinner's WP:GNG (on an assumption, as I have not been able to translate some of the articles, but I would also assume anyone appearing for Esteghlal would be notable at some point.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep professional footballer that played in professional league of Iran in popular teams.صدیق صبري (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – lack of sources meeting GNG. You don't really need to speak Persian to know that sources like this, this and this are way, way too short to be SIGCOV of anything. I'm not seeing WP:THREE, or even two, good GNG sources. However, the large number of online non-in-depth sources suggests that access to sources isn't an issue here. If someone had written in-depth coverage of this player in a reliable source, we should be finding it online, if we're finding all these other brief mentions. – Levivich 18:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Phew, I was worried you weren't coming in with your customary delete on this AfD! ;) That's not true, I only found those sources (which are enough for GNG given [22], [23] are of good depth, and the rest are sustained over a fair amount of time) because of the name translation on the article itself, without that I'd have found nothing - Google Translate gives a different translation, for example. It's possible not all media would use his full name, he may even have a nickname. So there is a language barrier, which is to be very much expected - you yourself mentioned something of the sort at AfD/Jé. Unrelated note: Remember AfD/Wilson Severino, where we actually agreed with each other - scary times! R96Skinner (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry to keep everyone waiting; usually it only takes three keep !votes to make Levivich appear. Of course you know I'm going to say that I don't think those two particular sources [24], [25] count towards GNG because they're purely "Q&A"-style interviews–all the content is coming from the player, almost nothing in the publication's own voice–and I'm of the camp that it doesn't count because it's primary, non-independent/aboutself, routine (lots of players get Q&A interviews in the local media when they join a team or a new season starts, etc.), and doesn't show the investment of actual journalism on the part of the publication. (I know not everyone agrees with this view of interviews.) What Je [26] [27] [28] and Severino [29] [30] [31] (when the planets aligned and we agreed ) have that Tahuni doesn't are multiple examples of non-Q&A-interview, in-journalist's-own-voice, in-depth (500 words all about the player) coverage. – Levivich 03:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I respect that, though disagree of course. Side note: I wasn't actually comparing Jé and Severino to this AfD, I just namechecked them for strictly the reasons mentioned. R96Skinner (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is insufficient biographical information available in reliable sources, so we can't write a biography of this person, even if he does scrape a technical pass on one of Wikipedia's most inclusionist SNGs.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Same comment I've brought up elsewhere: Interviews, statistics websites, game reports, transfer reports, and the like, are primary sources. Are there any non-interview, "real" secondary sources upon which we can base this article? Without secondary sources, I don't see how this article can be kept and yet comply with core policy WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Here, we seem to be basing an article entirely on primary sources. – Levivich 15:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You may/may not have a point on the other AfDs you posted this comment on, but I believe it's fair to say GNG is satisfied here - you'd (not you directly) be stretching to say otherwise to be honest. R96Skinner (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - passing WP:NFOOTY does not exempt from meeting WP:GNG. Like most commentators I am struggling with understanding the sources. However, the onus is on those who wish to 'keep' to show the necessary sources. In this context, the two sources highlighted, 11 and 12, are both to the same site. They are Q&A interviews, not error-checked editorial articles, and as such do not count as reliable sources. Currently this article fails WP:GNG. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "I am struggling with understanding the sources", yet you apparently perfectly understand the aforementioned #11 and #12 to (questionably) judge them - strange, that! R96Skinner (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - THose two sources, that you highlighted, translated but a number of others did not. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - So your delete argument revolves around the supposed fact that you can't translate sources? That's the type of reasoning you'd find at WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and indicates a bias against non-English articles. R96Skinner (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - My delete argument is based on the fact that I have seen no evidence that the necessary sources exist. BTW please cut out the unpleasant tone that says more about you, as a person, than about your case. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Unpleasant tone? I'm surprised you've interpreted my words that way, my apologies. "I have seen no evidence", well you have but you are choosing not to find a way to translate them - loads of places on the world wide web help with translation. R96Skinner (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think what would be helpful here is to actually flesh the article out a bit. A number of sources have been clearly demonstrated and we as an English language website do not do a good job with Iranian sources, and different countries have different standards of sports journalism. If these articles were in Latin script I don't think this conversation would be anywhere near as difficult. As I said before I think this passes WP:GNG on the sources shown, but if someone could weave some of the sources into the article to make it evident, we'd put this beyond doubt. I wouldn't be beyond draftifying this if consensus is delete and someone wants to rescue it. SportingFlyer T·C 01:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't looked at this closely, but some of the sources above seem compelling. I'm tempted to try and improve the article, but I'm not sure how much time I want to waste if it comes to nought. User:GiantSnowman - are you still a delete on this, I'm not sure you saw the recent sources. Nfitz (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I think draftify would be a reasonable outcome if there are editors who want to work on it. – Levivich 20:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How is draftify ever a proper result? Either the subject meets GNG or it doesn't. If the subject meets GNG, and the article needs improving, then deletion is never the solution, because deletion is not cleanup as per the policy WP:NOTCLEANUP. Everyone's time would be better spent improving the article for weeks, rather than arguing about it. If one genuinely believe the subject doesn't meet GNG, then fine ... but if one can accept that it should be draftified and improved, then that's troubling to me. Nfitz (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Technically passes nfooty but shown to fail GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radik Salikhov

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

He has only played in ten matches as a substitute in the third tier of Russian football which would past GNG but a quick browse on the google in both Russian and English shows only four results. None of them relating to him. HawkAussie (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Professional league, WildCherry06 08:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that every person paid to play football must have a Wikipedia article? ----Pontificalibus 09:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually User:Pontificalibus, that's generally how it works. Invariably, any player who plays on a fully-professional team, will acquire enough GNG coverage to meet WP:N, so in order to save ourselves lots of time and energy trying to research foreign-language sources, often in Cyrillic and other non-Latin scripts, in closed societies, with limited Internet, and get into Bias issues, we generally accept this at face value. There are exceptions though - typically for players who only have a handful of appearances on unknown teams in the lower divisions. In this case, I'm surprised to see that the regional 3rd Tier of Russian soccer is listed as fully professional (are we sure about that? User:Jogurney?). Most of this players very few appearances were for a team that only got to this level for a single season before going bankrupt. This could very well be the rare case where WP:N is technically met, but we shouldn't have an article, as they don't come close to meeting GNG. Nfitz (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sourcing on WP:FPL supporting the idea that the Russian third-tier is fully-pro, and it's incredibly weak. Essentially, it appears that because an employment registration is required for each player and because the league is governed by the same body as the second-tier, we think it is fully-pro. I think we had a similar issue with the Greek third-tier: it is governed by the same body as the second-tier, but unlike the second-tier it is regionalized and most likely semi-pro (attendance and online coverage is pretty low). However, this is a discussion for that Talk page. Jogurney (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. A biography requires more than just basic facts and needs to be supported by significant coverage. ----Pontificalibus 09:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is far more important than scraping by on WP:NFOOTBALL. Plenty of consensus for this. Giant Snowman 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who played in the regionalized Russian third-tier, but the only online English- and Russian-language coverage is routine stuff like this: Match report, Match report, Match report, Match report (plus database entries at Footballfacts.ru and Sportbox.ru). He apparently scored a goal or two and received a yellow card, but the coverage is literally a single sentence out of a report about the entire match. With a comprehensive GNG failure, NFOOTBALL's presumption of notability doesn't hold. Jogurney (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails GNG per editors above – Levivich 02:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Andygray110 (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Benton

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

Not a notable career. Maxim is not a RS, and the others are mentions DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the actress notability threshold of multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTRESS, and WP:NMODEL. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Minor mentions with no wide coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. Notability clearly not shown. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khuraira Musa

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

Per WP:GNG. Claims to be an international renowned make-up entrepreneur, but no WP:RS covering her can be found. The refs mentioned in article either has a close connection to the subject of article, or doesn't exist. Found few refs like this which is more sort of an article from a fan, and isn't neutral, and this which passes very brief coverage. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject of this article has not been discussed in reliable sources independent of her. Majority of the sources in the article are not reliable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, lack of reliable sources fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle Fragrance

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. Non-notable magazine.

The author moved the article directly to mainspace (rev) after it was declined by AfC reviewers twice (here and here) Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another discussion for page created by the founder of same organisation(ref) going on here. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, with no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the coverage in in-depth, independent sources needed to meet WP:NCORP; too many of the sources cited in the article are routine business annoucements/press, which NCORP does not consider to establish notability. Sources would be needed to show how the magazine itself has a claim to encyclopedic notability when separated from other, more notable topics it is connected to/has covered.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary sources or sources that don't show depth needed for an article like this to stay so thus delete. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptmart

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. The article is also a WP:PROMO. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another discussion for page created by the founder of same organisation(ref) going on here: here Bishal Shrestha (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've cleared out the spam, but there's nothing to indicate notability per WP:WEB, WP:CORP or WP:GNG, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (UTC) Tracy Von Doom (talk • contribs) 05:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing there. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Typical brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 22:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wailing Wall (band)

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

I found no significant coverage except for the Allmusic album review that is in the article already. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some further material referenced to Patrick Lundborg's encyclopedia of underground music, The Acid Archives: A Guide to Underground Sounds 1965–1982, which dedicates an article to the band and its album. Together with the AllMusic source, this should satisfy the notability requirement. (Even if not, there are very likely to be further sources. In the preface of the meticulously researched A Gathering of Promises: The Battle for Texas's Psychedelic Music from the 13th Floor Elevators to the Black Angels and Beyond, author Ben Graham refers to them as "an important group" and laments that there was no room in the book to cover them. This points to the existence of further published background material, probably offline.) —Psychonaut (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: I'm going to AGF that the print source provided by Psychonaut has significant coverage and withdraw this. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mott 32

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

Appears to fall short of notability due to the lack of sustained coverage. The bulk of the references appear to be non-reliable sources, or are simple reviews. A cursory WP:BEFORE appeared not to uncover anything more significant. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are you sure about it needing more sustained coverage? Seems like every restaurant opening or announcement has had a flurry of news articles, some of which are outside of the immediate region. If the result is delete then retarget to Mott Street and add it as an entry in the Popular culture section there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I just felt it could use a bit community insight before a bold redirect. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk

Keep - I actually approved this through AfC and from my review there are sources that show it meets WP:GNG. Yes, there are reviews but I wouldn't call the LA Times, South China Morning Post, Hong Kong Tatler, and Vancouver Sun "non-reliable sources." I also based my evaluation on the fact it receives more than just local coverage. In fact, it receives international coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but they are simple reviews.TheLongTone (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agree they are reliable sources, but (and excuse the pun) they are flashes in the pan. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was funny (and good puns never need excused). I still think we don't need to 86 (see how that works. lol) the page because you consider them reviews. I see reviews as something in the opinion section of a newspaper and are pretty short and to the point. These actually talk about not only the food, but the design of the restaurants as well. Architectural Digest is a reliable source and did an article about it last week. This one from 2016 also talks about the design and covers information on more than just one location. So I do understand while on the surface this looks like a run of the mill restaurant, I would say GNG is met based on the significant coverage both on the local level and internationally. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no coverage of depth whatsoever and what is there is press releases, blogs and opening notices. Very poor. Another listing candidate. scope_creep^Talk 17:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As there are millions of restaurants in the world, tend to think any restaurant making it onto a notable list of the worlds 50 best should be kept. I assume the reason the link is in the article she also has because the restaurant at some time made this list. ~~If so—and only if so—source the fact and keep. If not, no further comment on the place.~~ Hyperbolick (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By appearing on a list doesn't make it notable. It is another X of Y article that has been made to fill an empty page. It is depth of coverage that is important and there is no depth. scope_creep^Talk 15:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t paint all articles with that same brush. Hardly as if experts in the field randomly selected 50 restaurants for their small list of the world’s best. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reference for this being in Top 50 is in the article...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True but I just found and added reference from Vogue magazine noting their Las Vegas debut amongst 2019's most anticipated restaurant openings. Pretty high-level source. Adjusting vote per this. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Press coverage doesn't rise above the level of press releases and their reviews. No awards in the food category. Two minor awards in the architecture category do make it more borderline, but as far as I can tell they are relatively minor level awards. Still, they are a good start, and frankly I'd like to see this rescued - but I can't find any better coverage. Please ping me if there are any new sources for consideration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree about press releases and reviews, but I see the references slightly different. There are reviews, but there is also in-depth coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Just because they talk about the food and concept doesn't necessarily make them run of the mill reviews of the restaurant IMHO (what else would they talk about?). They also cover the concept, the founder, the chefs, etc. - all in coverage that is international and in reliable sources. Also, the parent company website shows many awards for the chain so they they do have awards in the food category. I don't believe that awards make something inherently notable. But, wanted to point them out since you weren't able to find any in your initial search. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I had always thought restaurant reviews did not qualify as SIGCOV, until my prod of Dim Tu Tac last year was deprodded with a notice about WP:PRODUCTREV. Mott 32 is relatively well known and the article includes reviews from respectable media in multiple countries. I'd say it slightly exceeds Wikipedia's threshold for notability, especially if its Singapore and Bangkok locations are opened according to plan. -Zanhe (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Convinced by nom. ∯WBG^converse 12:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find a lot of sources that feature this restaurant; hwoever, it may be better to have an article on Maximal Concepts instead of Mott 32 since they are the owner and have many brands including Mott 32.--RTotzke (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG, although I agree Maximal Concepts may be the best place for this content.4meter4 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Darku

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

Non notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Guy doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 22:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly promotional, lacks WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep I appreciate that scope_creep is trying to do his job as he states. The subject matter is notable perhaps not globally but in Ghana. If the article is kept it will be improved. Thank you Ataavi (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO and there no coverage whatsoever. scope_creep^Talk 16:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OK Ataavi you have won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject matter is notable in Ghana which meets Wikipedia requirements. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is he notable? Please show me the evidence so we can examine it. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete: all the coverage is routine. Fails GNG. Rockphed (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just did a Google news search and found that 'all' the coverage is NOT routine. It raises a question as to why people want to delete this artcle?? In any event he is more than a news story, he is a notable individual doing an important job that affects many people.[32]. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far you've not offered a single piece of evidence proving it. Please provide WP:THREE reference that prove he is notable. Three good secondary references should do it. scope_creep^Talk 14:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Gbook reference is a name drop only and primary, and totally unsuitable to satisfy WP:BIO. I don't have any doubts the guy is notable, but there must decent coverage to verify it. So far it is name drops, routine business news, but no independent secondary coverage that details the man in depth. scope_creep^Talk 17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We seem to be at an impasse. While I respect all the views presented here, I must say Ataavi has won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No not really. You haven't offered a single piece of evidence so far, to validate your claims, merely a bunch of comments and a remarkably unsuitable reference. scope_creep^Talk 17:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe we have consensus??? Do you really believe the article is not notable?? Do you really believe there has not been "a single piece of evidence" presented in this case? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be fairer to say that you have not accepted any of the evidence putforward so far??? In any event I will step back. I think this a good article, that it is notable and should not be deleted from Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want the article deleted, hence the reason for the Afd. I don't vote in an Afd, if I think there is any chance whatsoever of it being notable. Usually if the person is notable, and good evidence is posted to prove it per WP:ANYBIO, WP:BIO and WP:V , I'll withdraw the Afd. I did that very thing a few days with a muscician Ed Case and always do it, if evidence is posted. The standard approach in Afd is to present the evidence, which you haven't done and which in itself is a good indication that the guy is not notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have me really confused me! On Sept 23 you stated "I don't have any doubts the guy is notable" ??? In any event I will leave the descision to an admin. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I think he is notable, but there must be proof per WP:V. It is not there. scope_creep^Talk 16:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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