Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 13

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus that NORG is not satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ImpactFlow

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

PROD declined. There are certainly mentions of this crowdsouring platform, but nothing that suggests to me that it meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 13 October 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Kryeziu

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

I PRODed this article but another editor disagreed as the subject was ‘clearly notable.’ Of the two sources provided one is dead and the other says that the subject is being sent to Belgium, not the UN as described in the article. Apart from this I literally can’t find anything about him, so even if some ambassadors are notable, I don’t think this one is. There are other individuals of the same name who come up in searches. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Bearian:. There are a lot of people in multiple generations with the same name. For example the google book link you mentioned and asked for a translation of is about a different person who it says was killed by Serb forces in the First World War. I also found sources about other people with the same name, but not this one. If you can share the sources you’ve found I’ll take a look at them. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian I agree that the first source you’ve added is the right person but as it is only the mention of his name in a long list of people, it doesn’t add any weight to arguments for his notability. I’m removing the second ref you added as it seems to be about a different person with the same name. The subject of the article was a diplomat in 1983 and still a diplomat in 2008. The other person is a lawyer who’s been in practice since 1991. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 18 October 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) 22:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Alesia Johnson

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

It is too soon for this young academic. She has some early career awards but few citations. I can't find any other independent coverage. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is a much better source. But with an h-index of only 13 she is well below the standard expected for this very highly cited field: again WP:Too soon. Maybe in five years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 14 October 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. bd2412 T 18:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Danburry

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

The citations are not from reliable sources, and do not demonstrate notability. The page was mostly created by Drewddanburry so a WP:COI is evident. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 13 October 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Dev

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR has not done significant roles . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 13 October 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) 22:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jelle Martens

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE as far as I can see. No sources to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 13 October 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.  JGHowes  talk 15:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayako Kato

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

Article reads like a badly written fan page. Subject is not worthy of note. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article reads like a bad translation (perhaps by Google Translate?) of the Japanese article on the same person. (Which itself looks bad, as do so many articles in ja:WP.) The en:WP article now under discussion was "created" by User:CrisBalboa, whose user page says "I mainly create articles of foreign celebrities". CrisBalboa thereupon provides a list of over 750 of them. The great majority of the titles are Japanese personal names. None is redlinked, and I don't notice any that aren't linked: it seems that en:WP has over 750 of them even now. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. More precisely, here is the article as CrisBalboa first and last edited it (on 14 May 2017); here is what was then the latest version of the ja:WP page about Katō; here is Google's current translation into English word-salad of that version. (Google's algorithms and data may of course have changed over the last couple of years.) Here's a particularly tasty morsel of the Japanese article as it was then: 食物アレルギー（肉アレルギー）を持っているため、かたまりの肉はほとんど食べられないが、スープに出汁となっているものや、細かくなっているものは食べられるものもある。 I suppose that could be englished as something like: As she has a food allergy (a meat allergy), she can hardly eat pieces of meat; but she can both drink meat stock as a soup and eat finely chopped meat. (Two quibbles. First, if she can eat X when finely chopped, then it's clear that she doesn't have a real allergy to X. She merely has what in Japanese is called an arerugī, which encompasses actual allergies and mere dislikes. Secondly, this stuff hardly sounds encyclopedic to me. But let's put these quibbles aside for now.) Here's Google Translate's current englishing of the Japanese: Due to food allergies, you can hardly eat chunks of meat, but there are some that are souped in soup, and some that are fine are eaten. Here's CrisBalboa's version: Because she have a food allergy (meat allergy), she can hardly eat meat of lumps, but something that is souped in soup and something that is fine can be eaten. I sense a certain resemblance to Google output. But that was back then. Let's see how the translation/prose has improved. It's now: Because she have a food allergy (meat allergy), she can hardly eat meat of lumps, but something that is souped in soup and something that is fine can be eaten. Any change has been ... minimal. Perhaps we should learn to appreciate this article of lumps, souped in Google Translate. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the fact that it’s quite obvious that the person who wrote this, probably SPA at that, has absolutely no knowledge of the English language... take all that away and the notability factor is still not shown. Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG due to sources I found [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ミラP 20:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - May be notable, hard to assess though as all of the sources are in Japanese. However, this article is so poorly written and translated that I think WP:TNT is justified. That goes for all of the hundreds(!) of articles that the creator has apparently copied from ja~wp, run through Google Translate, and pasted here without proper attribution. Holy hell, this is bad. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Industries Limited

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

Not much in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doug Mehus (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Odd. This is a long-established firm selling major consumer brands but it just doesn’t seem to have any secondary coverage at all. Perhaps the focus of public attention is on the brands and products, rather than the parent company. I wasn’t able to search in Urdu as nothing on their site tells me whether they even use an Urdu name. Mccapra (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As well as agreement that there are major issues with its content, including OR and a dearth of included referencing, there is also consensus that it's an unneeded content fork, with no distinct content from Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. It's worth noting the US equivalent - it's not impossible for this to be written in such as a way to be distinct and a legitimate article. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mob lynching in India

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

Newly created WP:POVFORK of Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, 2017 Nowhatta mob lynching and other articles, with lots of WP:OR. Since "mob lynching" is neither a special phenomena and it takes place in every country, I really don't see why we would need a separate article for this topic, which is covered already on many other articles. RaviC (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that Lynching in the United States and List of lynching victims in the United States exist, although the topic is specifically about violence towards African-Americans. Specific topics are definitely preferable here.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Snook

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

Associate professor. Does not meet WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 13 October 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. Firm consensus that GNG was not met Nosebagbear (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISLAMIC CITY SCHOOL SUDHER, SWABI

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

No supporting references, nothing found in my WP:BEFORE to indicate notability. Looks like a good-faith page creation but no chance of passing WP:GNG. At absolute best the page content indicates it might be (by some measures) popular, but this is not the same as being notable. Needs sourcing in reliable, independent sources. As written this is also WP:PROMO material - did consider WP:G11 speedy but thought (as it's an educational institution) might as well give it a chance of surviving if anyone can do better finding references. FOARP (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 13 October 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 Create dab page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Takayuki Inoue

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

The only notable role is as Tolle in Gundam Seed. No news sources to show notability. Recommend redirect to Tolle. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article was one of many I created when I first joined Wikipedia back in 2006 and Gundam was my whole world at that time. I have no issue with it being redirected, but just FYI the character article for Tolle got redirected to the character list a long time ago. You might want to redirect this to that to avoid a double redirect. Shaneymike (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That complicates things. A dab page might be the best option, but it still has the same problem where a voice actor's career is ignored in favour of a single role that is arbitrarily perceived to be the only thing a potential reader is interested in. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 01:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apna News Aayega

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

Not a notable television program. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 13 October 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. bd2412 T 04:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Lesole

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. According to the sources listed in the article, the match he played for Botswana was not FIFA-sanctioned and therefore does not satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ミラP 14:25, 19 October 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pro Kenshusei

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

Discussed on Talk:Hello! Project#Merger proposal: Page is mostly BLP trivia with non-notable current members with little to no sources. Page is centered on trainee members (AKA members who have not officially debuted); debuted/departed members already have their own page. Discography can be merged with Hello! Project. lullabying (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who would ever think that this kind of completely excessive stuff would be suitable for an encyclopedia? God gave us Wikia for this. Delete. It's cruft, it's trivial, it is not properly verified, it stinks of BLP violations. That the group is notable doesn't mean this is notable. I don't care how many sources the Japanese version has--what matters is that our articles have decent secondary sourcing--not K-pop portals, not gossipy magazines, not industry-driven PR sites. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect/Selective Merge to Hello! Project. A brief overview and the recordings that charted are notable enough to mention in the parent article. Other than that, the rest is fancruft.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. I can't read the japanese references, but my impression from reading the article is that this is indeed fancruft. And given that this is a WP:BLP, with many of the subject minors, we need to have much better referencing, including in-line citations. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe WP:BLP is an odd way to phrase it, but we've got information about living people, most of whom are minors. We need to be very careful to make sure everything we say is WP:V. We state that somebody failed an audition, somebody else had health issues. Virtually nothing in the entire article is referenced. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSICBIO. For the sake of closing this AFD I am changing my vote to keep. Merger may be the best option but that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Additionally, any BLP concerning content can be removed easily. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: I'd rather we merge this article to Hello! Project, delete this article, or move it to draft space. This is a trainee group, with members that have not officially debuted/contracted to the company and the Japanese Wikipedia is mostly primary sources. They are not active as a group. Johnny's Jr. is on a similar vein. lullabying (talk) 15:53, 22 October 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. With respect to the sole keep argument, "appears in a number of works of fiction" is not a notability criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Octane (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried O. Wolf

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

Uncertain WP:PROF, but certainly the only editors who have created/edited substantively here are part of a sock-fest focused on apparent promotion of often-marginal academics. Amrita Jash (admins can see it) that was a comparable article by the same socks that was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amrita Jash. No evidence the "think tank" of which he is claimed to be director is "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" (PROF c3, same failure mentioned in that other AfD). DMacks (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Since no one else has said anything, I'll speak up. Citation counts are low. On 3 of the 4 books listed, he was not an author but rather an editor of an article collection. All books have many co-authors and look to have limited impact. It's true that he's been used as an expert source in some news stories, mostly by regional papers but also by the NYtimes. (forgotten signature added later) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 6:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Duck Song

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

No indication of notability, only mentioned in the sources but not significantly discussed per WP:WEB. The NPR article describes it as "viral" but not as a "hit". Not everything that has a lot of YouTube views is automatically notable. ... discospinster talk 13:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crikey, I remember this. Delete. Largely irrelevant internet thing that doesn't appear to have garnered any coverage which establishes notability. Goddamn catchy, though. got any grapes? -- a they/them | argue | contribs 17:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A duck walked up to an AFD / And he said to the editor at the AFD / "Hey, got any sources?" / The nom said "No, we've just got passing mentions / But it was on iTunes charts and was once called a meme / Can I get you to keep?" / The duck said, "I'll pass." Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Viral-ity is not notability. This was a meme talked about by people who talk about memes, and it was praised or criticized by people who praise or criticize memes. The rest of the world didn't notice, and neither should Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Duck Song" is discussed on page 182 of the following source (1) and it is mentioned in the NPR source already included in the article, but I cannot find any additional sources for this so I agree that delete is the best option here given the lack of coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two reliable sources and 400 million views over 10 years gets this above WP:GNG requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're not exactly in-depth sources – the NPR source is a one-line passing mention in an article about a completely different subject and only mentions the number of YouTube views, a number which is now obsolete, and the Blick article is also very short and only mentions the year, the artist, and that it was created in Microsoft Paint [12]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not as in-depth as we'd like but they are reliable sources and despite the disdain expressed here for covering viral topics and memes, they are sometimes notable and the popular ones are definitely valuable to readers. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 20 October 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 deleted per A7. (non-admin closure) IntoThinAir (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khang Tofu

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Deleted before. User is self-advertising. User has been indeffed. No need for AFK on this clear cut case. Alexf(talk) 14:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankerpreneur

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks the third party sources Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:38, 13 October 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Melamed

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

A rather promotional bio of an academic that seems to fail WP:NPROF. Low citation count according to GScholar search, awards and honor are stretching it past breaking point, IMHO. No in depth coverage in reliable sources. I don't think he passes WP:NARTIST, neither; no good references for his academic career except the claim from his homepages have been found. Sure, his work was exhibited in some places, but with next to no effect as in not generating coverage outside a few mentions in passing etc. The prior AfD had people effectively AGFing claims from his homepage, even through most couldn't be verified; nothing has changed since. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, you may be thinking of the use of fellow as member, as people who join the Royal Astronomical Society are called fellows. The American usage is often reserved for that small proportion of a society's membership who are honored by being elected fellows. The IDSA has thousands of members but currently about 180 fellows, and it is listed as one of their awards. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
StarryGrandma This is a fair point. Are you saying that because of that fellowship he passes WP:NPROF#3? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, yes. It is hard to find good sources for educators until they get a major award from their professional society which recognizes the impact they have had. Art and design faculty are a particular problem since they make things instead of publishing things.
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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Tour

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

Currently sourced by only primary sources, or simple mentions. Searches turn up only the type of routine coverage, like announced dates. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Onel5969 TT me 12:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:41, 13 October 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. SK#1: Nom was withdrawn. czar 14:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Muller

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

A police detective. Referenced, sort of, no wiki links, I have trouble finding all of those refs but this is "probably" not a hoax, through verifying most of the content is a pain. Still, bottom line is that this bio seems to fail WP:NBIO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kraków gingerbread

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

I don't think this cake is notable. The references in the article are pretty bad - blogs, and recipe sites. I couldn't find even as much as a proper definition of this cake in any reliable source. There are a few GBook hits for this term, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage (unfortunately almost all content is snippet view at best; this book seems to mention this term on four pages but I can't make it display a single one). The article in reliable Polish newspaper that purports to talk about this ([14]) is paywalled, but I found a mirror which (of it indeed contains all of the article's content) it has no in-depth coverage and just provides a recipe. This topic doesn't have an article, nor even a single mention on Polish Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus of the commenters is that there are sufficient sources to indicate notability. RL0919 (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poyfai Malaiporn

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. While certainly written very badly, that could be fixed. What can't be fixed is the lack of notability. I could find nothing in English on the dude, and the article doesn't make enough claims that make me believe hes notable. The rough machine translation of the Thai articles also does not support notability. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While each Wikipedia language edition has different notability criteria, I am usually a bit hesitant to delete articles that have already been accepted on non-English language editions. Being from a non-English-speaking part of the world, naturally the article subject would not have that much web content in English, or even on the web, but they could in fact be notable in local social media. Oftentimes, these local artists may actually be of genuine notability to people from that country who actually know about the niche. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The first and fourth references currently in the article are in-depth coverage in an established newspaper and a TV talk show. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article already has 4 references. Here is Google News search [15]. Note that only sites recognized as news by Google are included here. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some national awards that he won. His song Mun Tong Thon was one of the most popular songs in Thailand at that time. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 13 October 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Fenwick

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Her only notability seems to come from being the scriptwriter for All That Heaven Allows, and I could find scant coverage for that as is. Almost all the sources fail WP:SIGCOV, mentioning her merely in passing. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, During WWII, she appears to have reviewed a number of scripts for the Office of War Information. Destroyer, War of the Wildcats and Gung Ho!.24.151.50.175 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will gather some books about Douglas Sirk, Jane Wyman, Rock Hudson, and Agnes Moorehead to see how to expand upon Fenwick's writing of All That Heaven Allows. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:CREATIVE #s 3 and 4. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work [...]" "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." All That Heaven Allows, Fenwick's major contribution to the film industry, is certainly that. It is in the US National Film Registry and was the subject of significant criticism when it was released through the present day. Fenwick's contribution of the screenplay is significant. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I agree with DiamondRendley39 about the ongoing significance of All That Heaven Allows, and will also try to track down some books about Sirk's movies to add material to the references. Liamcalling (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One of the sources already in the article, The Melbourne Age article from 28 Oct 1970, refers to her as both Mrs. Saul Padover and Peg Fenwick, and quotes her as saying that she worked in France and wrote the English version of Don Quixote and the original version of Remous. The Wikipedia article, IMDB and a 1937 newspaper article name the writer of Remous as American "Peggy Thompson". (The French Wikipedia says the film was based on the novel A kiss in the dark by Peggy Thompson.) I will follow this up, as I suspect that she may have used this as another pen name. If this is her, then she is definitely notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What a good find, RebeccaGreen! According to the Library of Congress and IMDb, the dates are off... by exactly two years, which would suggest they are the same person (and the IMDb pages should probably be combined). I am interested to learn what you find out. See https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0860587 But we'll hold off on changes for now. I will dig into her later life to see if I can get an obit. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure it is the same person. A 1936 profile of Peggy Thompson mentions a brother, Edward McCray Thompson. Margaret McCray had a brother called Edward Hill McCray. Their mother died when Margaret was 6 and Edward 3, and their father died in 1914 when Margaret was 7 and Edward was 4. So far I've found that they were living with their McCray grandmother in 1915, and a Carr uncle was their guardian in 1916. I suspect that they were adopted by a Thompson, but haven't yet found anything between 1916 and about 1934. Will keep looking! RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes! Ellen Dustin Thompson and William S. Thompson adopted Margaret McCray Thompson and Edward Hill McCray Thompson in August 1917. Ellen divorced her husband in 1924, and these details appeared in a newspaper report. There are several long profiles of Peggy Thompson in 1930s newspapers, so there is plenty of material to meet WP:GNG, and evidence of meeting WP:AUTHOR as well. I will work on the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's great information. I'll take a look at it and suggest edits to IMDb. Why don't we take any further discussion to the article's talk page and focus on any lingering deletion discussion here? I am expecting this to be closed as KEEP. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:32, 15 October 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. bd2412 T 04:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slipstream (science fiction)

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

Trying this again. "Slipstream" is not a distinct concept from "Hyperspace", just another word for it. "Slipstream space" is literally "Hyperspace" by another name. This article lacks references and is non-notable, it doesn't need to exist. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hyperspace, as these two seem to be more or less the same thing. Not a very active user (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The nominator has advanced no new arguments or evidence. He has lazily just renominated and expects others to do all the work. Evidence that sources treat these as two different concepts was presented in both previous AfDs. They may not be the best of sources, but in three AfDs, we have had nothing from the nominator to support their position, and no attempt to pursue any of the non-deletion suggestions made in previous AfDs. Just a new nom in the hope that opposition has now gone away. SpinningSpark 14:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your so-called evidence was entirely Reddit users. I still don't see any actual evidence they are different from a non-in-universe context. Of course it would be different when used within a certain fictional universe, but that's semantics only.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't tell outright lies. The reliable sources I presented were, in the first AFD, the book Death, Resurrection, and Transporter Beams, and in the second, an article in The Escapist magazine ("5 Faster-Than-Light Travel Methods and Their Plausibility"). It's true I also listed some forum posts, but only to show that SF fans were drawing a distinction, not as reliable sources for the article. "None of that is usable RS in article of course..." is what I said when I posted it. And only two out of five were taken from Reddit. SpinningSpark 15:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did check the book you mentioned, but that seems to have absoutely nothing to do with the concept described in this article, which is a method of interstellar transport. In the book, it describes slipstream as a metaphysical concept in which the soul survives after death. I have no idea whether that would be notable enough for an article, but this article is still not a separate concept.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a common and notable aspect of various science fiction. I added in two reference to the article, [16] and [17]. Slipstream and Hyperspace are certainly different concepts, hyperspace being something that exist everywhere as regular space, and slipstream being not everywhere but only various paths. The same editor nominating this for deletion a third time because he didn't previously get the results he wanted, does seem like gaming the system. Dream Focus 21:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ad hominem attack was uncalled for here. As for those links, I don't think they really prove anything about how slipstream is separate from hyperspace. In fact the first one says "there is no widely-agreed upon definition of what slipstream is or how it works beyond it being a means of FTL". However what is generally agreed on is that it involves using another dimension to travel faster than light - hyperspace.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have now repeatedly argued with the source over two AFDs, presenting your own OR rather than any counter source, saying the source does not prove anything. On Wikipedia sources are the proof, and that source clearly separates hyperspace, listing it as method no. 1, and slipstream at method no. 4. The second source is only discussing the Star Trek universe, but evidently to them, "warp drive" and "quantum slipstream drive" are two different things. SpinningSpark 11:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the sources separate the two concepts. But a read through of the actual definition shows that they use the exact same principles, just in a slightly different way. Hyperspace is interdimensional travel, slipstream is "guided" interdimensional travel. I'm not arguing that slipstream should not be mentioned in the hyperspace page, just that it doesn't merit an entirely separate article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - It seems to be a minor derivative topic, and one of the added sources literally says there's no set definition. This seems like it will never be more than a collection of minutia on how the term functions in each individual fictional universe, so it should realistically be a couple sentences or a paragraph on the hyperspace page (or another more suitable article if there's a "List of FTL Travel" or something). TTN (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Hyperspace. There is no indication that this has been discussed of universe outside of primary sources and some mentions in passing. As one argument for keep here cited [18], let's quote from this: "The concept of slipstream can be found in such works as Star Trek, Doctor Who, and the Halo video game franchise, but there is no widely-agreed upon definition of what slipstream is or how it works beyond it being a means of FTL." So it is just a science fiction synonym for hyperdrive (already merged there following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperdrive) or hyperspace. This is alljust a POV fork of FTL in fiction anyway and I think we should merge any relevant articlss there (the ones that have never been discussed in real science/etc., warp drive for example is fine as stand alone because not only there is some decent non-primary discussion of it in real world books but also Warp_drive#Real-world_theories_and_science is relevant - but there is a big difference between that concept and the fancruft undefinable word that is slipstream. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hyperspace then Rename Hyperspace to Slipstream (science fiction) Keep on the basis that sources do exist which establish this fictional topic's notability, even they may be somewhat less reliable and that for such fictional topics, we need to apply be more liberal in what constitutes WP:RS. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dmehus:How is "slipstream" more commonly used than "hyperspace"? As far as I know, hyperspace has been around for a while, and "slipstream" has only been used in a select few TV series and books, sometimes not even under the same name. (In Halo, it's "slipspace").ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm, Well, then I guess my vote would to keep them separate. It sounds more separate than the same thing as hyperspace, no?Doug Mehus (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus:I don't think it does. I agree with the argument of Piotrus above that there is no indication that slipstream is not just a fancy synonym for hyperspace. It describes a slightly different type of hyperspace travel, but not one that is distinct enough to merit an entire article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm, Yeah, it seems to be different enough than Hyperspace, but on what basis not to mention its own article? There's lots of potential sources here (thinking Memory Alpha, Star Trek official website, and Battlestar Galactica fan sites).Doug Mehus (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Citing from other Wikis or fansites is not a reliable source. The basis is that it lacks exploration in reliable sources, see WP:RS. If there were a number of books exploring the idea of slipstream as distinct from hyperspace, I'd say something different. However, the sources that have been brought forth so far in these AfDs are very lackluster. Just because a fictional universe says it's different does not mean that it is a unique thing in terms of overall sci-fi. There has to be a separation of WP:INUNIVERSE content with the out-of-universe tropes.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm Well, ordinarily, I'd agree with that when it comes to people, organizations, and companies, but in terms of fictional topics, especially niche sci-fi areas where mainstream press coverage on such nuanced topics is non-existent, I think we need to take a more liberal approach to WP:RS, so I'll stand by my position.Doug Mehus (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm For what it's worth, I suspect this will close as no consensus we have three merges, one of which (mine) has a conditional clause; two redirects; one delete or merge (nom); and four speedy, regular, or weak keeps (one of which is mine if my conditional clause on the merge is not honoured).Doug Mehus (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, the strength of arguments is what matters rather than the number of editors giving their opinion. There have been some persuasive arguments why slipstream is not its own concept. There is a possibility, but I disagree that it is guaranteed to end as no consensus.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm I know it's not a vote, but I also disagree, somewhat strongly, that we need to strictly apply WP:RS to fictional, niche topics. It's a solid argument, and thus, my vote is as valid. At the same time, despite it not notionally be a vote, admins do tend to look at the voting patterns, as much as you and I may disagree with that. You've also convinced me that merge is the wrong approach; there's enough difference here between Hyperspace and Slipstream (science fiction). Thus, I've modified my vote to Keep, and clarified my argument above. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my vote at the first AfD. These are distinct enough terms to have separate articles, especially since there is still no plan for how a proposed Faster than light travel in science fiction page would work. At the very least, deletion isn't the answer. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as a navigational index of articles about specific models. RL0919 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sony α cameras

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

is just a sparsely-referenced catalog of a certain set of Sony products. I don't think the list meets WP:LISTN. Maybe one or two of the flagship products should be merged into some Sony cameras article, if they're not already there, but the list itself feels like it's a problem for WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:RAWDATA. The main reference of the article is an archived forum post, which is self-published.

I'm nominating these articles together because they transclude eachother to build the full list:

List of Sony A-mount cameras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Sony E-mount cameras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mikeblas (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the cameras were not blue links it would definitely violate WP:NOTCATALOGUE, but it makes sense as a grouping of similar, notable articles. However, I do not oppose a possible redirect of the other 2 sub-articles due to being unnecessary duplicates.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 16 October 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) 10:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

306 Records

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

Sources consist of:

  • deadlinks to the company's website
  • deadlinks to press releases by the company or by related companies
  • deadlinks to articles about affiliated artists or companies, that sometimes mention 306 Records in passing but are not specifically about 306 Records

Now, yes, deadlinks are not a reason for deletion in themselves (I'm normally the first to praise the Wayback Machine), but in this case it sort of indicates that even the people the company has to pay to talk about related acts and companies don't care enough to keep the pages up.

In other words, fails WP:GNG. Also, this make me think that nominating the article for deletion would be a fun idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, yes, this exists. That's a source. Needs to be at least two more like that (i.e. reliable, independent, but specifically about the company) to demonstrate notability. This, for example, only mentions 306 in passing. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably whoever made this edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a mess. The current version of the article says that it was founded by Jared Land and is based in Saskatoon. The version preferred by 142.165.170.92, who claims to be Jared Land, says that it was founded by Jared Land and is based in Prince Albert. Thinking that 142 may have a reasonable point here, I tried to check with a Google search – and found this Facebook page, which claims it was founded by Louis O'Reilly. Maproom (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The label has had a few releases but they're mostly independent obscure country music acts. Most of the acts, and the label itself, seem to have had their pages created by Eric444 (talk · contribs), a now-retired editor who used to deal in Canadian country music. As these acts have fallen into obscurity, their albums went without being reviewed and their singles only barely charted. Therefore, the label is probably not notable, and the artists only marginally so. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I started marking the dead links, and then realizing most of them were dead or archived, started to look for some coverage outside of the article. I found this: [[19]] and [[20]]. Not enough. So without reliable coverage, fails WP:GNGTimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't look like it passes WP:N to me. No significant awards or coverage. I wouldn't block the page from being recreated though. It could theoretically pass notability in future. Jwslubbock (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jwslubbock: It's had its chances already. Several of the artists who've recorded for the label are unquestionably notable, but almost none of the albums seem to have gotten any semblance of attention. Artists and albums can still be notable if the label isn't. Most of the artists in this case seem to pass WP:NMUSIC but that does not transfer notability to the label. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:42, 17 October 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) 08:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

League of Islamic Universities

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

An Arab organisation. Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the dead links only. Kutyava (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deadlinks should be left. See WP:KDL. They should be restored. Among various other purposes, they indicate the range of sources that have discussed the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Uloom Ahmadiyya Salafia

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Constitution and Parliament Association

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

NGO. There are some mentions in passing, but they all don't amount ot much - created in 1958 by Philip Isley, promotes idea of World Government, proposed a world constitution. If WP:PRIMARY sources were to be removed, it would be a WP:PERENNIAL WP:SUBSTUB; in either case it fails WP:NORG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I found a podcast episode with the organization's senior executive leader and a couple of passing mentions, in a book or on a website, but the rest were just directory listings. Not enough sources to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. -DM
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon DeVaan

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

He led the development however he was not solely responsible for it, non-notable outside of the company. Wikipedia is not a linkedin of the company executives. Lacks significant WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, but not insignificant either. Sourcing is difficult. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article does not meet the verifiability requirements expected of BLP articles. While I don't call it "fake" outright, things written in it are very questionable. For example: "DeVaan led COSD to create Windows Vista SP1 and Windows 7 and in 2009 became the leader of the development team delivering Windows 8 and 8.1." Really? Verification failed. Also, the person matching these descriptions is Steven Sinofsky. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Draft

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

Non-notable outside of his company, most of the awards won are minor and there is not significant outside of his company. Meeanaya (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Drumm

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

Non-notable outside of his company, lacks significant news coverage, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Crippen

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

Bio of a photographer of doubtful notability. The books are self-published. The article has seen a sustained effort by one editor to cram in external links, suggesting that the purpose of the page may have been promotional. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 13 October 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 Dune Bene Gesserit#Anirul. WP:ATD-M czar 14:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anirul

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

Well referenced, but to primary sources. 100% limited to fictional character biography, not an ounce of suggestion that the subject has received any attention from scholars, news, no indication of real world relevance, significance, reception, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 14:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Cormier

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

Biography created by single purpose account in 2009 and tagged for notability ever since. Many ref links are now dead and I have not found others that support notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 13 October 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 moved to draft. Per Scott Burley's last comment, we can not have this discussion continue in perpetuity while editors try to figure out whether claimed sources that are not readily available contain content supporting inclusion. The solution is to move the article to draft space until sufficient sources are confirmed to exist. The article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion as is. bd2412 T 23:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sufism Reoriented

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

Whatever the heck this is currently, (school/religious order/sanctuary/nothing), nothing except some routine news-coverage and a piece over here. Current sourcing is mostly to the Meher-baba-universe (i.e. websites of his trustees, publications by in-house presses of his follower associations, biography-cum-hagiography written by one of his closest cult-associates et al).

Not enough to surpass GNG. ∯WBGconverse 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 13:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Fix WBG's WP:NOTINHERITED argument is well-taken. However, there are at least two independent sources discussing the topic. The first is the article from The Fader to which WBG alluded above. This source is non-affiliated, and acknowledges criticisms of Sufism Reoriented both from within the Meher Baba movement and in the California neighborhood in which SR's sanctuary was built. The second independent source is Andrew Rawlinson, who discusses Sufism Reoriented in his book, Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions, and also in an article entitled "A History of Western Sufism," available at: http://www.surrenderworks.com/library/imports/a_history_of_western_sufism.pdf. Please note that Rawlinson's book discusses historical opposition to Sufism Reoriented from within the Meher Baba movement. (I don't have an exact citation at the moment, but I can get it.) As there are two or more independent sources discussing Sufism Reoriented in more than just a passing way, the article can be improved to satisfy WP's notability requirement. (Albeit, by a narrrow margin).Thashley (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC) — Thashley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

  • The onus of reliability is on you to prove, using accepted scientometric evaluation standards of journal-reliability and w/o going by their own claims. I further note that it's not indexed at ATLA either and there's hardly any cites over GScholar. ∯WBGconverse 17:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be an additional source worth considering. Kevin Shepherd apparently published a book in 1988 entitled Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal. At his website, Mr. Shepherd claims this book contains a critical evaluation of Ivy Duce, former leader of Sufism Reoriented, at pages 210-223. (https://www.citizenphilosophy.net/Meher_Baba_an_Irani_Mystic.html#Independence). I have not read this book, and can't vouch for its reliability, but I will attempt to locate it. By the way, if the Sufism Reoriented article survives AfD review, I will be proposing/requesting substantive changes needed to uphold NPOV requirements. As it stands, the article falls way short of the mark in this area. Thashley (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per editor requesting more time to track down sources and WP:NORUSH. That said, this is the 2nd relist. I would expect that next week the reviewing admin is going to want to close this one way or another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be an article about the headquarters of this religious order.. I am wondering if we should selectively keep some of the content in the main article about Meher Baba.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some more about one of the early organisers, some theatrical stuff done by the group, a detailed article about the controversial practise of "living room churches" by the organisation, controversy regarding their mega church in California. The historical roots, including the schism from the Sufi Order of the West can be found in several scholarly books about Sufism.

References

--DreamLinker (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tentatively based on the references above.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DreamLinker's refs #1–3 are passing mentions of the religious group in articles about other subjects. #4–7 are routine coverage of planning disputes the group has been involved in. All of them are in the local newspapers/sections. That leaves #8, which has a grand total of two paragraphs on the group. This still falls way short of the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I really don't want to re-list this for a 5th(!) week. As of now it looks like we have a number of passing mentions, mostly in articles about a land-use dispute, and a questionable journal article by Rawlinson. Also potentially books by Rawlinson and Shepherd that have not yet turned up. Pinging Winged Blades of Godric and Thashley, are you guys still working on this? -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The discussion indicates that this is a notable historical polity and the article should be kept. RL0919 (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ying (state)

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

Created by a now indeffed user back in 2013. No sources, terrible grammar. Possibly a notable subject, should still be completely blanked and then possibly redone Hydromania (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article has been HEYMANNed although it would seem it's now about a different subject. I'd withdraw but I don't think I can after the discussion is already rolling. So, keep new article, with thanks to Khu'hamgaba Kitap.03:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Khu'hamgaba Kitap's rewrite and the sourcing added. Delete: As the nomination says, the present article is near incomprehensible. The Records of the Grand Historian do contain some text describing origins of Ying, though more as a clan name: [21]. Improving the article would require solid sources and neither Sima Qian nor anything else I have found seems up to that task. The text elsewhere at Yi_(husbandman)#Descendants seems better grounded and referenced; applying WP:TNT to the present article seems to me to be appropriate (though I will be happy to revise my opinion if someone with better Chinese than mine can renovate and reference the article). AllyD (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC) AllyD (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cambridge History of Ancient China (1999) has specific mentions of the state (pp. 312, 407-8), in terms of archaeological significance and as part of the Zhou-era expansions and enfeoffment processes into Eastern China. The state is mentioned in the writings of Mengzi (孟子). Clearly WP:MoS problems with the article as it currently stands, but WP:TNT seems extreme here since only a little work is required to repair.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you dig up enough material for a stand-alone article, or do you think it should it just be redirected to Xia dynasty? There isn't a single date in the article so I'm not totally sure what time period it belongs in.Hydromania (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Working on it... Goldsztajn (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a poorly written stub currently, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. I can't find any information supporting the current confusing claims of a Xia dynasty connection to the state, but it was most certainly extant for at least part of the Spring and Autumn period. I've fixed the first line based off what I've found (as well as adding a map and infobox), but if more information can be found, that'd certainly make it better. Khu'hamgaba Kitap talk 18:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:RS + WP:INCITE now added, WP:MoS problems addressed....thanks to the good work of Khu'hamgaba Kitap (and a little of my own). Should be an easy close... :) --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Khu'hamgaba Kitap: thanks for your expansion, but please be careful not to conflate the two different states both romanized as Ying. zh:應國 (in Pingdingshan, Henan) is better known with lots of archaeological discoveries, and is the one covered in The Cambridge History of Ancient China. 英國 (in modern Anhui) is lesser known. Confusingly, both states are pronounced Ying in modern Mandarin and both were conquered by Chu. The original article was about the one in Anhui. -Zanhe (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you fix the Chinese characters at Ying?. Hydromania (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Since the article has now morphed into the topic of 應, I've removed all info about 英 and adjusted the wikidata link. There really need to be two separate articles, similar to Xu (state) and Xǔ (state). -Zanhe (talk) 03:36, 16 October 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 Akon#2019–present: Return to music, Akonik Label Group, El Negreeto, Akonda, Konnect and The Konnection. – Joe (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akonda

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Note that the album hasn’t been released yet Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 13 October 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 to delete. – Joe (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Algeria

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

Apparently completely non-notable organisation. No hits on GNews and no verifiable hit on GBooks for the supposed official English-language name "Algerian Association of Ice and Inline Hockey", one passing mention on each for "Hockey Algeria". No hit and no verifiable hit on GNews and GBooks respectively for the actual name, "Association Algérienne de Hockey sur Glace et Inline". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is the official governing body of ice hockey in Algeria, and has just recently been accepted into the IIHF. Other national governing bodies have articles, and while that obviously doesn't matter here, it does show that these articles do exist. However there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the federation, but that isn't exactly a surprise as hockey isn't exactly popular in Algeria. I would assume any coverage, if it exists, would be primarily in French or Arabic, and I added something from the Arabic version of the page, but I don't know either language so can't really do much more. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a content fork that does not demonstrate notability for its specific subject. The existence of other subtopics related to SNL is not an accepted argument for keeping any particular fork. The notability of a broader article about minority representation on the show is something to be demonstrated in the proposed article, not speculatively asserted in an AFD about this article. RL0919 (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ representation on Saturday Night Live

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

As a person who is extremely pro-LGBTQ+ rights as well as a Saturday Night Live addict, I still have to say that this article just reads like an unnecessary content fork. Despite the sources, the "main" part of the article (particularly the cast section) seems to synthesize that creator Lorne Michaels is homophobic to the point that most LGBTQ+ cast members (save Kate McKinnon) are only on the show for a single season. In addition, the LGBTQ hosts who were not out when they hosted section flat-out says that all the people listed there don't necessarily self-identify as LGBTQ+. Finally, the parts of the article that aren't sourced at all read more like an essay. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge. I agree that this seems like a synthy content fork. The list of hosts is not meaningful, and the prose content could go in the main article, presumably. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Minority representation on Saturday Night Live and upmerge. I looked for where this could go on the main SNL article but couldn’t really find a place. There is also content on Asian representation that also came up with Bowen Yang’s being added to the cast. Additionally SNL has long been criticized for its lack of African-American performers.
The sourcing says Loren Michaels is at the root of the hiring issue not Wikipedia.
And the section on hosts doesn’t say they don’t identify as LGBTQ but that 14 of them didn’t publicly do so when they hosted.
I’ve attempted to add a minority representation section on the main article. It’s already been buried in the controversy section.
I think expanding this to include minority representation on SNL might be the solution.Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can get behind the rename and upmerge idea of Gleenon409. In the end I think there's a notable topic here, however, we want to get at it, and this article is not so far gone that we need to TNT it in order to produce that version, so if we're not going to rename and upmerge, then we should just straight keep and get rid of the synthesis and the like. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean merge, as none of it was there prior. Do you oppose expanding the article to include racial minorities? Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TNT - article has multiple problems, among the more egregious WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Agree with suggestion that Minority representation on Saturday Night Live would be a worthwhile article suggestion (given public debate on that topic), only that what could be used from this article needs heavy editing. --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.I recall Centers For Disease Control statistics indicating that about 2% of the USA population was homosexual. Furthermore, ratings for SNL are significantly down since they have decided to be more political.[22] The show is definitely far less funny than it was during its zenith in ratings. In short, this article has a small interest by the public at large. This is especially true because the public is finding identity politics and political correctness to be tiresome[23] and that is one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected.Knox490 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For perspective, Saturday Night Live has at least 218 sub articles including:

through

Given that I think one on minority representation is appropriate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Gleeanon409: - I may have misread your comment here, but a discussion on whether Minority representation on Saturday Night Live should be created to absorb material is from the proposed article article for deletion is not influenced by what already exists on Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:OTHER if you have not seen it before. The question is WP:NOTABILITY - which, as I said above, I think exists for a proposed article. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn:, I agree. This surprisingly long list wasn’t aimed at you but for all. This one series has a nearly endless sprawl of spin out articles so one on minority representation, to me at least, makes sense. I think there is plenty to sustain the LGBTQ aspect but it’s been slow to unearth it all. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check out what TNT says, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 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. bd2412 T 04:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lauer

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

Person does not meet WP:N -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this here is the version of the article before the nominator slashed it before taking it to AFD which I disagree with as he removed the claims of significance such as the actor's four years in the main cast of Caroline in the City, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed poorly sourced and unsourced information from a WP:BLP. If you have good sourcing then present it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You also removed uncontentious information cited to acceptable primary sources such as the official website of Caroline in the City which is acceptable for uncontroversial facts Atlantic306 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the actor has significant roles in very notable series such as Caroline in the City and 21 Jump Street which can easily be confirmed in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I went to close this, but the keep rationales are unsupported. Lauer was in Caroline in the City (74 episodes?), yes, but where was he "nominated for an Emmy"? He was only in two episodes of 21 Jump Street. I don't see how this actor has "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I see just one. czar 14:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the following source - Emmy Award nomination, 1989, for 21 Jump Street.Eesan1969 (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not supported by the Academy's website: [24] -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, multiple nominations would be needed to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:11, 20 October 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. Nominator has requested a withdraw. (non-admin closure) ミラP 13:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vili Kovačič

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

This person is nationally notable for sure. It is a borderline on the English Wikipedia. Topjur02 (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 02:24, 13 October 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of temporary Interstate Highways

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

This article has sat around since 2005 with absolutely zero changes or improvement, and not a single source. I tried digging for sources on various online roadgeek hangouts and found nothing of substance:

  • The only acknowledgements I've found of any of the "Temporary I-5"s in California are this forum post which is not a RS.
  • I've found zero acknowledgement of I-80N, not even on maps.
  • Temporary I-15 is mentioned in its article, but the content is all unsourced, and a map from the era does not acknowledge it. This site mentions it, but it's not an RS.
  • Temporary I-69 is acknowledged passingly in several Lansing State Journal articles, but only as an address for a business or location of an accident.
  • I've found no acknowledgement of Temporary I-196, and it was definitely not on any of the 1970s Michigan maps I own. It's also not mentioned in Interstate 196 which is an FA.

Most of these were from the 1960s and 1970s, so online sourcing may not be the most present. Most of the routes were around for <5 years, so it's possible some weren't even on the maps to begin with due to their short life. Quite often the only acknowledgement I find of any of these is anecdotal, from places like AAroads.com or misc.transport.road. Even in cases where the routing did exist and was published on a map, said map is usually the only verification. So many of these routes fail WP:V, and in cases like I-69 where the designation was longer-lived, mentioning the existence of the "temporary" route in the parent article is sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All original research. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Temporary designations most certainly existed on various alignments as the system was being constructed, but a list is unnecessary and likely can never be complete. Any sourced information about temporary designations for particular routes is better handled at the respective routes' articles. --Kinu t/c 05:56, 18 October 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hameed Vaniyambalam

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL not elected lost the elction in 2016 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_October_13&oldid=1142224879"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 13, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.