Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 17

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. ST47 (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyboss (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)

Subject of article doesn’t qualify for inclusion into the encyclopedia as our subject of discussion is yet to receive significant coverage in WP:RS hence falling short of WP:GNG which is the primary yardstick to establish notability. Also he fails WP:MUSIC. A quick WP:BEFORE on google definitely portrays him as a non notable individual. He is a songwriter/Compoer but fails WP:COMPOSER as well Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note:This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't him being discussed in reliable sources.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what Versace says. TOOSOON at best. Mahveotm (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject of the article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG guidelines are not met.castorbailey (talk) 05:40, 24 November 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. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Fulco (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)

Unsourced (only "reference" is a vague one that does not lead to the source in question in any way). Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:BLP. Possibly promotional. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of sources alone isn't a sound reason to delete, but it appears that his most notable tournament finish was fairly minor.[1] His appearances in major international tournaments resulted in 40th and 50th place finishes. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletor3000 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Search on web (EN) found no independent, reliable sources of the subject to indicate passing of notability guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All I could find was a source that Fulco received a Pokémon TCG Travel Award to the European International Championship 2017. Not sufficient for notability. Schazjmd (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the meager sourcing I found wouldn't support notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:20, 18 November 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 screamingly non-notable — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Torrielli (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)

Unsourced (only "reference" is a vague one that doesn't actually lead to the source in question in any form), therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:BLP (and therefore WP:NBIO by extension). Potentially promotional. WP:BEFORE check did not bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Search on web (EN) found no independent, reliable sources of the subject to indicate passing of notability guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Cannot find any sources to support notability of this person. Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find sources that would support notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 18 November 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. ST47 (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Seixas (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)

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

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

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

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY, a check on google sees that their is no results for this player which might be a good case for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - if it passes NFOOTY, a lack of Ghits isn't a reason to delete it. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question On what basis does he pass WP:NFOOTY? His team plays in the Aveiro Football Association, which is labelled a "lower-tier league" in its own article and is not listed on the list of fully professional leagues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletor3000 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Skeletor3000: He did pass WP:NFOOTY because his team S.C. Beira-Mar was in the top division in 2010-11 where he played 19 minutes for the Portugese club. HawkAussie (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG which is far more important than technically passing NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lack of search result from portuguese sport newspapers fail the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All of the online English- and Portuguese-language coverage is routine (e.g., database entries and match reports), and given a comprehensive failure of the GNG, NFOOTBALL's presumption of notability arising from a few minutes of play in the Portuguese Liga doesn't hold. Jogurney (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NFOOTY only creates the presumption of notability, and he only barely qualifies for it anyway (with 19 min of total play time in fully pro league). If he doesn't pass the GNG based on sources that we can find (he doesn't appear to), then the presumption is wrong. That's fine, NFOOTY is meant to make our job easier by giving us a rule of thumb, but the presumption isn't always right (especially when the subjects only pass on a technicality). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thanks @HawkAussie: for that clarification. I'm in agreement with others here regarding 19 minutes being insufficient reason to consider him notable. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject of the article completely fails WP:GNG, even though that he passes WP:NFOOTY, 19 minutes is really not much to keep this article from deletion. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per rationale provided by nom, @Nnadigoodluck: & @Skeletor3000: , Furthermore the encyclopedia isn’t a WP:CRYSTALBALL & we can only work with reliable references if they aren’t in existence yet then subject of article isn’t yet notable. Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With only a handful of minutes on the field, this hardly meets Wikipedia:Notability as notability is assumed.castorbailey (talk) 05:54, 24 November 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. ST47 (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sofian Saidi (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 check on google sees no results for this player which despite playing ten minutes in Serie C isn't quite notable enough for WP:GNG with most of the references being WP:ROUTINE HawkAussie (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG which is far more important than technically passing NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject is not known. Google searches couldn't turn out anything. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could not find anything better. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable footballer and fails WP:GNG.castorbailey (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaire donors in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (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)

Original research. FEC filings (upon which this article is based) don't include a contributor's net worth. So the act of combing through FEC data to find people who are publicly known to be billionaires would constitute OR. The only non-primary reference used is a Forbes.com contributor article.

I believe this also fails WP:GNG, as there isn't much significant coverage by reliable sources about direct contributions from billionaires to presidential campaigns. Being a billionaire is an arbitrary distinction. An article like this would need secondary sources which show that a billionaire donating $2,800 (the maximum allowable amount) directly to a campaign is somehow more significant than a millionaire (or anyone else of any net worth) donating the same amount. Otherwise, this is just an excessive listing of unexplained statistics. Surachit (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Surachit (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom that this is excessive statistics without sufficient context (e.g. that donation amount is limited). This is a POV subset of the massive dataset of all campaign contributions, and a Forbes contributor's list (i.e. without editorial oversight) that has apparently been deleted does not establish notability for this selection. Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I'm not the biggest fan of this list and its BLP implications, but there are several sources that make this pass LISTN, such as this and this. Perhaps the content of this article can be dispersed to each of the respective campaigns' pages, which might be better for BLP/POV purposes but would mean that this would have to be outright deleted for lack of a redirect target. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC) (Changing my !vote to delete.)[reply]
  • John M Wolfson, Newsmax is steaming hot partisan garbage. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not realize that, sorry. There's also a Common Dreams article on the matter, but that's also partisan. There's also some LA Times things on the matter, but I still feel that this should be dispersed content-wise. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this was the subject of a Forbes article so it is notable Faulty (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as improper synthesis. The Forbes article 1) doesn't seem to work (no scrollbar, no content), and 2) "sites/giacomotognini" suggests blog/opinion type content rather than journalism, and in any event, notability isn't the only problem with this page. ST47 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as synthesis. There is one Forbes article that seems to address this in a non-synth way, but that's not enough to make this a notable topic, even if the article does work. Otherwise, it's reliance on FEC data to create a non-notable intersection of topics ("billionaires" and "2020 Dem primary candidates"). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One of the main sources for this article, the Forbes article, has apparently been removed by Forbes.com for some reason. Most of the remaining sources are links to FEC filings which presumably establish that certain persons have donated to certain candidates, but don't establish that the donors are billionaires. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yesterday I would've leaned towards delete as the article lists plenty of people whose net worth is unknown. But suspicious activity by Forbes makes it more important for us to have an article or section about billionaire donors now. When a news source deletes a story without explanation, it is incumbent upon Wikipedia to fight for transparency. Connor Behan (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Connor Behan, Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have no idea why that Forbes article went down. Maybe they decided it wasn't good journalism? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as synthesis, and a POV fork of Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. As others have pointed out, Forbes contributor articles are not reliable sources and are not useful for determining notability. If reliable sources do cover billionaire support for candidates, then that's something that can be covered in prose at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries or in individual campaign articles. Ralbegen (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above, and given the poor quality of sourcing given BLP concerns. If I'm not mistaken (though I might be in any case) Bernie Sanders makes a point of not having any billionaire donors, but that should be in the article on his campaign and not this whole list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article clearly created for political point-scoring. Number 57 20:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletefor reasons cited by Muboshgu and Number 57Oldperson (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Though I believe the Forbes article is sufficient and notable, I do not believe the coverage of this topic is. Also, I searched for WP for similar articles about Republican billionaire donors and found nothing similar to this article. WP:GNGis fence-straddling for this one.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Marquez (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 does not appear to meet notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. ilamb94 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ilamb94 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment at first glance I tend to agree, but I'm finding some all-conference and all-century recognition for his college days. It may be worth it to let some of the locals at SIU complete some off-line research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• He was only a nominee for the all-century team, he ended up not being selected. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake. Not looking too good at this point, is it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FCS offensive linemen have it rough. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I gotta come down to delete -- generally speaking, offensive lineman do not generate enough press to pass WP:GNG at the college level and that's even more true at the FCS level. I don't see any reason to make an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. This article indicates he played in the CFL in 2009. If true, he passes WP:NGRIDIRON. I've yet to discover a fully reliable database of CFL players. The best I know of is cflpedia which does not include him. Anyone have a better resource for CFL players? Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I like justsportsstats.com, it covers NFL, CFL, AFL, NFL Europe. His page doesn't show any professional games played, however. The CFL transactions page is very good as well, and it says Marquez was cut before the start of the 2009 CFL season on June 25, 2009. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My findings are consistent with what Eagles247 found. This indicates he was released in late June before the regular season began in early July. If someone can present evidence that he actually appeared in a regular season game (or received GNG-type coverage), I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convents:Convents of the Catholic Church in South America (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)

Accidentally created this instead of the category of the same name. Sorry. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 17 November 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. ST47 (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Orbital Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

the article doesn't seem to have enough reliable sources. Hasn't been updated since 2014 and no movement on the so called proposal. Plus new housing in Fakeham on the former cutting. This is speculation and no movement in last five years. It should be deleted or merged with Norfolk North Railway and also Mid Norfolk Railway. Its speculation and not concrete evidence. Apart from one purchase of land near Fakenham. Its speculation. It should be merged or deleted - Signed Joshuaisthefalco 15:28. 17th November 2019 JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This nomination was originally posted on the log page: [2] – Thjarkur (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a long-term project. Each and every one of the sources meets WP:RS. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy KEEP - This article is sourced and relates to an up-to-date project in the County of Norfolk, England. The editor proposing the deletion made a false edit on the page, which was reverted, and additional 2019 news sources were added. Google brings up 217,000 results for "Norfolk Orbital Railway", with 856 news results. As stated on the talk page for the article in reply to the proponents claims, there are enough sources for the scale of the project and associated page. It has been updated, and includes news sources from 2019. His claims relating to the new housing are spurious as they don't relate to any section of line involved in this scheme - and were reverted as such. The project is independent of both the Mid-Norfolk Railway and North Norfolk Railway, so should not be merged with either (although the plans do involve both schemes, so are mentioned in passing on each). It displays concrete evidence, owns property and has a section of this property open to the public (as a permissive access) - therefore, it is not speculation. Neith-Nabu (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is speculation. If it has taken 10 years to even get it off the ground which your sources seem to claim is alive but also not. It's not reliable. It like saying the Oxford to Cambridge Line will reopen but nothing has happened since its announcement. These things normally apply for the short term and there is no time when it could reopen. Wikipedia is not a speculation or theoretical database. It's not your opinion or mine. Its fact, nothing planned to happen. The page repeats itself as speculation and no government sources backing it. Just a council and groups. It's not a reliable source nor the newspapers. Yes there are search results for this line. But nothing about its reopening anytime soon just. Keeping the vision alive. It needs to be rewritten, merged or deleted and restarted from scratch. Nothing is solid on here but land sales and possible routes. - Joshuaisthefalco — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 21:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your repeating of false assertions do not make them facts. I remain: Speedy keep and suggest that this AfD be concluded as soon as possible. Neith-Nabu (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How are they false? The facts are there is no future plans to carry this on. It is obvious by the lack of movement. I will withdraw my speedy deletion as long as the following sentences are changed:

If you make these changes and agree to them. I will withdraw the deletion nomination. The stations are already listed, this is just repeating it and two sentences have no sources. I will offer this compromise if performed. If not, I will keep the nomination for merging and/or deletion. Signed: JoshuaistheFalco, 22:16, 17th November 2019 <sml class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The deletion nominator shows they care and are seeking to improve Wikipedia. But the deal proposed establishes that there is essentially a content/editing dispute, not a real issue of notability. Trying to make a deal is commendable, but it is not for AFD. Remand to article talk page, perhaps an RFC to take forward. I do hope “other side” can be gracious and see their way to accepting/taking seriously the suggested edits. —Doncram (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a process for editors to attempt to blackmail others into accepting their edits. There are reasons why I would not accept these changes - but this is not where that discussion takes place. Whilst I am impressed in your ability to assume good faith, this post (coupled to the direct comments on the user's page) seems to suggest that this is a disruptive editing tactic rather than an actual AfD proposal or a desire to improve Wikipedia. Neith-Nabu (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i would not call anything here "blackmail", nothing is comparable to what that is in real life. The proposal above sure is specific about wording changes desired, believed to be improvements. This is obviously seeking to improve Wikipedia, though I can understand the approach can rub some others the wrong way. Trying to make a deal between editors can be a good thing. I have been involved in doing that a couple times in the past. In part I learned that making a deal between editors can be difficult, but can be worthwhile. Since a deal between some editors obviously is not legally binding and it does not include non-involved editors it certainly can be hard to enforce some intended outcome, that needs to be understood. But talking through stuff, trying to make a deal, can accomplish a lot, can bring about a lot of understanding for example. Please don't be so harsh. --Doncram (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Made the proposed changes. If reverted without reason or valid. Will keep the deletion or merge nomination active. I made these to both tidy up and remove repetitive names and sentences. Plus removed the rolling stock tab as no references and the stations listed as they are on the route map at the info box. Also removed the BfT January 2019 Proposal Scheme 2 for housing as it is not a valid resource. And also removed the affected heritage lines to a joint one as it would not go ahead if they were going to be affected by it. These changes now help it to sound more better and not full of speculation wording. If Neith-Nabu has any issue with these changes. Then please leave a reply on here and my talk page. I will therefore remove my nomination if he agrees to these constructive changes. No blackmail as I have been apparently accused of. This is not the case but that it needed to be rewritten or merged. Deleted was because it was full of speculation and no solid dates/time frame of when the first part of the project would commence. --JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, attempted blackmail to force through an edit. Neith-Nabu (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Defenition of Blackmail:

the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding payment or another benefit from someone in return for not revealing compromising or damaging information about them.

"they were acquitted of charges of blackmail"

demand money or another benefit from (someone) in return for not revealing compromising or damaging information about them.

"they use this fact to blackmail him, trying to force him to vote for their candidate"

Defenition of Constructive and Compromise:

Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one.

an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

"eventually they reached a compromise"

Learn the difference. Anyway considering you are not up for agreeing to this then I will let Doncram look at the edit Norfolk Orbital Railway. JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You: "Let me have your way or I'll keep this AfD going..."

You are the one attempting to use AfD to force people to let you have your way. You want to walk like a duck and quack like a duck, be prepared to be called out as a duck. You want to stick to editing like a normal editor, discussing reasonably on the talk pages of articles and accepting that you will not be allowed to post misleading and factually-incorrect information on an article, come back to me. Otherwise, I have made my comment on this AfD and see no point in engaging with you further on this page. Neith-Nabu (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your the one being rubbed the wrong way and taking it out of context. What you see as fact I see as speculation. What you see of me is speculation and you fact. I am not here to debate blackmail with you. Just that the page is full of speculation. Apart from land sales and two or three sources saying it is on track. There is speculation from the name of the stations which will reopen on the line (No mention of former stations) to the After 36 years the Bittern line was reconnected to the North Norfolk Railway via an "occasional use" link between the Network Rail station and the North Norfolk Railway's tracks.

Although the length of the link is only a few yards the agreement represents a step towards a permanent link and new interchange station. This link is initially available for occasional use (such as charter trains from Norwich and/or London) and for delivery of rolling stock. (Proof)? No sources or references on this tab. --User:JoshuaIsTheFalco

Not one source or reference to back these claims? Sources non existent? Did not want to add them? JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To User:JoshuaIsTheFalco, I for one don't follow your point. Your edit left this AFD page kind of messed up. I just tried formatting your stuff above, by indenting a long passage and labelling it as having been inserted by you. Could you please revisit this and improve the labelling/formatting, perhaps? Is this a passage that you are recommending be inserted, or a passage that you criticize, or what? Would you mind if the above passage is collapsed? It is not something you are saying yourself, it must be a quote or a proposal or something. --Doncram (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed the passage, labelling it for now as "Extended content – unexplained". Okay by me if someone who understands what it is would like to relabel it. --Doncram (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy KEEP. To User:Doncram the edits proposed by User:JoshuaIsTheFalco seem to constitute original research and are therefore outwith the remit of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the project would still merit a page in it's own right even if it were defunct due to it being a project of notable staus. I suggest therefore that the proposed edits are maliscious original research and therefore I support User:Neith-Nabu in suggesting Speedy KEEP S ellinson (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• S ellinson there is nothing original research about it. Wikipedia does not deal in speculation. It needs supporting facts. Not this is proposed or this could happen when. Original research implies my own wording. Far from it. It needed the update and removal of unsourced, thats right UNSOURCED speculation. It can stay i will withdraw my speedy deletion. But it needed looking at in detail and seemed so full of speculation with new stations mentioned and no citations to reference an established source. So my so called original research was actually citation searching, you cannot accuse me of that original research on a basis of opinionated wording and not factual. Please learn the difference next time you make an accusation. (talk) - JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 22:02 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is AfD, not Speedy Delete. Those are different processes. You attempt to AfD this page is not getting any consensus, so whether you choose to end it or leave it I am fairly sure that the result will be the same. IN fact, I move that time has been given for a consensus to have been reached, and that this AfD could now be wound up.

There is a difference between proposals and speculation. Active project proposals belong on Wikipedia pages about those projects. Your personal opinions in relation to this project, or the East-West Rail Link that you also mention, do not. Some of your recent edits have, however, been helpful and have pushed the improvement of the page in question. For that, I thank you. Neith-Nabu (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is true, a consensus has been reached, the page looks better than before. To clarify those so called my personal opinions are not of my own but from what I have been told by numerous editors and admin on many rail and place pages. Wiki does not deal in proposals or speculation. They need to be solid and clarify future movement of proposals ie a date or specific timeframe. Those with in the near future mean anytime and since 2014 was a while ago. I felt this needed to be resolved. I do apologize for a AfD proposal on this but from what I was reading and there being next to no citations or sources on the planned route and stations. It made it sound like a page of speculation. Since those little removals and tweaks. It is more informative like South Staffordshire Line and the Wellington to Craven Arms Railway pages. Those have specific speculations with multiple sources to confirm them and council plans. The Norfolk Orbital Railway page lacked any of them other then the plans mentioned for the railway. It was missing government backing sources other than the priority source. Councils and the Department for Transport/Government are different sources. The councils need the government to back proposals but so far only the council and two heritage railways back the scheme. I feel this can now close for further discussions. I know withdraw my AfD. - JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 21:11 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Some odd things going on with the nom of this AfD, and how they approach AfD, HOWEVER, the following four RS confirm WP:GNG with the BBC as a strong RS, and the rest as recognised regional English newspapers: BBC, Norwich Evening News, Fakenham Times, and Eastern Daily Press. No need to prolong this. Britishfinance (talk) 22:39, 24 November 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. ST47 (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is absolutely no indication of notability. I cannot find a single secondary source discussing this resolution. The Russian foreign ministry has reacted to it, yet I cannot find any source discussing the reaction either. The article fails WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Strstcina didn´t see this...http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2019-0097_EN.html --Fiveoclockteatime (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did see it. That is the text of the resolution. It is on the website of the European Parliament. What is your point? Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And forgive me, but I have to say it is rather curious that you made your first (and so far sole) edit on Wikipedia here, three minutes after I nominated the article for deletion. Surtsicna (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 17 November 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. Sources were found and added to the article. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homes for the Homeless (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)

Laudable but non notable organisation. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The organization receives mentions on several listings of services for the homeless in NYC, but I couldn't find any substantial independent coverage. Changing my stance to Keep in light of sources provided by Bearian and Doncram. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sadly... as the nominator has stated we cannot turn up any WP:N Wm335td (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. It seems to me none of the above did any looking. --Doncram (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a particularly brazen assertion, especially given that the organization's name brings up heaps of results that don't refer to the organization. There's also the numerous articles and listings which merely mention the organization but provide no further coverage. It's a substantial heap to sort through. I put effort into approaching my contributions here thoughtfully and rationally. I'm in the process of reviewing the sources listed below, and may very well update my response as a result. While I conduct my review, maybe you can conduct your own of WP:GOODFAITH. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The short article is poor, and is more about the general problem of homelessness than about the operations of this organization, but addressing that is a matter for editing. It is a major organization/service provider in New York City. It took in, and spent, $24.7 million in both 2016 and 2017, per its latest available IRS 990 report available from Guidestar.

There have been a series of AFDs, i think all closed "Keep" eventually, about health services providers such as Blue Cross / Blue Shield plans, and similar kinds of organizations. This one, too, is major, receives a lot of funding, and there does exist a lot of coverage about it, including about its founding and growth years, i dunno maybe it is relatively quiet now, but there is tons about this. It partnered/worked with City of New York and with St. John's Cathedral, when homelessness was a huge problem in the 1980s in NYC. It would be ahistorical, non-encyclopedic to omit this. Watch the powerpoint-like film-presentation at "Our Story". It operates The Saratoga, hotel for 235 homeless families, in Jamaica, Queens. It operates a couple different types of afterschool programs. It operates summer camps in Harriman State Park. There are dozens or hundreds of New York Times and other major newspapers' articles about these over the years, and covering funding issues, crises, etc. This lawsuit shows Homes for the Homeless in the thick of it all, mentions serving 5,000 families. Those were crisis days. The lawsuit includes history, so do lots of NYC budget documents, debates.

More about this lawsuit and period: This lawsuit is to New York State Court of Appeals, and was against the NYC adminisandration then under Mayor David Dinkins. The City was working with Homes for the Homeless, which "pioneered" Tier II shelters for the homeless, which was part of huge and expensive efforts. Throughout New England and other areas, the main program for the homeless was to provide them a bus ticket to New York City. And there was serious over-crowding in poverty-ridden areas of the City, so a vast "hidden/nearly homeless" reservoir existed. Such that if the City did, at great expense, achieve placement of 100 families, say, out of a homeless shelter to newly constructed or newly rehabilitated buildings (say at cost of $60,000 per unit), then many times that number of families could/would/did appear at the homeless shelters declaring themselves homeless (not entirely wrongly) and putting themselves in position on the waiting list for housing for themselves. Meanwhile the City was being sued by The Legal Aid Society (which the City funded). From this and other lawsuits, the City was put under court orders mandated performance orders (i.e. to provide permanent housing to all in the shelters within a certain number of days from the arrival of each family. Which was impossible to do, despite vast commitment of resources. The lawsuit describes the role of Stern and Homes for the Homeless during that time, as directly doing a lot, and wanting/needing more funding and contracts to do more, and testifying to what Stern and others thought had to be done. Effectively all discretionary financial resources of the City were channeled towards addressing homelessness through many programs. Anyhow, again, the Homes for the Homeless organization was in the thick of it all, participant and subject in countless City Council hearings, lawsuits, news coverage, etc.etc. --Doncram (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A shelter is not a home-- or is it?: lessons from family homelessness in New York City" is 2004 book by Ralph DaCosta Nunez, appears to be about his experience as executive(?) with this organization, and about the affiliated institute that he headed.

I reached my monthly limit to read articles, but about ongoing recent stuff, here is 2018 Daily News story about death of newborn boy in their queens shelter. For balance, here is a lighter, inconsequential story. There will be numerous sad, numerous happy stories.

To find recent stuff, search in Google news but put quotes around "Homes for the Homeless". A July 30, 2019 mention is:

New York City’s Department of Homeless Services gave out a bevy of contracts in recent days. Homes for the Homeless has received two contracts from the department for its shelters in Queens and the Bronx. The first – a $14.3 million deal – will fund a shelter for homeless families at the Saratoga Family Inn located at 175-15 Rockaway Boulevard in Jamaica, Queens, according to the City Record. A $5.6 million deal meanwhile will fund emergency housing located at 730 Kelly Street in the Bronx.[3]

And from Christian Science Monitor

The Queens Mobile Library partners with social services agencies like Homes for the Homeless, hired by New York’s Department of Homeless Services. It operates the family shelter here near JFK airport, which is not only one of the biggest in New York, but the United States. (emphasis added) [4]

Then of course there is more detailed stuff as programs happen. Every year i suppose since 1980s, but way more in the 1980s than now. --Doncram (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Doncram and WP:HEY. I've added the sources found. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. FWIW, since the COI issue was raised, I am an Episcopalian in the diocese of New York and sometimes worship at the CSJD, which co-founded this charity. I don't have any direct connection with the subject of the article. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is no problem, but thanks. About supposed COI, the article was tagged for that, following additions and removals of some inappropriate material (mission statement, calls for people to be involved in addressing homelessness, a random pic of a homeless person). There is no reason imho to think the editor has any coi, any inside knowledge about this organization and i renoved the tag. Was the AFD started to “fight” that person? By the way i see previous versions of article did have more proper material about the organization (see Talk page) which imho was stripped out inappropriately, previously.—Doncram (talk) 16:03, 22 November 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. ST47 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Senate seating plan (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 Kawnhr pointed out in this discussion, this Canadian Senate seating plan is wholly out of date, with no indication it's being actively maintained other than minor wikilink corrections and semi-automated edits using AWB. I'm not proposing that it be deleted for failing WP:GNG, but rather it's highly duplicative to the SVG seating plan images maintained by Arctic.gnome et al. maintain (with a new image for each Parliament that opens). Secondarily, it's also kind of CRUFTy, per Bearcat. Doug Mehus T·C 19:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 19:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 19:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If it were properly and regularly maintained there might be an argument for keeping it, but the standings haven't been updated since May 2017— which is not only over two years ago, but a period of time when the Senate had major composition changes. In fact, the 50 most recent edits stretch into 2014, signifying this page has never received much attention from editors. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't think this is a notable topic even if it were maintained. The diagram in the main article and list of Senators is enough; not notable to note that McInnis sat next to McIntyre. Reywas92^Talk 22:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Reywas92, I was going to say it may not have standalone notability. And, the article is uncited, save for that reference you noted, which I have to admit I chuckled at. It was a laudable effort by the article's creator and I like the HTML aspect of it, but it would take a lot of work to maintain consistently. Doug Mehus T·C 22:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of notability and maintenance. I honestly think the picture in the infobox of the Senate of Canada page is enough. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article would be okay, and it would be okay for it to include a graphic of the seating plan at some date in 2017, if it were about the "issue" of how seat assignment is done, what are the rules, who makes decisions, have their been controversies in the past, etc. assuming there was sourcing about that. Especially if there have been changes during history, about how seating has been done. And maybe contrast vs. how seating is done in some other body. QUESTION: Is there any general article about seating plans in legislatures? If so, this could possibly be redirected/merged with a small image of how it is done here. But, I agree we don't want a directory-type(?) article about just the immediately current assignment plan, requiring non-encyclopedic updating every 5 minutes, especially when the current info is available on a more reliable website. QUESTION2: Does an article about the Canadian Senate include a link to the current seating plan's website? If not, maybe it should. --Doncram (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Doncram, On Q. #2, yes, I'd be supportive of linking to the current Senate seating plan, either via a footnote or reference would probably be best. On Q. #1, yeah, I think it's just a matter of...how many seating plans do we need? I get the idea in principle of having an HTML-based seating plan, but it's hard enough for us to keep up with the SVG version (which Arctic.gnome has been updating for us). Doug Mehus T·C 22:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also there could possibly be an article about the issue of graphical representations of seating assignments in legislatures. This example of a seating plan in Minnesota is interestingly different. No colors so distinctions between parties not clear, or at least does not jump out, surely by design. Arranged photos, conveys other information through those. --Doncram (talk) 21:22, 18 November 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. ST47 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peng Chau Kaito Ltd (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 company, lacks indepth sources, very clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Really notable. Passing WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Company is really notable in Hong Kong and covered in the country's local media. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Merge? Ok, it seem the matter of inconsistency between guideline. For WP:NCORP, may be not passing (It need in-depth coverage). Treated as things related to geo, if wikipedia want the inclusion criteria as inclusive as a Gazetteer, then may be notable to keep. However, wikipedia is not a travel guide that contain fare information. Per WP:Overlap, it may just worth to merge to Peng Chau#Transportation. Matthew hk (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; maybe weak merge. This ferry operator runs culturally significant routes connecting Peng Chau and Lantau. I think there is sufficient sourcing about the company and its routes. Deryck C. 11:43, 8 November 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. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Palombo (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 bio relies on two book reviews and I can’t find any other significant reliable coverage so I don’t think it passes WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per criteria number 3 of WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. His works have received reviews in multiple journal articles, and have been discussed in articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and academic peer reviewed articles. See the following:

1. Anthony Storr (August 5, 1979). A Disciple's Chronicle. p. BR1. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
2. Robin Marantz Henig (Jun 9, 1987). Interpreting Dreams. p. H11. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
3. Ghent, Emmanuel (February 2002). Book Review: THE EMERGENT EGO: COMPLEXITY AND COEVOLUTION IN THE PSYCHOANALYTIC PROCESS. By Stanley R. Palombo. Madison, CT: International Universities Press, 1999, 395 pp., $65.00. Vol. 50(1). p. 352-356. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
4. Balter, Leon (August 2018). Spatial Translation and Regression in Dreams: The Nicholas Young Phenomenon. Vol. 66(4). p. 619-645. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
5. Solomon, Brenda Clorfene ; Solomon, David S (June 2009). Book Review: SELF-ORGANIZING COMPLEXITY IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. Edited by Craig Piers, John P. Muller, and Joseph BrentPsychological Issues Monograph 67. Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson, 2007, 186 pp., $28.60. Vol. 57(3). p. 749-753. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) {Palombo is a contributing author and his ideas are reviewed)
6. Glenn, Jules (February 1984). A Note on Loss, Pain, and Masochism in Children. Vol. 32(1). p. 63-73. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
7. Pulver, Sydney E ; Renik, Owen (February 1984). The Clinical Use of The Manifest Dream. Vol. 32(1). p. 157-163. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. Simon, Bennett (June 1980). Thought, Consciousness and Reality. Psychiatry and The Humanities. Vol. 28(3). p. 725-726. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Additional places where his work is cited include [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] among many others. He is a widely cited author within his field of study.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 4meter4 gives us an example of a WP:BEFORE search which shows the subject passes WP:AUTHOR The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The before search was needed to see if reliable sources exist per WP:NEXIST, because they were not in the article does not reduce the notability. Wm335td (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I’m afraid I can’t access the eight main sources provided by 4meter4 but the google book refs they’ve also provided certainly support the view that the subject is widely cited. I’m not readily able to evaluate the quality of those refs but overall it seems pretty certain that the subject is notable. Many thanks. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Władysław Szulist (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)

Amateur historian. Most works self published ([12]) or published by local museum / very low key journals/magazines/newspapers. Citation count on GScholar falls well below WP:PROF (through GScholar is not great at indexing non-English language works and their impact). Awards limited to medal of local historical association. Coverage in media limited to local sources (town portal and like). I appreciate historians, but not all of them are notable. I am afraid this one, while certainly commendable for his activities, is not yet encyclopedic. (PS. Red flag - no article on inclusionist pl wikipedia...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Teetering back and forth but probably coming down on the side of delete - Whilst Szulist clearly wrote a lot of books, and also presented a television program on Gunter Grass, the only real reliable source coverage I could find about him was this article in a regional newspaper. One more hit like that in a different reliable source (preferably a national one with less interview commentary) and I'd probably flip to keep per WP:BASIC, but as it is it doesn't get over the line. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we need sourcing about him, not bare proof that he published work. Also the whole rhetoric on Kashubian-Americans in the article boils down to fringe theories on what are and what are not ethnic groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This does not read to me like fiction, but as a person who has done a lot of research into an obscure subject, a small ethnic group in what is now part of Poland. I note that the Kashubian WP has an article on him, so that it presumably thinks him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that Kashubian wiki is one of those 'preserve language' projects written by <10 active editors and with real world readership of <100 or so. Nobody except language activists reads this, so it is not a useful metric. As I noted, the fact that he is absent from Polish Wikipedia is more relevant (since unlike Kashubian wiki it has some criteria for notability). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete As the author of, apparently, 7 works, he could also be assessed against WP:NAUTHOR, if there are reviews of the books, etc. I don't find any trying to google the titles - but I don't have access to offline or paywalled journals where reviews might be found. As for articles, etc, about him - I also found this [13] (the same article that FOARP found). If there was coverage of him in Poland pre-internet or pre-digitised news, I don't have access to it. Despite his extensive travels through the US and Canada, Newspapers.com shows only brief mentions of him in 1997 in a notice of an upcoming event, and a letter to the editor after the event. It looks like he doesn't meet any notability guidelines, though offline coverage of him or of his works may exist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:24, 22 November 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) Andrew Base (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary French and International School (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)

Subject does not pass WP:GNG. No third party source covering the school. Also major case of conflict of interest since in several places it uses pronouns like "our." Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article does not have any sources that are independent of the topic. Interstellarity (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very few mentions in the Canadian media. No reliable and independent source focuses on the subject. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 21:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I've removed most of the undocumented cruft, and added content and citations to WP:RS. I believe it now meets GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Grand'mere Eugene, still think it fails since it has 1 news coverage. The other 3 are from school rankings, which could be considered primary sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the diligent work of Grand'mere Eugene. Meets GNG with RS. WP:NOTCLEANUP and a thorough WP:BEFORE might have found that sources exist. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Lightburst, but the point is that it didn't, at least not for me.

  I still think it fails GNG. It only has 1 news article and the other are just ranking sites, which could be considered as primary sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment@Tyw7: None of the "ranking sites" are primary, as the rankings are established by a committe or commission external to the school. In addition, the International Baccalaureate designation is only granted to schools meeting rigorous curricular criteria, and the school's accreditation status with CAIS is achieved only after a site visit by a commission of external reviewers. Nevertheless, this morning I clipped 5 recent articles on newspapers.com, listed below. You may be interested that the search engine on that site returned 338 matches, so even subtracting half as an estimate of ads placed by the school, and another 50 as covering individual students of the school or sports-related activities, there are probably another 100 articles that I haven't clipped yet. Here are the 5 most recent clipped articles:

1. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/38320280/calgary_schools_rate_high_in_provincial/
2. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/38320519/ranking_albertas_high_schools/
3. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/38320701/smaller_class_sizes_bring_variety_of/
4. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/38320803/embracing_global_ideals/
5. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/38321142/challenging_programs_prep_students/

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm if we edit the article to include this reference and trim it down, it could just about scrape by GNG, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: You may want to review WP:ARTN, part of our Notability Policy, which says, "...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." I agree the article certainly still has room for improvement, but I haven't time this weekend. Perhaps other editors might help? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grand'mere Eugene, I mean the previous version has tons of un referenced statements. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: — Thanks, I think we are in agreement. I deleted most of the crufty previous version, and added the cn tags to the section on school facilities. I suspect there was probably local news coverage when the buildings were constructed, and will hunt for sources next week. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not seem to be notable with few second-party sources on the internet, and I don't agree with school rankings being a reliable source. 5.76.162.69 (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Historically, high schools are kept as evidenced by thousands of AfD closures, making this a consensus by precedent. Besides which, this article is supported by sufficient sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Kudpung, so schools are kept even if they don't pass WP:GNG? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyw7. It certainly passes now, as any closer will be forced to admit. While AfD is not clean up, there are no rules stating that an article cannot be improved during an AfD. That said, schools are even exempt from CSD-A7, so nominations for deletion should be made with caution and a good understanding of 'consensus by precedent' - or at least a precedent as strong as this one. This does not mean however that I have never physically closed a school AfD as 'delete'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep meets WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG. -- Begoon 10:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Begoon, how? There's not much coverage. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon, please explain. Störm (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Störm, Begoon has sufficiently started his reasons for his vote and has cited a guideline. Now I suggest you refrain from unnecessarily pestering the contributors, lest someone finds another word for it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep reliable sources have been found. There is not a need for worldwide coverage, the school is notable per the multiple non trivial secondary sources. Wm335td (talk) 20:53, 17 November 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. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Balshaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article, entirely unsourced, is a POV fork of Balšić noble family. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator, the article is completely unsourced and duplicates an existing topic. – Βατο (talk) 23:11, 20 November 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. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kody O’Neil (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. While he arguably meets rugby notability guidelines, the league he plays in hasn't been shown to guarantee notability under the GNG guideline (it was just added to a list without discussion.) The three references include the team's website (primary) with the other two being wordpress blogs about U.S. rugby. A fairly extensive WP:BEFORE search brought up no other coverage apart from match reports. Two news searches brought up literally no results. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:NRU seems to be satisfied by his play for the Glendale Raptors, who compete in Major League Rugby, which is on the list of approved fully professional teams over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria. I agree the article could use better sourcing, but that isn't a reason for deletion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Onel5969: I know we discussed this at the last AfD, but there's a (very lightly attended so far) discussion here regarding whether this league should even have been on the WP:NRU list to begin with. Furthermore, simply meeting a sports notability criteria doesn't mean you don't still have to pass WP:GNG, and I've thoroughly looked - I don't think there's any way to improve this article through secondary reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi SportingFlyer - I understand, and wish there was more participation. However, the fact that the Rugby project has been alerted about this, and still that league remains on the list, makes me feel that it should be included.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody from the project has commented on the league, and the only other user who has commented in a much larger forum agrees with me. I feel like I could easily revert that change per WP:BRD and not get into any sort of edit conflict. Furthermore, an SNG is meaningless if WP:GNG is not satisfied. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:NRU played for a fully professional team. Glendale Raptors, who compete in Major League Rugby. according to policy a subject needs to pass either SNG or GNG not both. Sometimes a handful of editors show up and a consensus goes against that policy, however that is why the subject specific guidelines were created. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the case - look at any of our WP:NFOOTY-related deletions where the SNG is technically met, but no sources demonstrating GNG can be found, the articles are deleted. The SNG creates a presumption of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG states 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.' CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:NRU and added one source. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @CASSIOPEIA: as I've noted above and on the league should not have been added to WP:NRU in the first place (see the discussion here), and while I appreciate you adding a source, WP:GNG still isn't satisfied - djcoilrugby.com is one person's blog. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 18 November 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 Lee Ann Brown. Tone 18:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tender Buttons Press (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)

Tender Buttons Press is not a notable and organization and it does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NONPROFIT. The non-profit is entirely self published. The titles on the web site are "available for online purchase directly from the website. And for publishing the web site uses a self publishing book publisher called Small Press Distribution. In addition one source in the article attempts to confer notability: Encyclopedia of the New York School Poets but is a self published book. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing notable. This company is not to be confused with Tender Buttons (book) by Gertrude Stein Lightburst (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep As a publisher it is very prestigious. Can't say much more than that. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article reads Tender Buttons began by printing each text in small editions of 500 to 1000. Books would be either sold for production costs or given away. Printing out a few copies of something on your own to sell for a few cents or nothing at all, doesn't seem like its too notable. Dream Focus 18:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lee Ann Brown. Subject does not have sufficient coverage to meet GNG and/or NCORP, and its limited scope means it does not meet the first of the two required criteria for nonprofits. So it probably doesn't merit a standalone article. But founder Lee Ann Brown is notable, and her article was recently kept at AfD. Readers searching for Tender Buttons Press should be redirected to her article, where the press is discussed. And since some of the content in this article is sourced, we should keep the history to preserve appropriate content that could be added to the Lee Ann Brown article. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lee Ann Brown per Indignant Flamingo. As stated, not enough has been written about this press to confer general notability- I found this this and this However, its prestige can be seen in the notable poets it has published, such as Anne Waldman and Dodie Bellamy. This is more than just a do-it-yourself venture, so its info is worth keeping and redirecting. ABF992 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Nolte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not really sure this person meets GNG. Subject is a party board member and unsuccessful state-Landtag candidate, both of which don't count for notability. ミラP 23:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 23:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ミラP 23:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep user's obvious keep !vote, but failed to properly bold a keep so I did it for them. Nolte is notable because of the discussion of his far-right positions. His habit at Deutsche Burschenschaft is well coverd by the media. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Outdoor-Bro: You need to prove that with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" if it does not meet any other applicable notability guideline for people. Also always remember to bullet your comments her at AFD. ミラP 23:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the sources reaarding the candidate's positions. The article needs work, and shoring up. but WP:NOTCLEANUP Wm335td (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in legislative elections they did not actually win, but this makes no other credible claim that he has preexisting notability for other reasons. The fact that it's possible to show a couple of local media sources about his political opinions does not automatically make him more special than other candidates, either, because every candidate in every election can always show four or five pieces of that — some evidence of campaign coverage is simply and routinely expected to always exist for all candidates in all elections, so to make a candidate notable for that you have to show that he got a lot more of it than the norm, and five footnotes is not evidence of that. So no, nothing here makes him markedly more special than other unsuccessful political candidates. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unelected candidates for public office are not notable for such. Any candidate will get coverage. We need something exceptional to justify an article, and that is not here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on a quick search I see that the subject is a far-right candidate and that makes him notable: some of the coverage is in foreign press. Note: one does not have to win an election to be notable.Also sources are not always in the article WP:NEXIST Not sure I will have time to add them, but I will if I am feeling ambitious. Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "notable for being a candidate". Candidates can sometimes have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy per se (Cynthia Nixon, for instance, is not losing her article just because she didn't win when she ran for political office, because she had already cleared our notability standards for actors and thus already had an article years before she was ever a candidate for anything), and they can occasionally receive so much more coverage than other candidates get (i.e. Christine O'Donnell, who got such a massive firestorm of coverage that her article is actually longer, and cites significantly more sources, than the article about the guy she lost to) that their candidacy is demonstrably much more special than most other people's candidacies — but candidates are not automatically notable just for being candidates, regardless of where on the ideological spectrum they happen to fall, and neither of the ways that a candidate can become more notable than the norm have been shown true here. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Info: Nolte is notable in Germany beside of his political activities in AfD and as chairman of Young Alternative also in the fight about German Burschenschaft, conservative against far-rights. He supported the far-rights positions, were German Burschenschaft is today. --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, People not elected are not notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The deWiki artice was pulled to draft space due to concerns regarding its creation, not its notability de:Wikipedia:Artikelwerkstatt/Friedjof/Benjamin Nolte. The text appears very similar. Agathoclea (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep seems to have enough sources to keep, per WP:GNG. Let's improve, not delete.desmay (talk) 22:43, 18 November 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 Milky. Tone 18:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star (Milky album) (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)

Can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage that would contribute to the notability of this album. One user previously converted it to redirect, but the creator reverted. Not wanting to start an edit war so the next course of action is to bring it here. No indication that the album itself charted. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Milky - no indication of sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NALBUM. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Milky. I agree that there is no indication of sufficient coverage, but this is a viable search and any information about this album could be housed in the article on the artist. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 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. per criterion WP:G5: created by a banned paid editing operation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetu (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:NCORP. Sources are either press releases or interviews with the company founder that don't meet WP:ORGIND. I'm not able to find any other sources online that would establish notability. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There does not appear to be any depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. Sources are routine. Subject lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Peacock (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of property management software (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)

Highly spam-prone list. Wikipedia is not a business directory. I tried removing entries without corresponding articles but that leaves only two articles, at least one of which is also spam. MER-C 16:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Under normal circumstances I might argue about item removal from lists that only required reliable sources per WP:LISTCOMPANY however as Old revision of Comparison of property management software has only two references whilst having a considerable number of entries with a spam external link brutal removal was probably the best may forward.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chitharesh Natesan (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)

All coverage seems to revolve around the recent award, a possible case of WP:TOOSOON? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely mostly notable for a single event but qualifies as per WP:GNG he has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP1E applies. Krishna's flute (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per the rationale provided by User:Celestina007 "notable for a single event". Otr500 (talk) 06:21, 24 November 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. Per WP:HEY by TJMSmith and Megalibrarygirl; while the strong consensus that the subject passes NAUTHOR, which is no longer challenged, is not a guarantee of notability, there was also zero consensus to Delete. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre Breakenridge (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 finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Cannot find reviews in RSs for her books either. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Adjunct professor at best, not "professor" as stated in the article. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of her works. Concerns of PROMO can be dealt with through tags and edits per WP:ATD. TJMSmith (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• TJMSmith, what reviews? Would it be possible to link them here or add them to the article please? Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx: it looks like the reviews are in the article. Look at the references: they're there in bullet points under the current note 11. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just added 8 reviews. There may be others. Most are accessible through subscriptions to academic databases. TJMSmith (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If she's notable as an author, the page should so reflect. The career section was close to a copyvio, and way promotional. I edited boldly, and replaced with a NPOV summary of her career arc. TJMSmith, perhaps you (or someone else) could add a paragraph about her books and their notability? I'm not quite sure what it should say. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews can be used to summarize/explain the reception of her works. TJMSmith (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. Article now demonstrates a pass of WP:AUTHOR and the more spammy and promotional sources and claims have been removed, making it appropriately neutral. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AUTHOR. Plenty of reviews of her work in multiple RS over time. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The WP:NAUTHOR case looks good. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY; good work by TJMSmith and Megalibrarygirl. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:AUTHOR per refs. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Prague Declaration (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 is nothing more than an announcement of a then-upcoming protest with some added theatrics. We don't have an article on the protests themselves, even. This seems kinda routine coverage of what is essentially a glorified press conference, making this whole stub a rehash of the news from three years ago. Madness ^Darkness 15:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Absolutely no notability, also WP:NOTNEWS.--Darwinek (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Discipline (United Methodist) (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 is not notable as it is just internal rules of an organisation which could be included in article for United Methodist Church. WikiAviator (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Book has a history, for example. The rationale given is actually for a merge, not a deletion, so that Wikipedia:Proposed mergers would be the forum for that. But I would oppose a merge. It didn't take long to find on JSTOR a paper "The Use and Abuse of the Law: Public Opinion and United Methodist Church Trials of Ministers Performing Same-Sex Union Ceremonies" from the Law and History Review 2012, where the Book of Discipline is mentioned on the majority of its 50 pages. There is clearly plenty to say about how it is applied. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A book that was published in 1784 and is still available, that has gone through multible editions. This article stemmed from a disamb page, along with Quaker Faith & Practice and was needed then, and commonly notable enough to have links. This article is a stub and needs to be worked up until it contains as much detail as Faith & Practice. Because the original author ran out of steam is not a reason for a deletion, if the proospal is for merger- the question is where? There is no article on United Methodist Texts maybe this could be retitled and become one. I think not.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. The article could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep based on the above consensus.desmay (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is not a minor denomination, so that multiple articles relating to it may be appropriate. As I understand it, this is a major American manifestation of the worldwide Methodist Church, which is one of the larger Protestant denominations, having originated in the ministry of John Wesley. A book which has had a new edition every 4 years for 232 years, presumably having reached its 59th edition, ought to be notable. If we were dealing 3with the equivalent for a splinter denomination, I might agree with nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep others already said everything that needs to be said about this. Dream Focus 19:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. Sims (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)

Promo page for non-notable artist/musician. The cited sources are: his personal website (asimsart), the company that licenses his work (americanpopartinc), primary source interviews with no independent analysis (Voyage Dallas, Downtown 500 ["Artist A. Sims reached out to me recently in hopes of sharing the story of his life over the last couple months on our website ..."]), a blog (Supreme Legends [that doesn't mention him]), and a self-published Spotify page. None of these do anything to demonstrate notability, and searches of the usual types found no better sources. Worldbruce (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, based on lack of available sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom, disagree with sockpuppet/s, non notable artist. Geoffroi 18:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 21 November 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. A recreated article, G11'ed, and salted by Jimfbleak. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dabhi (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)

Autobiography of a non-notable politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. GSS ^💬 13:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, clear autobiography/vanity page (any time there's a new BLP that describes them as "youngest" anything, it's time to hit the delete button). creffett (talk) 13:53, 17 November 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. Meets NBASKETBALL, and some sentiment that GNG is met as well. —Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Verderber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject only played for college basketball, thus failing WP:NBASKETBALL, and, as far as I can see, fails WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment His basketball career is all pre-internet but as far as I can gather, after graduating from college he went to play professionally in Spain where he eventually tore his achilles tendon, possibly during the 1982-1983 season. I can't find any stats before the 1983-1984 season and have no idea in what Spanish sources I should look but if he played in the Liga ACB, he passes WP:NBASKETBALL. There are also some reports that he was one of 26 Kentucky basketball players who said they received cash payments while playing for the Wildcats, possibly something there if someone knows where to look. Dammit_steve (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for digging this up. This page gives his playing time in Liga ACB as zero, but it might be worthwhile to continue looking for information.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep He probably doesn't meet the letter of NBASKETBALL, but there are enough little things that make me think he's notable enough. He had a celebrated high school career in a state with a rich tradition, and is still remembered as a local legend in downstate Illinois [14], [15]. He was also the captain of a top-tier college program. Even if he never played a game in Spain, I think there are enough basketball fans who are curious what became of him, and there's enough information available to form a decent article. I'd suggest moving the article to Chuck Verderber. Zagalejo^^^ 17:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Agree with moving the article to Chuck Verderber as most sources refer to him with the Chuck name. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After some further digging I've found out that Verderber played for Obradoiro CAB in the Liga ACB during the 1982–83 season season where he tore his achilles tendon during the first half of the season.[16]. This mentions that he had scored 35 points during the game he was injured in and the Spanish Wikipedia states it was in a game against Club Joventut de Badalona although they don't source it. By playing for the Obradoiro CAB during that season makes him pass WP:NBASKETBALL. It would be nice though to find Spanish sources from that season to improve the article. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in addition to meeting WP:NBASKETBALL, I searched him (as “Chuck”) on newspapers.com and there are plenty of well fleshed out contemporaneous sources. Would agree it should be moved to “Chuck” if kept. Rikster2 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG and NBASKETBALL per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Played in Liga ACB and therefore meets WP:NHOOPS. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 15:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lera Loeb (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 consensus on whether WP:A7 applied over at deletion review, but per WP:GNG and the discussion at DRV this person isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia page. SportingFlyer T·C 10:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – article subject does not meet the WP:BASIC criteria. The Glamour article is written by the article subject, so not independent. I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV sources out there. – Levivich 21:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard below. The 2009 Sunday Telegraph article is a solid GNG source, and the 2016 book isn't super in-depth but it's in-depth enough IMO. Meets BASIC criteria. – Levivich 05:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is incredible. Two articles get written on a woman about how she's a mail-order bride and that's enough for Wikipedia notability. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure she's kicked a soccer ball at some point in her life. – Levivich 05:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Dominus, Susan (2009-07-26). "This woman is a hip fashion blogger and publicist for her husband's art gallery in New York. She is also a mail-order bride, from Ukraine, who met her spouse on an international marriage brokerage site". The Sunday Telegraph. Retrieved 2019-11-18.

     The 2,036-word article notes:

     Lera Loeb, 27, is a New Yorker, a fashion publicist, a blogger, a young woman with a quick, self-mocking wit, who often gathers with friends in the hipster haven of Williamsburg, Brooklyn, to have a drink or watch the finale of fashion reality shows.

     She's also a mail-order bride. Originally from Ukraine, poor enough that she considered meat a luxury for special occasions, she's now married to a wealthy man nearly twice her age, whom she met through an international matchmaking service.

     ...

     If Lera wants to speak up about her life, it's to tell her own story, one that puts her squarely in the mix, makes her part of the New York hustle that she always dreamt about when she was back in Dnepropetrovsk, a large, grey, industrial city in Ukraine. There she was the daughter of two driven, well-connected doctors, who had little money but high expectations for their children. They sent Lera and her brother, both of them strong students, to one of the best schools in the city, where the curriculum emphasised English and left Lera nearly accentless.

     ...

     Her own career has moved surprisingly quickly - her blog, fashionaddictdiary.com, won accolades from Elle magazine and landed her trips to Paris courtesy of Chanel - but she's still hungry 'to make more money, to buy more clothing, to be more successful'.

  2. Zug, Marcia A. (2016). Buying a Bride: An Engaging History of Mail-Order Matches. New York: New York University Press. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-8147-7181-5. Retrieved 2019-11-18.

     The article notes:

     In the summer of 2009, Glamour magazine ran an article about mail-order marriage written by Lera Loeb, a Ukrainian mail-order bride married to American music producer Steve Loeb.¹¹ Lera was twenty-one and Steve forty-four when they met. According to Lera, the two had an instant connection. "I didn't expect to find love when I signed up with the agency, but I did," said Lera. "I feel very, very lucky." However, not everyone was so enamored of their relationship. Lera noted that she was shocked by the criticism and hostility directed at her marriage. She explained that in Russia, there is no stigma attached to mail-order marriages. "In my part of the world, in Russia, that's considered cool if you marry a foreigner. That's every girl's dream."¹² In America the reaction was quite different: "Most people never think of a 27-year-old career woman like me when they hear the words mail-order bride. They imagine someone who doesn't speak English, who's been shipped in, like property, to be subservient to her husband. ‘Are you allowed to go out on your own?' an acquaintance once asked me. Another person wanted to know whether I had a curfew—seriously. If someone associates me with those kinds of stereotypes, Steve and I both get upset, because it's degrading. But I try not to take it too personally."¹³ These types of reactions have made Lera defensive about her marriage, and she has tried to deflect the criticisms by embracing the label "mail-order bride." In fact, if you Google "Lera Loeb," mail-order bride is the top hit. "I say it as a joke," says Lera. "It's sort of super ironic. That's the attitude I've developed to it."¹⁴

     The negative reactions described by Lera are not unusual. Americans are extremely hostile toward the idea of mail-order relationships, and the comments posted in response to Lera's article confirm the widespread discomfort many Americans feel about them. Although Lera stated that she was extremely happy in her relationship and felt very lucky to have married Steve, many readers were unable to view her as anything other than an abused and exploited woman. For example, one reader wrote, "This guy [her husband] just bought himself a $20,000 pet. She’s probably extremely docile, submissive and attentive. She probably has no say on any facet of their lives. Just stand there and be pretty." Similarly, another reader wrote, "Aren't the men who use this 'service' really just looking for a woman that they can isolate and control and who better than a young foreign woman with no friends or family here? The women who sign up for this bother me too but the men positively disgust me."¹⁵

  3. Elle magazine: The Sunday Telegraph notes Lera Loeb's "blog, fashionaddictdiary.com, won accolades from Elle magazine".
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lera Loeb to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if arguendo WP:GNG is satisfied, isn't that a WP:BLP1E for being a mail order bride? SportingFlyer T·C 05:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources discuss Lera Loeb's life after her mail-order marriage and do not discuss only the specific event of her mail-order marriage so I don't consider this a WP:BLP1E. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There is an old flash video in Time, Weekly Acoustic News, [17] espousing her views about being a mail-order bride. I know, it is the basest article in Wikipedia, but it is notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mail-order brides are a dime a dozen (or at least more common than a lot of people are aware of). However this was a unique high profile person who then very publicly revealed to be a mail order bride and they received in-depth coverage and analysis of this unique person which is why I created the article. Besides the Glamour piece already linked in the article, the Sunday Telegraph one supplied by Cunard is also solid and does satisfy our guidelines. This is one of the most scrutinized biographies I’ve come across on WP in a long time. Oakshade (talk) 12:26, 20 November 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 - speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) creffett (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Suresh Kumar Mishra 'Uratrupta' (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 English language Wikipedia article for a person of this name exists: Suresh Kumar Mishra, a volleyball player. This article is about someone who is a poet and writer of textbooks in Hindi. I have done the WP:BEFORE due diligence. As will be seen in the Template:Find sources part of this AFD, there appears to be very little evidence to support the claims made for notability. As always, happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like an autobiography, being a translator and having a couple textbooks published doesn't seem especially notable, doesn't look like it passes WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. creffett (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adri Nital (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) 01:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Vampire (Marvel Comics). BOZ (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Extremely minor character that, if I'm correct, only appeared in a total of four issues of a comic series. There are no reliable sources that mention this character at all, and he was not even notable within the fictional MU. There is nothing here worth keeping, redirecting, or merging, as the character is about as minor as a fictional character can be. Rorshacma (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too minor. Vampire (Marvel Comics) has problems, and its character list probably shouldn't exist to such a degree to even include this character. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:14, 23 November 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.