WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2019 MAY 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 May	31 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Dead meat rank

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

This appears to be a dictionary definition (literally) that does not mention this meaning [1], bolted on top of some links, which are either already covered in existing summary articles, or just plain puzzling ( Naruto?) I don't what the idea here is, but a viable article it ain't. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 23:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 23:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Elmidae: do you think this qualifies as a speedy deletion per A1? The context is utterly missing here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 01:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ TenPoundHammer: I'm not the best judge of CSD criteria, I'm afraid. If you think so, go for it. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 01:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Elmidae: Actually the context behind this unofficial term comes from the series of grounded videos created with Goanimate. In dead meat videos, the extremely severe card is referred to "gets in dead meat"/. So I think we should keep this page. Kaithehedgefox ( talk) 01:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)kaithehedgefox Kaithehedgefox ( talk) 01:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

So there is a single, unofficial, proprietary instance of the term use, ever? And you take that as an inspiration to make an encyclopedic article and fill it with "examples" pulled out of thin air? Dude. This is not even on nodding acquaintance with the ballpark for notability and coverage. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 02:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Actually, there is an example of this term usage. For instance, in the series of dead meat videos created with Goanimate, the F grade was once described as the dead meat rank. The ranks/ratings NC-17, AO, 18+, etc are akin to both the dead meat card and F. Which is why I think we should keep this page. Kaithehedgefox ( talk) 17:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)kaithehedgefox Kaithehedgefox ( talk) 17:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment A random kid playing pretend on YouTube saying a crudely-pasted Hammer Brother is awful and needs to be grounded for an entire geological era in a GoAnimate video is not a reliable source for anything. A little down the line you're going to realize this is definitely not a topic that deserves Wikipedia coverage. On top of that, any educational authority or person ever using this 'ranking system' would likely be fired and shamed in the news media, because you simply never threaten a kid with death for a low grade. Nate • ( chatter) 20:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

As I've aforementioned, the term dead meat rank could not only be used for academic grading, but also for other sliding scale systems. One could actually exclaim "Oh no! It's Dead Meat!" when they see an NC-17 or AO rating. Another example is claiming that the difficulty very hard is a dead meat rank. Which is why it seems justified to keep this page. Kaithehedgefox ( talk) 20:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)kaithehedgefox Kaithehedgefox ( talk) 20:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment At this point I'm not going to continue any response to you, and judging from your talk page history, a bit of a break enforced by administrator action should be pursued. You're not only refusing to understand why your edits aren't standard here, but you're tilting at windmills. Nate • ( chatter) 21:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete This is garbage from the Vyond (formerly GoAnimate) community involving the term "in dead meat", a popular cliche plot in that corner of the Internet where...well, I'm not going to bore anyone with the details (you'll see there are hour-long (!) YouTube videos about it in that link), but videos are made on Vyond about fictional cartoon characters (and yes...corporate logos. Please, don't ask) getting severely punished for bullying or just existing or something because an eleven year-old hates them. This is something Wikipedia doesn't need to have an entry on, and a G1 speedy would be supported as this is the very definition of 'patent nonsense'. And no, I don't know why parental ratings systems are 'see also's in the article. Nate • ( chatter) 06:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete, nonnnotable and nonencyclopedic. Trivialist ( talk) 09:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete preferably speedily if it easily fits one of the criteria. Complete nonsense created by a user who seems to have a history of vandalizing. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Complete nonsense article. Definitely does not meet any criteria to be part of an encyclopedia. Spyder212 ( talk) 14:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete As per WP:DIC -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, I see no sign of notability, not suitable for encyclopedia Alex-h ( talk) 16:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete This article is not encyclopedic. Cox wasan ( talk) 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Robert J. Shea

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

Created by an SPA. Shea is a bureaucrat that has certainly had a successful career but nonetheless fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. GPL93 ( talk) 23:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GPL93 ( talk) 22:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 ( talk) 22:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 01:08, 3 June 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Loran Helm

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

PROD declined on the basis of there being refs in the article, all of which are not independent or reliable (a YouTube video and a bunch of links to Evangelical websites, come on). I didn't find anything else on a search to indicate that this guy meets WP:NAUTHOR. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails any measure of reliability and notability WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. He received an honorary doctorate from an unnamed institution sometime during the 1980s? Orville1974 ( talk) 23:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG pretty terribly. Can't even nail the year or institution that he received an honorary degree from. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 01:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Should have been speedied. scope_creep^Talk 22:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete That was a poor prod removal, Graeme; all of the sources obviously do not establish notability in any way including the one you added. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete news archive search producing no WP:SIGCOV. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete No notability established. Also, per above. AmericanAir88^(
talk) 20:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Being author of one book and setting up a NN ministry are not enough to lift beyond being NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Richmond Rugby Football Club

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

Fails sports notability standards for rugby union. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:24, 2 June 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 : As the editor states that this time round they will provide some sourcing, nomination withdrawn for now. Will draftify until suitably sourced. ( non-admin closure) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Hossein naseri

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

Previously speedied as promotional, this is now back on the strength of some ridiculously bad sourcing. In-depth coverage of any stripe not demonstrated. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep dont delete this article plase with are completing this article. please give us time. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omid ahmadyani ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep I added more information and references for this article such as

"this" and "this" Omid ahmadyani ( talk) 21:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Please read again article of one of the most prominent actors of IRAN Omid ahmadyani ( talk) 21:53, 30 May 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

John T. Grant (Rockland County politician)

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county-level politician and the single source doesn't establish WP:GNG. For reference, his predecessor's article was deleted last year. GPL93 ( talk) 19:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete county exectives are not default notable, sourcing not great enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. County executives are not handed an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL just because they exist — the lowest level of political office that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article is the state legislature, not county anything. To actually be deemed notable, rather, he would need to be able to show a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage about him that clearly marks him out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other county executives — but the only references here are his son's profile on the self-published website of the county government itself and an entry about his funeral on an unreliable blog, not reliable or notability-supporting sources. Bearcat ( talk) 14:34, 2 June 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

TechQuila

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

I currently judge this to be a non-notable blog/website. I was unable to find independent, reliable sources which discuss the topic in-depth. Topic declined at AfC several times, then moved to mainspace without addressing the issues brought by the reviewers. (Which to my surprise included myself, not remembering it). 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete: No evidence of WP:NWEB / WP:GNG notability presented or found. (Note that this techquila.co.in site is distinct from similarly named podcast and photography sites.) AllyD ( talk) 06:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:CNG. scope_creep^Talk 18:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Lacks notability under NWEB/GNG. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - References in the article do not establish notability and I can find none either. -- Whpq ( talk) 01:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:RS and WP:NWEB. Lapablo ( talk) 21:39, 6 June 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

John A. Degnan

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

Fails WP:NPOL as the highest office held was a town of less than 3,000. All coverage is either routine for a small town mayor or about his unsuccessful State Assembly race. GPL93 ( talk) 19:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete defeated candidates for state legislature are not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Brewster NY is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, but the referencing here is not doing nearly as good a job of getting him over WP:NPOL #2 as it thinks it is. By far the majority of the footnotes here are glancing namechecks of Degnan's existence as mayor in coverage of other things, not coverage about Degnan for the purposes of establishing him as the subject of significant press coverage — and the few that are actually about Degnan in any non-trivial way are literally just the expected campaign coverage in the local media that every mayor of every town and every unsuccessful state legislature candidate can always show. To qualify for an article, Degnan would have to show evidence that he's a special case of significantly greater notability than most other smalltown mayors — but that's not what these sources are showing. Bearcat ( talk) 14:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per above comments of Bearcat. I can find no GNG of this mayor Lubbad85 ( ☎) 22:39, 3 June 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 18:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Samad Rizvi

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG ^converse 18:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 18:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. There seem to be quite a few people with this name, but the only stuff I can find that I'm confident is about this individual is a few passing mentions in books about astrology, not significant coverage that would pass WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:46, 5 June 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 18:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Bubblegum broccoli

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

Kind of a shame to lose this one, but there's very little here. Originally, there were 5 sources, but 4 of them were based on the one source that mentions this oddity. I've been unable to find additional sources and there is no logical merge target. It's certainly too trivial for the general McD's article. The next most logical place is the list of products, but this was never a product, just an evolutionary dead end. SummerPhD^v2.0 18:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete All of the coverage for this is based off of the single incident where the CEO of McDonald's mentioned it anecdotally as a failed product that never moved past the testing phase. Aside from this one incident, there was never any further coverage or lasting impact that would indicate any sort of notability, thus failing the WP:GNG. As the product was never released, merging it to any of the McDonald's-related articles or lists would serve no purpose. Rorshacma ( talk) 21:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep (or merge to Don Thompson (executive). Seems to meet GNG - sources are often dependent upon one "master source", but still indicate notability, and make comment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC). reply

Comment - The only evidence we have that the subject of this would-be article exists is one mention in an interview in one source. I don't see that as meeting GNG's demand for significant coverage in multiple sources. I also don't the CEO of a corporation mentioning the broccoli as being independent of the subject. At the same time, I'm not seeing what this tells us about Thompson that we would consider it a meaningful part of his biography.

Like I said, I think it's an interesting little bit of trivia that simply isn't a useful addition to any existing article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Maybe Broccoli would be a better target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC). reply

Delete Passing coverage of a product that never it out of development. Plantdrew ( talk) 23:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. As if it was an expired prod, see WP:DRV if needed. ST47 ( talk) 03:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Mahendra Sharma

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG ^converse 18:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 18:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 18:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:52, 1 June 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. This is a soft delete of sorts, but the current text is far too promotional and the article should not be restored outright. A new effort at writing this should explicitly not be considered G4 eligible. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Gayatri Devi Vasudev

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG ^converse 18:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 18:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:32, 1 June 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 Sharpening. Tone 18:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Sharpen

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

I was researching image sharpening and I found this instead. The eclipse plugin does not appear to be notable. The github repo has only 317 stars and a cursory search does not show RS or books about this particular plugin so I think it's not notable by WP:NSOFT Wqwt ( talk) 17:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Wqwt ( talk) 17:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect back to Sharpening as it used to be. A google search for "sharpen ide plugin" and "sharpen eclipse plugin" returns very, very little (in fact, pretty much the only return of relevance I found were stack overflow discussions from 2011-2012, around the time this "article" was formed and nothing beyond that). I'd agree with the nominator regarding no notability and the article title is better served in its original state. Bungle ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 20:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Sharpening. Demonstrable lack of notability. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Rick Lecoat

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

Not notable as a graphic designer, fails WP:BIO. 9H48F ( talk) 16:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Agree with OP. Wqwt ( talk) 18:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment: this is badly out of date now – Shark Attack Studios closed down more than two years ago [2] and according to his LinkedIn profile Mr. Lecoat is now a web and graphic designer at the University of the Arts in London [3]. I can't see anything as yet that convinces me that his album cover designs brought him any notability, but I'll keep looking. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - He has credits for designing the covers of notable albums, but that does not mean that he has inherited that notability himself. He has little reliable media coverage in his own right, nor do his business and academic endeavors. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

John M. McQuillan

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

Blp with no refs except a dead link; unclear he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 15:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. I created the article years ago. I just now removed the unsourced material (dead link) and added three references, unfortunately two by McQuillan himself, which is questionable in itself. Not sure if he ever received any awards, but I am quite sure his work influenced the way the Internet routing works today. Ketil3 ( talk) 05:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Invalid^OS ( talk) 16:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep: OK Ketil3, you have won me over. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 16:09, 6 June 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 Viva Hot Babes. Tone 17:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Gwen Garci

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Was deprodded because Numerous incoming links and original member of Viva Hot Babes indicate potential notability hmmm Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete -- or possibly redirect to Viva Hot Babes although she is not with that group anymore. She has a little bit of semi-reliable celebrity media notice in the Philippines (e.g. [4], [5]) but all other sources found are routine listings in modeling industry directories and the like. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. PORNBIO has been deprecated & there's nothing better. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and above. Fails GNG/ENT. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(
Oh hai)} 06:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Viva Hot Babes as preferred WP:ATD ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Namita Shetty

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

Article subject not notable as a beauty pageant contestant or graphic designer. 9H48F ( talk) 15:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

DELETE not a notable pageant contestant and failed WP:GNG. -- Richie Campbell ( talk) 14:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable beauty queen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete – can't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC, and I see no other evidence of notability. – Leviv ich 06:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was moved to draft. ansh 666 20:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Cowboy Bronze Fine Art Gallery

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

Non-notable art store and gallery. No mention of any significance. No claims to notability. Searching for coverage indicates there isn't really any third party coverage. Most mentions are purely confirmation of its existence and directory listings. Fails WP:CORP. Canterbury Tail talk 14:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 15:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete no in-depth coverage to establish either GNG or NCORP. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Userfy - I am moving this to my user space for future development. Hopefully, this will resolve this issue. — Maile ( talk) 18:00, 30 May 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. Jujutacular ( talk) 15:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Raymond K. Dusza

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county legislator. GPL93 ( talk) 14:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Agree, this is below NPOL. At best, merge to a list of legislators in the county article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 03:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete county level legislature members are not ever default notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:02, 5 June 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. Sufficiently good arguments to keep, though a cleanup will be helpful. Tone 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Islam and hip hop in the United States

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

This article is very detailed, but reliant on background information and while sourced the sources only detail specific individual facts, not the argument that the article is trying to make which relies on synthesis and personal opinion. I would be very surprised if the genesis was not a college paper that was then half-assed wikified. JesseRafe ( talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe ( talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe ( talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe ( talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe ( talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe ( talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe ( talk) 12:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - The relationship between Islam and hip hop is encyclopedic, but this article fails NPOV and NOR. This article starts off with a theory section which is mostly SYNTH of sources that don't talk about Islam and hip hop. It then lists some Muslim musicians and gives short biographies. It includes in that list individuals whose religion doesn't inform their music and individuals with little or no collection to the US (for instance, the Jihadi rappers section). In the interest of preserve, I'll point out that the biographies on this page are generally shorter and less informative than the biographies present on the musicians' pages. As a note: a list of Muslim musicians exists, List of American Muslims#Music and there is a related disambiguation page, Islamic hip hop. Smmurphy^(
Talk) 14:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply
~~Delete~~ This page, was created in 2017 by a user who has not edited since 2017. It had had a light cleanup a while back, but it has not been moved from being mere SYNTH towards a minimal level of acceptability despite being heavily tagged since 2017. I would change my opinion to USERFY if someone is willing to take it on. Failing that , we need to delete this WP:ESSAY. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. While the article may have some OR/synthesis issues, it also seems to have good content, like history. The topic is notable, and AfD =/= not cleanup, and this doesn't seem to be a mess in need of WP:TNT. This can remain tagged until someone who cares rewrites it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 05:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep I BOLDLY deleted the lede, replacing it with a single, brief sentence. and deleted the section that amounted to a WP:ESSAY on critical race theory, material ans sources thata were not related to hip-hop, as Nom says above, What is left is a page offering a poorly-sourced, chronological list of Hip-hop artists who practice some form of Islam. I note that not all are in the U.S., and title should probably bee moved ot reflect this. Page remains substandard, and desperately in need of an editor. But topic does appear to be notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I agree an article with this title would be encyclopedic, but it isn't clear to me that the article is actually about that title. It was an awkward SYNTH, and what is left is an annotated, unfocused list. There are plenty of sources that could be used to create an article with this title or a list with contents paired down under another title, but I don't see a need to !vote keep for an article which doesn't mach the title and fails NOR and NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Smmurphy^(
Talk) 17:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Ali Sorcar

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

The article's single source is his CV. Ambassadors have no presumption of notability under WP:NPOL (see also WP:POLOUTCOMES). Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali name ("মোহাম্মদ আলী সরকার") , found echoes of a government press release each time he's moved to a new position or presents his credentials, [6] [7] [8] [9] and a smattering of "also present at the function" passing mentions, but no in-depth, independent, secondary sources. Not notable. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep I added 2 reliable sources and subject meets WP:POLOUTCOMES. Also His bio is on Wikipedia in two other languages which are not his native language. Fatzaof ( talk) 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Neither of the added sources (an embassy web page and a photo) is independent of him, so neither helps establish notability. The existence of an article on a language version of Wikipedia doesn't mean it meets that language version's policies and guidelines. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. Furthermore, each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by those who edit there, so whether a biography of him exists on other Wikipedias is irrelevant to the question of whether it should exist here. Which of the 11 bullet points of WP:POLOUTCOMES does he meet, and how? -- Worldbruce ( talk) 14:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Per WP:POLOUTCOMES: Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable. Ben Ben ^(
talk) 16:51, 2 June 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) 03:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Jane E. Ryan

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Her book appears to have been self-published on iUniverse. She's gotten a an extremely small amount of local press coverage, but I don't think it's enough to establish notability. I think this also fails on WP:NOTPROMOTION grounds, since this article along with The Boarder (2012 film) and Andy Scott Harris were created by a group of WP:SPAs that appear to have an undisclosed connection to the film and its actors. GretLomborg ( talk) 18:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GretLomborg ( talk) 18:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 18:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 18:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep Provided some more sourcing can be found TH1980 ( talk) 03:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as PROMO about an earnest person with an apparently worthy cause, however, my searches show just what Nom sstates: the coverage amounted to a small amount of brief, minor local coverage. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Sources on page, and found in searches are LOCAL and/or PRIMARY. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 12:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Charles Edge (writer)

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

Promotional article about a person that fails WP:GNG.

Sources do not adequately support notability, the references provides are not WP:RS. Links provided are author page links to Inc, Huffpost. Fails WP:ANYBIO Lapablo ( talk) 08:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo ( talk) 08:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lapablo ( talk) 08:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment. Seems to be an autobiography, as the original creator's username "Krypted" is the same name as the blog he runs [10] as stated in the article. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me |
my contributions} 08:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment. Yes i noticed the same thing. An article is being submitted via AFC here, probably by same user concerning his company. Lapablo ( talk) 09:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

'note that submitted article appears to have been turned down at AfC. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as PROMO for a non- or not-yet-notable entrepreneur. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete If people want to put up promotional drivel about themselves it can be placed on LinkedIn, Wikipedia is not the place for this. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 12:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Wordbee

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

It would appear to me that this company (and by extension its software) is a "run of the mill" enterprise. It gains numerous WP:GHITS but the overwhelming majority of them appear to be routine software reviews that do not assist the WP:CORPDEPTH test, nor any other assertion of notability. The previous AFD discussion of the company "Wordbee SA" ( S.A. (corporation) is located here. Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 10:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as paid-for spam. MER-C 11:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete no sign of WP:CORPDEPTH and from reading the previous deletion discussion it doesn't look like anything has happened since to make it more notable. -- bonadea contributions talk 18:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

IndraStra Global Open Repository

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

No indication of any notability. No independent sources except listings in two inclusive databases and a listing that looks like a press release. Does not meet WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 09:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete lacks notability per GNG or other measures of database influence. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:51, 31 May 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Ilya Zarezenko

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

Promising youth chess player who never broke through (or much participated) at the senior level. Hasn't received significant attention (sources are chess databases, lists of winners and participants, ...), thus fails WP:BIO. FIDE Master is the third level of chess players: there are some 5,000 players in the two higher levels combined, and more than 7,000 players at the same level. Fram ( talk) 06:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NCHESS.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 14:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 09:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Fram and Pawnkingthree are clearly correct. Geoffroi ( talk) 20:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Bob King (speed coach)

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

One newspaper article isn't enough to support an article for a strength and conditioning coach, per WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete the "good" article is at best marginal as well. SportingFlyer T· C 18:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. I see an article that is about strength-building in children and not about the subject, a client testimonial written by him, a few directory listings, and a broken link. Hardly satisfies WP:GNG. -- Kinu ^t/_c 19:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete coaches this far down the roster are not notable. In large part because they have no direct influenece on how games develop. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for keep. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 15:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Cora Emmanuel

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

Article subject fails WP:NMODEL and WP:BIO. References are a mix of press releases, name drops, listing pages, interviews and social media. scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - see my talk page for some background on this. Appears to have a level of detailed coverage in multiple sources I would think would be considered reliable for fashion (Elle, Vogue, etc.) and over a long enough period of time (notwithstanding WP:NOTTEMPORARY) to meet inclusion standards. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment Instagram was only there and tagged for a better source because the NARS Cosmetics campaign was too new to be covered. Other than that, every source gives information about her career and raves about her success. Multiple reliable sources specifically point out her work at Chanel, Bottega Veneta, Balmain and Tommy Hilfiger. How the hell do you expect someone to explain a fashion model’s career if you’re just going to deride every single job as "name dropping." That’s their job, ffs. Jesus, is it really that difficult? If you can’t compartmentalize model-related notability then don’t propose deletions until you start doing research. Trillfendi ( talk) 03:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
- Would you please chill out. – Leviv ich 03:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Levivich: I’ll " chill out" when people stop proposing my article creations for deletion yet don’t know wtf they’re talking about. (This must be how Jesswade88 feels.) Trillfendi ( talk) 14:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep – Per the sources in the article, meets NMODEL. She's done significant work, opening and closing shows, cover appearances, etc. – Leviv ich 03:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources ( [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Withdraw nomination Seems a clear keep. scope_creep^Talk 15:38, 2 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Rohit Bal

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

Promotional tone + No signs to a significant contribution to the field. So fails to fulfil WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep easily passes WP:GNG as Google News clearly shows. Rohit Bal is one of India's most famous fashion designers, and he has been in the news for as long as I can remember, which means probably decades. The Wikipedia article is actually pretty low-key, considering. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 11:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep – This should be an WP:SK1 and may be an WP:SK3 candidate. A quick Google News search, even limited to using the reliable sources search engine, reveals a ton of WP:SIGCOV that meets WP:BASIC and also verifies that this is a majorly-notable fashion designer. We are way past WP:THREE of the man [17] [18] [19] [20] and his work [21] [22] [23]. Just The New York Times, alone, has been writing about him for over 20 years [24], describing him as "one of India's most talked-about designers" [25] and "one of India's leading fashion designers" [26] [27]. Our article is very underdeveloped, it's true, but AfD is about the state of the sourcing, not the state of the article, and I honestly don't see how a WP:BEFORE search would have missed the notability of this article subject. – Leviv ich 05:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep There is enough non trivial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The current version does not seem to be promotional. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 07:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Darshan Mandhana

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

They were a contestant for a couple of national and one international competition. Couldn't find anything more about them. So, fails to fulfil WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - This actor is not notable. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus ( talk) 12:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Nishit Saran

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

Made only one non-notable film, wrote few news articles/opinion pieces, But nothing on why he is notable to have an article here! WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - This actor is not notable. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus ( talk) 12:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion clearly and thoroughly examines the concerns of the nominator and there is a thorough review of the sourcing in the article along with an examination of how the sources do, in fact, qualify as reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Birgit Kos

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

Model who fails WP:NMODEL and WP:BIO. Coverage is a mix of name drops, interviews and listing pages. No real coverage to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep At this point it’s farcical how people who don’t know absolute shite about fashion now want to delete every new model page when there are hundreds of articles that solely rely on defunct directories still here. Where is the "name dropping "? How does this article not follow the format of EVERY fashion model article on this website? You must detail the work a model has done (yes, that means naming the designers or brands with citations for verification) in order to encyclopedically describe their career... as models. Common sense. What fails "NMODEL"? The category that just weeks ago needed reinterpretation that people still haven’t agreed upon. Do you even know what opening a show or being an exclusive means? Is the Sunday Times all of a sudden not coverage now? An in-depth article that leads with For the Dutch model Birgit Kos, it was the beginning of a career that has since achieved supermodel status, with catwalk appearances and advertising campaigns including Lanvin, Etro and Versace and the new Hugo Boss fragrance. Yet multiple reliable sources including at least 3 Vogues also describe her as a supermodel. The so-called listings supplement what is already in in-line citations. Duh. There is a fundamental ignorance of the subject here. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails to establish notability.— Chowbok ☠ 16:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

And how is that? Pray tell. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep I usually don’t get technical on here (in fact, the majority of my contributions are simply adding onto existing articles and drafts), but I can’t seem to wrap my head around how this article doesn’t adequately establish notability. As stated via Trillfendi, WP:NMODEL has been discussed for quite some time now - multiple members finding it hard to come to a consensus on what exactly it may entail. The same guidelines apply to actors and entertainers, making the list even more generalized and hard to decipher in terms of articles on those in the modeling industry. The article isn’t a stub, it mentions accomplishments in the industry without being overly biased, and the references are mostly compiled of biographical content. Not sure what else is needed to make the article “notable” by other means (or what exactly the article is namedropping, per se.) VSHAUTE ( talk) 19:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - The sources within the article (multiple Vogue articles, interview with The Times, etc.) are more than enough to establish WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Orville1974 ( talk) 19:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment Are folk examining the references. Interviews are not a reliable source. They are at the same level as blogs and are non-RS. Lets have an examination of the references.
Ref Note
1. Contains a tiny bio. Breakout model.
2 & 3 Agency listing of the agency. Non-RS
4 Interview. Non-RS.
5 Email questionnaire/interview. Non-RS
6 Interview. Non-RS
7 Interview. Non-RS
8 Interview. Non-RS
9 Cant identify what it is about. Non-RS
10 Single name drop, identified as the show opener, for the show: Miu Miu
11 A small bio page in Vogue
12 An image for a shop.
13 A name, linking back to the agency page on reference 3
14 Image carousel Same as 13
15 Image carousel
16 Image carousel. Another link 13.
17 Identifies here as new Super on a tiny 3 line bio.
18 Listing page. Non-RS

So the first ref has bio information. Refs 2-9 are non-RS. 10 not worth talking about as they are Non-RS. 11 is notable. 12-16 are images. 17 is notable as a tiny bio. 18 is Non-RS. So essentially 2 small references which confirm the model exists but not enough to prove she is notable. Certainly one of them is Vogue, but I don't see it as sufficient, but not sure. scope_creep^Talk 20:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Have the reading comprehension that information extracted from an interview is beyond questions they ask the subject.

The 9th source is a detailed account of the show she debuted in by VOGUE for crying out loud. To consider Vogue an unreliable source just because you don’t understand what you read is nonsensical and beyond ridiculous.

The first source is a compilation on 17 new models of note, of course each model will only get a few sentences of note; yet they still had the prudence to confirm 13 jobs she has done. The sources in the infobox such as agencies are only to cite information like height that goes in every model’s article. Duh. Inadmissible.

The fourth is the Vogue of her home country. Confirms 2 jobs...

The fifth is H&M, which as you should know has a fashion magazine. The source confirms she did an H&M campaign in addition to confirming 6 jobs.

The Sunday Times is now "unreliable" simply because they included her in a profile? Despite concise detail of her entire career trajectory?

WWD is now an unreliable source for... fashion?

Net-a-Porter, the largest luxury retailer in the world, also has 2 fashion magazines including Porter and authority to report on fashion; 5 jobs confirmed in lead. Keep up.

The Vogue source was to confirm the Miu Miu job. When Vogue writes about casting each notable model gets one sentence no matter to paint the complete picture of the show. Read the magazine once and you’ll figure out their editorial style. WP:NNC and WP:ARTN apply. ~~Funny how on Kätlin Aas’s AfD that same one sentence set-up all of a sudden equated to a "smashing debut". The goal posts on this website never ceases to amaze.~~

Again, it doesn’t matter that Vogue Paris covered 10 models in the article: They not only classified her as one of the year’s most coveted new faces, they point out multiple Vogue covers and 59 shows. This is what we do with this information!

Vogue slideshows are to give visual evidence of some work; Models.com delineated who opened and closed the show. This article doesn’t depend on them.

If yet another Vogue is calling this woman a supermodel, my God she must be doing a helluva job. Still manages to confirm 2 covers and 2 campaigns. Trillfendi ( talk) 23:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

There is no Sunday Times reference in this article that I can see. scope_creep^Talk 00:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

For me it was showing up as The Sunday Times or The Times and Sunday Times, but the article is still there either way. She was also on the cover of The Sunday Times Style magazine, so I assume the handles are one and the same online. Trillfendi ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I have to disagree with the dismissal of interviews as RS. Interviews in publications such as The Times (and yes, Sunday Times shares same website; date is the only way to tell online) are not run by hacks. Even Playboy is regarded highly reliable in interviews on WP:RSP. These journalists write a well researched piece to introduce the subject of the interview. Secondly, when evaluating interviews, it is about the subject and the relative statement. If Birgit Kos said "the earth is flat" it is of course not a reliable source that the earth is flat, only that she may believe it. You have to consider the relative expertise. If Kos said "I broke my arm when I was 4 years old", however, we should take her at her word (unless the sources is such garbage the interview could be fictional). There are no other sources for early biographical information for BLP than the person themselves or their parents possible. These interviews are absolutely worthy of inclusion. If we (as Wikipedia) want to hedge our bet, all we need to do is attribute the claim to the very subject of the article.-- SVTCobra ( talk) 05:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment -In response to the question about whether any of us are paying attention to the sources, I agree that while we may consider the content of interviews less than reliable, the fact that multiple magazines have sought out this model for an interview shouldn't be overlooked. In your list of sources, you've dismissed multiple Vogue articles and one from WWD as unreliable because they are interviews without considering that Vogue and WWD felt her notable enough to interview her and include her in their publications. Orville1974 ( talk) 23:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

That's not really acceptable. You can't say one is not reliable then group them and say by grouping it is notable. There is plenty of consensus stating that interviews are non-rs, so there is no grouping. Also I think in this day and age due to the internet, there is an insatiable demand for content, content must be create and lots of it, but doesn't necessarily make it notable. When you look at the references, they are so basic that if they were in academic environment they rejected out of hand and that is the standard we are trying to achieve. Looking at them. The 5th references states she did 6 jobs. Is that notable. Maybe there is some consensus for NMODEL perhaps she has done so many jobs and appeared in so many places that makes her notable. I don't know. It doesn't feel as though there is any depth. scope_creep^Talk 00:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I would like you to provide a link to the consensus that interviews are non-RS, especially when the interviewee is talking about themselves. I would really like to see that. Thanks, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 05:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I was thinking about. You could be right. I had a look at Vogue. The lassies seem to be choosen by the designers to appear in the runway show so if the designers become famous or notable, then being in that show makes the models in turn notable and then they get interviewed. It could be coverage is just that, like you say interviews, wee skits, wee bios and images. Perhaps that is all there is too it. scope_creep^Talk 00:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep ~~/ Move back to draft~~ - While there are current sourcing problems in the article and it needs improvement before it should be live. Birgit Kos meets WP:NMODEL in the following ways, she is frequently used by the most popular and high-end fashion magazines as a cover model. That is the first criteria as modelling itself is the production. She is not just used as a generic face or a clothes-hanger, these magazines put her name in their boldest font on the cover because they know it will help sell more copies, strongly suggesting she is popular and has a significant following or fan-base. Multiple highly reliable sources mention her as a supermodel and even as that is subjective, not all models need be supermodels to be notable and she's seemingly on the cusp of this level. She may not be innovative or contributed in a unique way to modelling, but who can? She is definitely prolific and has been for some time. -- SVTCobra ( talk) 19:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I am striking my vote to move back to Draft as I believe Trillfendi and I have improved the article sufficiently for it to stay live in its current state. Cheers, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 05:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The page was fine to begin with. Trillfendi ( talk) 17:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC/ WP:GNG with sources like The Sunday Times, Glamour, plus way more interviews [28] [29] [30] than an average-notable model, and the resume (the openings/closings, exclusives, covers) show WP:NMODEL is also met. – Leviv ich 07:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. I have sympathy with the nom, however, the Sunday Times interview is WP:SIGCOV in a Tier 1 WP:RS. Added to proper interviews in mainline fashion magazines such as Glamour and Dutch Vogue, and she scrapes through; noting also that she is in the prime of her career, so her RS could improve further. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Saattvic (actor)

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

Worked in only two movies, does not meet criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete As per nominator. HM Wilburt ( talk) 11:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The nominators questioning on how or why this individual is notable is thoroughly answered and the consensus is a pretty clear keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Apurva Asrani

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

There are mentions of his name in many news articles but I couldn't find much on why he is notable WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep as he is notable for being the recipient of a Filmfare Award and a National Film Award and therefore passing WP:ANYBIO as the Filmfare Awards are the top Indian film awards, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Strong keep per A306. One of India's most notable film editors; he can easily secure a GNG-passage, at any case. ∯WBG ^converse 13:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep I see pages and pages of news results, and many, many book mentions. Items like this news article and this article are an example of the SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE says to check at minimum Gnews, Gbooks and to do a general search before nominating an AfD. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 14:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Wataru Hasegawa

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

BLP with no independent sources Rathfelder ( talk) 07:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder ( talk) 07:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. I couldn't find any independent, reliable sources in English or Japanese. Most Japanese sources are from the school he works for, and the ones that aren't are copied from Japanese Wikipedia, which doesn't list any independent, reliable sources either. Mcampany ( talk) 20:52, 30 May 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 18:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Zdzisław Zakrzewski

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

Created by SPA, deprodded by IP. Non-notable far right activist (lookup All-Polish Youth - and other orgs here). The article is sourced to obits in far right media. Very little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Full of puffery, this fails NSOLDIER, PROF (gScholar does not show many publications at all), and NPOL, and does not pass GNG. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz ( talk) 19:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Also - 2 obits are by the same individual (and the third is a donor profile at the organization that employs him). The obits state he is the foster son of Zakrzewski and that his organization received donations from Zakrzewski. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as PROMO for a deceased political activist/ propagandist. I suppose the idea is to make his work seem legitimate. My searches do not find sources to support notability. Also per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 03:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. @ GPL93 and E.M.Gregory: I don't think the goal is to promote some obscure (1996) book. I think the main argument for keeping is on the basis of him being the recipient of Order of Polonia Restituta, but the claim was unferenced (not even present in the Polish version of this article; but I did find a ref for it: [31]). PR is the third highest Polish state decoration (second highest for civilians): Orders, decorations, and medals of Poland and imho sufficient grounds for passing WP:ANYBIO#1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 04:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Even then not sure it passes WP:ANYBIO #1 in terms of state orders and decorations. Only the highest honor, for instance the Presidential Medal of Freedom (civilian) and the Medal of Honor (military) in the US, meet inclusionary standards. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 04:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

What is your source for saying that? ANYBIO just states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.". It doesn't state that only the highest national honor is sufficient, and IMHO the few highest ones should be, for most countries at least. I will note that this is true for military ones per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People, but civilian world is bigger than military, and we should make allowances for that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Polish ribbons (low and mid rank as this one) are handed out in large quantities and are not an indication of notability, coverage, or merit. A donation of a few hundred thousand dollars to Polish causes is sufficient for a decoration. Our subject is described in the obits (written or connected to his foster son) as a donor to Polish causes - this is not a basis for notability. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your disparaging opinion on "Polish ribbons". I have yet to hear that someone got a Polonia Restituta medal for 'bribing' the government. There are statistics for PR available on pl:Order Odrodzenia Polski, the first 2-3 classes of it are clearly not handed by the bucket. There are about 10-20 people who are awarded PR 2nd class each year, and that seems reasonably limited to me. I'd agree that the 4th and 5th classes, which seem to be hundreds to over thousands of recipients, are less significant, with the 3rd class and 100-200 recipients a year probably being borderline. In any case, this person has received PR 2nd class and IMHO being in a group of 10-20 people a year who receive this honor is sufficient for ANYBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

To be clear - I did not say bribing the government - these are handed out to donors to good social causes (or what is deemed as a good cause) - e.g. in our particular case our subject donated (and in those days - the US dollar went a much longer way in Poland) to charitable causes in post-1989 Poland as well as bringing Polish emigrees from Kazakhstan back to Poland. Per pl:Order Odrodzenia Polski - you are talking about around 50,000 Polonia Restituta awards since 1990, of which around 1,000 are 1s and 2nd class (our subject - 2nd). And we should remember that PR ranks below - Order of the White Eagle (Poland) - which per plwiki - has 234 decorations from 1990. White Eagle might qualify for ANYBIO - but Order of Polonia Restituta definitely not. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Adding on to what Icewhiz said its pretty consistent across national honor systems that receiving any ribbon or order is not an automatic WP:ANYBIO pass, although many recipients of highest orders already pass WP:GNG or another notability standard. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 13:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Since there are no specific guidelines, we have to use our editorial judgement on whether an award is sufficient or not. As I explained above, I draw a line at PR 2nd class, with 3rd class being borderline, and 4th and below being not sufficient. And out of curiousity, if you think that White Eagle, the top Polish award/order, just "might" qualify, is there ANY Polish state award you think would suffice for ANYBIO? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I probably wouldn't argue over White Eagle (even though it is far less selective than the Presidential Medal of Freedom in terms of number of awards per year) and for SOLDIER - Virtuti Militari probably above some rank (stats - plwiki - again far less selective than Medal of Honor, a bit similar to Legion of Honour perhaps in selectivity and multiple grades - see MilHist discussion on this). I would also note that for modern recipients (e.g. our subject) - you'd expect them to meet GNG anyway. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Seems to fulfill all notability criteria, including being awarded very notable Order of Polonia Restituta.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Care to expand on which criteria he meets? As the discussion above highlights, receiving the Order of Polonia Restituta is not exactly an automatic notability pass. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. Passes our notability criteria, and yes receiving the Order of Polonia Restituta is an automatic notability pass. - Darwinek ( talk) 17:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Not close to the usual standard in ANYBIO#1 - to put this in perspective - there are approx. 49,000 recipients from 1990-2019. There are an additional 681,949 recipients under PRL in 1944-1990 (see [32]) - that's 730 thousand. Add to that government in exile awards (recognized today, and awarded through 1990 in parallel to PRL) - I'm unsure of numbers - and awards from 1921-1939 - all told - quite possibly exceeding 1 million awardees. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- "Not close to the usual standard in ANYBIO#1". What are the usual standards in ANYBIO#1? I don't see anything about this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. I would be very happy if we could add a proper interpretation of ANYBIO#1 to Wikipedia rules, but right now I'll say we clearly have NO CONSENSUS for where to draw the line between sufficient and insufficient awards for notability. So please don't say that this doesn't meet our standards. It doesn't meet yours, but it meets mine. That's a definition of lack of agreement, not of you being right. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
  reply here} 11:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

A national award that has been awarded to 49,000 individuals since 1990 CANNOT be so significant that it automatically confers notability. IT JUST CAN'T. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC) (Corrected, my notoriously poor keyboard skills. sigh.) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ E.M.Gregory: - since 1990, not 1900. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ E.M.Gregory: @ Icewhiz: It should be noted that most national honors, such as the Order of the British Empire which is awarded at a lower frequency, are not automatic notability passes. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 23:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ E.M.Gregory: You may want to research thing a bit before trusting claims made here. OPR has been established in 1921, not 1990. Since 1990, the 2nd Class (discussed here) has been awarded to 762 individuals; 1st class to 219 (stats from pl wiki article). The number for ~50,000 awards since 1990 is for all classes up to the 5th. As I said above, I think that the 1st and 2nd classes are pretty selective based on the numbers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment. Note that for the UK we consider the CBE or above to be high enough for automatic notability per ANYBIO. That's about 100 or so people every year who are considered notable enough due to their state honours. Seems a little lower than this one. However, given he was awarded the second highest grade of the order he may well be notable. But we should certainly not consider every recipient of the order, even at the lower levels, notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note the almost complete lack of sourcing for this biography. There are grand claims: "In 1949, he moved to the United States and began working in the national defense sector, including on such projects as the hydrogen bomb and spy satellites;" "Zakrzewski held many patents and wrote numerous scholarly articles on engineering." "He ran the All-Polish Youth organization in the UK.", "Zakrzewski twice organized aviator mutinies: first, in August 1944, to protest.." and many similarly grand claims. With NO SOURCES. I find it extremely puzzling that we are discussing a man who lived n the U.S. from 1949 forward, and who claims to have founded, funded, staffed, been head of, or active in everything from the Polish American Federal Credit Union to the Strategic Defense Initiative - and yet NONE of this is sourced. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

There are some sources, through in Polish: [33], [34]. All however authored by a relative (also a somewhat controversial professor). So there's a bit of COI here, but he nonetheless is a scholar and did publish this obit in a few places (through they are not particularly high profile). I agree that there is lack of coverage; in essence it is really the question of whether ANYBIO is passed or not due to that single award. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 08:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, no sources equals no notability. As for the award he allegedly received: ~~first, even that bare fact is not reliably sourced;~~ second, awards are only "significant" in the sense of Wikipedia notability if their bestowal on an individual regularly triggers extensive coverage of that individual in reliable sources. If that can't be assumed to happen for this particular award – and it apparently didn't happen with this person – then the award is of no relevance to us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- @ Future Perfect at Sunrise: What do you mean that fact is not reliably sourced? Are governmental websites not reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
  reply here} 08:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  - Sorry, hadn't seen it was a government website, it looked like some random obituary to me. My second point stands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The concern is lack of referencing, so any awards won are irrelevant. Arguments to keep should directly address availability of sufficient source material.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, Per Fut.Perf.-- PRDM__9 ( talk) 14:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep The sourcing on the article is dismal. But if the subject accomplished everything that the article said he did, then I would hope some of our Polish-fluent editors can take the time and bring this piece up to speed with proper sourcing. As it stands, I am not convinced that deleting the article is in the best interest of this website. Capt. Milokan ( talk) 18:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note subject lived in the USA for most of his life - 1949 to 2013. Some of what the article currently describes is possibly false or exaggerated - it is not reliably sourced. In terms of patents and academic papers - the claims in the article do match up with what I found searching (scholar, patent db - note there is another individual with same name (different age, field)) Icewhiz ( talk) 18:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Whole sections filled with daring-do worthy of a Hollywood thriller and feats of scientific legerdemain in improbably disparate fields of research are entirely without sources - despite heroic efforts by Polish speaking editors commenting above to source this page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, what's stopping you from editing out the material that is not properly sourced? Action always speaks better than words. Capt. Milokan ( talk) 00:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete: We need RSs so that notability can be established. No RSs, no notability. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 21:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete: No hope of meeting WP:SOLDIER & fails WP:BASIC for lack of RS.-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete I looked into Google Scholar (to see if he might be notable as an academic). The lead states that he is an optical engineer, fyi. Either way, I found none in that field.-- Biografer ( talk) 02:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment, this looks like it was copied from the Polish WP see here that has the same lack of references, if kept will need a translate tag. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment, i agree with Piotrus that as a recipient of the Order of Polonia Restituta 2nd class Zakrzewski meets WP:ANYBIO as having received "a well-known and significant award or honor", i am, however, uncomfortable with the amount of unsourced information in the article, remove it all and we are down to about 4 lines, yes i do know that WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP but as "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (my underlining) i am staying on the fence. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Coolabahapple: I don't think there are red flags here, and I think most if not all of the unsourced content could be sourced to one of the external links or links I provided here (his obituary bios). So you may want to consider casting an actual vote, not just comment, particularly given that the article is templated enough to make it clear it needs a copyedit :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 06:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The obits are not independent of the subject (foster son), and they were published in non-reliable sources - e.g. Najwyższy Czas! is associated with a fringe political party in Poland has frequently published pieces by a Holocaust denier. [35] Per the SPLC - "the weekly Najwyzszy Czas! (The Time is Now!). That's the magazine of the Real Politics Union party, a fringe, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-property rights, anti-income tax group. It often uses anti-Semitic stereotypes on its pages, according to a Tel Aviv University global "Anti-Semitism Survey." [36]. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I concur re source and re author, but the obit itself is not particularly anti-anything, is it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 03:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete - The article is almost certainly a copy-paste of a translation of his wpolityce.pl obituary. [37] Also, he was a significant funder of the IWP, where his foster son, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is a member of the faculty. As such, his IWP obituary ought to be fairly accurate. That obit doesn't seem to suggest a high degree of encyclopedic-ness. [38] Smmurphy^(
Talk) 16:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete For someone who lived in the U.S. since 1949 my search found a lack of coverage in English for someone who supposedly wrote many articles and received patents. Google Scholar does not support a claim of notability. I don't see that any SNG or WP:GNG is met. Papaursa ( talk) 02:27, 5 June 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) 03:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Jam Filled Entertainment

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

Very limited RS mentions, fails WP:NCORP. History section looks to have some copyvio. Company is now a subsidiary of Boat Rocker Media, so could be merged there. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I had resolved this issue, kind of, I expanded the page a bit and removed the copyvio. And the page had already been reviewed 2 weeks ago. I honestly beg you to not delete this article. HappyINC ( talk) 18:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak keep Doing a quick google news search yields a couple hundred hits, several of which seem to duplicate. With that being said, a google search yields about 22k hits and the company itself seems to get itself just over WP:GNG. Their productions include a handful of cartoons, they've acquired another company and are a subsidiary. I'd say that puts it just over the notable line. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- Comment See WP:GHITS. Your reasoning is not one of the criteria for notability - see WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to parent company Boat Rocker Media - most of the references are to the acquisition of Jam Filled Entertainment - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia ( talk) 00:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

“not notable enough for a stand-alone article” Come on! As long as Jam Filled Toronto/Arc Productions is notable! The review had been reviewed already 3 weeks ago! You can’t understand that, I beg you to not delete or redirect the article. HappyINC ( talk) 10:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

DELETE - Most of the pages I went to, either in the current refs or from using google news, were about acquisitions (which is trivial coverage, not notability). FWIW, all the article really discusses is two acquisitions and the references typically focus on Boat Rocker. The one article I found that actually discussed one of the listed shows only mentioned them in passing, as in 'those other guys who aren't here but work with us'. Do they have 'significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources'? I don't see it so they fail WP:NCORP. And the coverage they have fails WP:CORPDEPTH. ogenstein ( talk) 07:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:39, 6 June 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. Seems like most people here are not convinced by the sources presented, a case strengthened by the fact that neither of the two editors who didn't vote delete voted keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Critterding

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

Non-notable simulator, only one article found that discusses it besides its own websites and githubs AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. The only source in the article, is a Russian language review of artificial life simulators that briefly mentions it. I can't find anything better. Spinning Spark 22:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~Comment: (see new entry below) The 4 sources in the scolar link seems to contradict rationales given so far. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- I've struck my delete on the basis of that, but I'm not convinced enough to positively !vote for keep. The most in-depth source is the one from Toni Vlaić of the University of Zagrab, but it is unclear what the status of this document is. It may be lecture notes rather than a published paper, so reliability may be questionable. The paper by Jan Klusáˇcek has only a brief paragraph, and again the status is unclear. This may be a doctoral thesis, but it is unclear whether this is the published, accepted submission or a draft, or something else. It is not even clear which university this is. The OpenMPspy paper is behind a paywall, but it looks unlikely to have significant coverage. The thesis from Rok Ritlop of the University of Ljubljana has only a brief passing mention. Spinning Spark 23:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - article seems entirely promotional for non-notable program WP:NOTPROMOTION - has not had "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" as per WP:ORGSIG or significant coverage - therefore, delete - Epinoia ( talk) 00:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete the article because it's not notable itself. Forest90 ( talk) 01:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Tyw7: you have ridiculously overlisted this. The article has nothing to do with aviation and including on animal, environment, and organism lists as if these were real animals is a bit of a stretch too. Spinning Spark 08:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)}} reply

Spinningspark, yeah whoops. I initially thought it's an Aviation simulator. I'll remove it, if you haven't yet already. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete I looked at the same four sources given a rundown by Spinningspark above, and my assessment is that these do not constitute substantial uptake or coverage in the field (the Toni Vlaić one is indeed lecture notes, and the OpenMPspy one is a passing mention). -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete: Above all else I am seeing a beta release (only?) and no development in last 4 years. Without really compelling supporting evidence (There are cases where a beta can be significant ... for example a protocol trying to get near perfect acceptance to enter mainsstream Linux kernel) that is WP:TOOSOON at least here. So I am moved to re!vote delete. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 15:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 ( talk) 05:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Sonya Noor

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

Fails on WP:GNG. No substantial coverage can be found where the subject has been covered in depth. WP:NOTINHERITED applies too. Previous AfD was not conclusive as the article was deleted under G5 criteria. Hitro talk 06:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 12:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per not meeting WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC unless being a fellow of the American College of Surgeons meets WP:ACADEMIC#3. I removed a lot of unsourced information. Thsmi002 ( talk) 12:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Thsmi002, FACS doesn't satisfy that. I have a safe bet, that we have over a lac members/fellows. ∯WBG ^converse 10:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. GS citations in this highly cited field not yet sufficient to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC). reply
Delete surgeon withno claim to notability. the [[American College of Surgeons] is a membership org that any surgeon can join. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - sources mention subject, but are either listings or say nothing of note about the subject that establish notability. They merely establish that subject is a surgeon. -- Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete There's a lack of significant coverage about her and her GS citation count is very low for her field. There are over 70,000 ACS Fellows in the U.S. and Canada so it's not a very exclusive club and insufficient to prove notability on its own. Papaursa ( talk) 02:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Sanjay awasthi

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

Borderline A7 candidate. See WP:A7. Presented sources mostly talks about The Sugar Technologists Association. Passing mentions here and there are not enough to establish standalone notability per WP:SIGCOV. There are indications of this being an autobiography too. Hitro talk 06:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Qualifies for {{ db-g11}} as well as A7, single purpose editor Awasthisanjay who has been creating these pages has finally been blocked. – Athaenara ✉ 10:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Created by WP:UPE account. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator has essentially withdrawn after agreeing that the improvements by E.M.Gregory are sufficient to establish notability and push the article past the notability threshold. With only one user remaining in the delete camp, it's sufficient to say the clear consensus here is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Alex McFarland

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

The only references are WP:PRIMARY and without footnotes, it's unclear which references which statements. A quick Google search showed a lot of publications discuss the subject prior to publishing the subjects works. Perhaps the range of publications is enough, but I'm not sure if that meets any specific notability criteria. It certainly fails WP:GNG as they're all connected. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. This is an obvious piece of advertising and an example of WP:PROMO about a subject who uses a fake PhD degree. The books the subject claims are pumped out of his own organization that appears to be a vanity press. No notability shown. Mere mentions of the subject turned up in a Google search. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 06:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ AuthorAuthor: do you have a source for the Phd thing? I saw it on the page - unsourced. I searched, couldn't find anything in a news search, and removed it because I thought keeping such an accusation it might be a BLP issue. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see now, on a blog, he had an Honorary doctorate. I don't know whether he used it, or whether some news org hyping him did. It's not a crime, unless he pretended that it was an earned degree. People do use them. I'm not saying I would, but I used to live in a town where the Minster of a large Anglican Church had one. We all called him Dr. when introducing him or adding his name to programs. He was a highly respected, even beloved, figure. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note that he is President of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, an accredited, degree-granting institution. Article requires a closer look. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment - Yes, he is president of that seminary which he claims awarded him an honorary doctorate. A search found no sources of such an honor. The subject uses the title "Dr." in front of his name, even though it is honorary and not earned. Here's a news release from the seminary. The seminary is not regionally accredited by The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The seminary has been criticized since the 1990s for including "subpar academic institutions." [ Read about it here]. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, it was the Seminary presidency that made me take a closer look. I'm glad I did because his books, evangelizing and radio program produce more than enough WP:SIGCOV to support notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:HEY I cleaned up the page a little, and did some solid soutcing. McFarlane's views may not be popular in secular circles, but he does get called to do, for example, a long interview on National Public Radio and to write an invited opinion piece in the New York Times. He has been a regular contributor/columnist to periodicals including the Christian Post, the News & Record and Fox News. More to the point, I sourced the page to multiple articles that are about him in news media that he did not have a relationship with. A great deal more can be added. I invite User:Walter Görlitz and User:AuthorAuthor to revisit. And editors to help edit the page. It was terrible at the point when Walter Görlitz nominated it, it's better now, but it has a lot of room for improvement. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources now on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- Thanks for finding those sources. I agree that those sources are enough. I'm surprised I couldn't find any. I need a better way of finding them. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources found by E.M.Gregory. SJK ( talk) 00:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep as per WP:HEY and the nominator's acceptance of the new sources as valid, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep as the improvements are sufficient to demonstrate notability.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Mksmth

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. The artist is not notable. I went about removing all of the unsourced, and sourced to Instagram content, then realized that the third-party sources cited did not mention the subject of the article, so I gave up and didn't save my edits (I didn't want to almost blank the entire article before asking fellow editors to review what's there and come to a consensus on whether it should exist). I tried to find other information on the performer, but came up empty-handed. The only two sources in the article that are semi-reliable and mention the artist is a short interview with him in EDM magazine, and a university article which only mentions him as a supporting act of the headliner. Orville1974 ( talk) 04:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 ( talk) 04:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 ( talk) 04:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

* Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. The ones provided are mostly self-download sites. EDM Magazine is a product of a promotional service; articles within are the result of signing up for the service. The Billboard source doesn't even mention him, or if it does (I couldn't find it) it would be a name check; presumably the source was cited to point out the truth of other artist on tour mentioned in the article, but--like I stated--it's not about him. Otherwise, Googling turned up nothing. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 21:15, 30 May 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 snow closure. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Gustaw Marek Brzezin

AfDs for this article:

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

I was going to BLP Prod this page as the only reference to this individual is to this politician's own website but this has already made one trip to AfD three years ago and I'm sending it back for reconsideration. I don't think a personal website is a reliable source. This person might be notable but over the years, no editor has decided to spend time to beef up this stub. As I don't speak Polish, I have no ability to search for Polish sources. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. If you aren't sure whether an AfD nomination is appropriate, you can ask at the appropriate WikiProject talk page, such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Poland. The Polish Wikipedia article on this person has plenty of good references that establish notability, and I have added them to the English article. I don't read Polish, but I can use Google Translate. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Bad sourcing is not a problem unless there are contentious claims which could be removed (per WP:BLP). As an individual, he likely passes WP:NPOL (voivodeship marshal). This article needs copyediting but not WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 04:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. If the sourcing is bad - stub it down to the current lede which should be easy to source "Gustaw Marek Brzezin (born July 13, 1958 in Ostróda is an agronomist and Polish Peasants' Party politician. He is the Voivodeship marshal of Warmia-Masuria.. Being a Voivodeship marshal of a Voivodeship with some 1.4 million residents would seem to pass WP:NPOL by quite a bit. Google news comes up with quite a few hits - hard to see how he doesn't pass GNG. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Voivodeship marshal is quite a high rank for a politician, similar to a governor of a U.S. state or Minister-President of German Länder.-- Darwinek ( talk) 19:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Being a Voivodeship marshal seems passes WP:NPOL, only needs bad sourcing improvement -- SalmanZ ( talk) 21:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep and flag for reference improvement if necessary. The voivodeship marshal is a genuinely major and important political role at Poland's equivalent of the state/provincial government level, so it is a role that should quite properly satisfy WP:NPOL. Yes, the English Wikipedia often has a problem with our coverage of topics that aren't prominent in English-language media, because the need to depend on Polish-language sourcing for Polish politicians significantly reduces the number of editors who have the language skills to actually do anything about it — but we ultimately judge notability by the existence of suitable sources, not by how many of them are already present in the current version of the article, and at any rate the article has already been expanded to import the content and sourcing from the Polish version. Bearcat ( talk) 14:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep I figure that a Voivodeship marshal is notable so much as those governors back in the USA are. FoxyGrampa75 ( talk) 20:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seems like there are two points here, whether the topic is notable and whether this warrants a BLPREQUESTDELETE deletion. On the first question, it seems like this has a consensus more in favour of the topic meeting notability guidelines although there is a little wriggle room thanks to bradv's statement - ordinarily this would be considered a keep consensus however. I note also the little discussed proposal by Teratix to write pages on the books published by the subject rather than the subject himself, but it hasn't received enough coverage to be deemed the consensus.

On the second question, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - both it and WP:BIODELETE that it relies upon are in fact policy - allows (not mandates) an AFD to be closed as delete if it a) is a biography of a living person, b) the subject requests deletion c) the subject is relatively unknown/not public and d) there is no rough consensus. Note that it doesn't say "subject must be non-notable" nor "updating the article means". In terms of the discussion a) is pretty much uncontested, b) has been contested by Dusti both on the grounds of account identity and the exact wording of the request but it doesn't seem like this consideration has convinced many people - I have some difficulty in finding precedents on whether we'd consider the situation here as sufficient evidence of a BLPREQUESTDELETE situation, c) hasn't received much consideration, but the fact that all notability claims here appear to be through his books rather than about any specific coverage of him speaks to this point being satisfied and d) seems to fit, as we have some people citing notability in favour of keeping (with a little doubt however) and others citing BLP (the privacy aspects) in favour of deletion.

Ultimately, I'll deem this a no-prejudice "no consensus". In my assessment, the concerns cited here are not so overwhelmingly in favour of deletion that they'd warrant a BLPREQUESTDELETE closure in light of the counterarguments presented. I emphasize that this is a no-prejudice close; a different. more explicitly deletion-requesting statement by the article subject through say WP:OTRS would probably warrant a re-do of this discussion and Teratix's proposal to "out-source" the coverage here to articles about the books would also deserve serious consideration as it'd address both Wikipedia's scope to catalogue encyclopedic topics and BLP issues; it just didn't receive enough discussion here to be deemed the consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Ryan Maness

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

Relatively unknown person who has requested deletion of his own article. PROD was removed after an incorrect assessment of WP:PROF#3, because these aren’t the type of professional societies that lead to notability, but even if they were it wouldn’t matter: WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE makes it quite clear we can delete this upon request of the subject, and to be perfectly blunt, to not delete an article about a private person who is unknown to the wider world but passes one of our arbitrary guidelines when they request it would be a jerk move on our part. Deleting is the right thing to do here from an ethical standpoint. Notability doesn’t particularly mater in this case. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep - Passes notability guidelines, easily courtesy WP:NAUTHOR 4(c) and WP:NPROF C1. One of his books:- Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System has been near-unanimously documented to be a pioneer book, in the area of cyberspace, that (for the first time) introduced quantitative analysis in the field. See the section, that I wrote over Ryan_Maness#Cyber_War_Versus_Cyber_Realities:_Cyber_Conflict_in_the_International_System. At any case, I note multiple reviews of his works over:-

Domingo, Francis C. (2015-10-02). "Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System by Brandon Valeriano and Ryan C. Maness". Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 12 (4): 399–401. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2015.1101039. ISSN 1933-1681.
Joe Burton. Review of Valeriano, Brandon; Maness, Ryan C., Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System. H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. April, 2016.
Nocetti, Julien (2016). "Disruptive power: the crisis of the state in the digital age. By Taylor Owen: The real cyber war: the political economy of internet freedom. By Shawn M. Powers and Michael Jablonski: Cyber war versus cyber realities: cyber conflict in the international system. By Brandon Valeriano and Ryan C. Maness". International Affairs. 92 (2): 463–465. doi: 10.1111/1468-2346.12565. ISSN 1468-2346.
Gudgel, John E. (2016-05-03). "Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System". Small Wars & Insurgencies. 27 (3): 550–552. doi: 10.1080/09592318.2016.1151659. ISSN 0959-2318.
O’Connor, Courteney J (2017-05-01). "Book Review: Brandon Valeriano and Ryan C Maness, Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System". Political Studies Review. 15 (2): 288–289. doi: 10.1177/1478929917689961. ISSN 1478-9299.
Rivera, David W. (December 2018). "Russia's Coercive Diplomacy: Energy, Cyber, and Maritime Policy as New Sources of Power. By Ryan C. Maness and Brandon Valeriano. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. 250p. $109.99 cloth". Perspectives on Politics. 16 (4): 1234–1236. doi: 10.1017/S1537592718002335. ISSN 1537-5927.
"Book Review: 'Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of Power and Coercion'". International Policy Digest. 2018-10-19. Retrieved 2019-05-30.
Harknett, Richard (October 2018). "Review of Valeriano, Brandon; Jensen, Benjamin M.; Maness, Ryan C., Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of Power and Coercion". H-Diplo, H-Review. Retrieved 2019-05-30. {{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= ( help)
Oslo (PRIO), Peace Pesearch Institute. "Maness, Ryan D & Brandon Valeriano (2015) Russia's Coercive Diplomacy: Energy, Cyber, and Maritime Policy as New Sources of Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, xiii+250 pp., index. - PRIO". www.prio.org. Retrieved 2019-05-30.

∯WBG ^converse 03:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The argument for deletion isn't from notability, which frankly doesn't matter one iota in this case. The subject of the BLP has requested it be deleted. He is not a prominent figure. He is a person who simply wants his privacy to be respected. Our policy allows us to consider that as a valid reason for deletion. He's not trying to hide from anything. He doesn't like the fact that his privacy is being invaded and that the first thing that comes up when you Google him is basically guaranteed to always be out of date. Policy allows us to consider these valid reasons for deletion, I certainly would do the same if someone wrote an article about me. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

notability, which frankly doesn't matter one iota in this case -- that's so wrong, from every aspect. Per BLPREQUESTDELETE, we evaluate the notability of the subject and iff he's a borderline case, we do opt for obliging the subject's request of deletion. You cannot divorce notability from any deletion policy, in entirety.

At any case, if this ends up being kept, I will re-write it. Guaranteed to be always out of date? That's weird, do you feel that the encyclopedic details of his CV does change too rapidly?

Overall, I am not inclined to consider the line of argument, forwarded by you in light of the fact that apart from the above bunch of sources, there are other reviews of his works too. ∯WBG ^converse 04:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't see the word notable anywhere in WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and the BLP policy has a presumption of privacy. We don't have to delete articles, if Donald Trump or Theresa May requested their article deleted we certainly wouldn't, but if a notable private person who probably 99.99% of editors hadn't heard of until the subject decided to request deletion asks us to delete it on the grounds that it's an invasion of privacy and will be out of date, well, that is something we should consider just from an ethical perspective, and the policy is written to allow us to consider it.

On always out of date: you may be able to update it now, but I don't think it will be updated for every career move he makes, and he's young enough that he will make several and could hold multiple positions at the same time. The likelihood of the first page that appears about you on Google containing factual errors is a valid concern.

On the whole, requests from private persons to delete their articles when they aren't overwhelmingly notable (he isn't) and when they aren't trying to whitewash something (he isn't) should be granted. This guy made the mistake of fighting with a high-profile admin over it, and quite frankly was a jerk about it, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a human being and he retains certain moral rights that our movement as a whole has typically been fairly supportive of. No real harm comes from deleting this and the good of respecting someone's privacy when they have requested it occurs. That's a positive thing, and policy allows it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I have a couple of issues with this:

1. He's not asking us to delete this due to the fact that he's concerned about his privacy. He stated I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly.

1a. That tells me that he isn't as concerned about his privacy as he is about having updated, factual information on his Article. I believe this is where WP:SOFIXIT comes in to play. I've left him a note on his talk page about the proper process on getting things updated. Granted, he's currently blocked, but there's still OTRS and his talk page avenue. We just need to ensure that we remain in line with policy.

2. We don't know that this is actually him. There's no OTRS ticket that I'm aware of, and we're running to delete this article based on a random profile that's upset.

3. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. We're running based on the fact that we're assuming he wants it simply deleted. He's stated multiple times that he wants it to be updated or deleted.

Either way, it seems like someone isn't going to be happy with the way this ends. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

BLPREQUESTDELETE states:- relatively unknown, non-public figures. I have no idea, as to how are we going to decide these particular traits of a random XYZ, w/o seeing the levels of coverage of him/his works across sources. His works have been reviewed by multiple (~10) journals in quite favorable terms and in fields related with social science, reviews across major publications are highly reliable indicator of a person's repute (than citations et al).

99.99% of editors hadn't heard of is a grossly poor argument. I, knew about this subject, having read one of his books and FWIW, can make a safe bet, that 99.99% of the editorial populace don't have a clue about 99% of our BLPs.

I have idea about how the academia operates and I refuse to buy your claim about career moves and all that.

This guy was pissed off about a poor article and stated:- I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly. And, you choose to remedy that by not taking the latter option. That's an exceedingly poor way of managing stuff and we agree to disagree. ∯WBG ^converse 04:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

This will be my last reply, but I do want to reply since this should not be about book reviews but should be about respecting a private person. He made it abundently clear he prefered deletion, and asked us to see the deletion through. He doesn't have that much news coverage and academic book reviews don't make one a public figure. Neither do a few news reports a few years ago.

Re: the no OTRS ticket argument: I think we should use some basic common sense that someone isn't going to imply legal threats and try to get Wikipedia further regulated over a biography that isn't theirs. Yes, it isn't definitive proof, but the person who has requested this deletion is acting consistent with being the subject of the article. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

~~Neutral leaning towards keep~~Striking the neutral vote as I'm moving to keep and will be commenting that down at the bottom.I haven't really had time to look over anything, and as I said on Bbb23's talk page I'm not familiar with the whole Fellow thing, so I didn't know there was a difference between someone who's a fellow and a visiting fellow. He does get 45,000 hits on Google and a pretty good number of citations on Google Scholar. The user is rather upset on their talk page and in all honesty - we haven't verified their identity. For all we know, it could be Betty White posing as Ryan Maness. I know, that's absurd, but this could be anyone posing as him. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

More reviews --

Wirtz, James J. (2018-04-03). "Cyber War or Monkey Business?". International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence. 31 (2): 415–419. doi: 10.1080/08850607.2018.1418586. ISSN 0885-0607.
Stevens, Tim (2013-04-01). "Cyberspace and National Security: Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World". Contemporary Security Policy. 34 (1): 254–256. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2013.776801. ISSN 1352-3260.

∯WBG ^converse 04:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete – does not meet NPROF. The usual minimum level of citations argued at AfD are 3 journal articles each with over 100 citations – Maness has 1. None of the NPROF criteria are met – he is not a full professor, has not received any major award or honour, and has not had a substantial impact in his academic capacity (as demonstrated by the lack of citations). – bradv 🍁 05:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
We have consistently noted the amount of book reviews to be an indicator of C1 in fields of social science. WP:NACADEMIC states:- Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries). Claiming that someone in fields crosscutting with social science will have 3 journal articles each with over 100 citations is ....

Also, WP:NAUTHOR 4(C) states:- Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals are presumed notable if the person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. ∯WBG ^converse 05:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
So you would consider the above reviews "significant critical attention"? I'm not sure exactly where that bar is, but I'm pretty sure it's higher than that. Furthermore, how do you propose we write this article? The only source that offers any biographical information is self-published (and a dead link), and there's nothing to be found other than mentions in passing. So we really can't write much more than "he co-wrote two books." – bradv 🍁 05:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Bradv, see my re-write. ∯WBG ^converse 06:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The subject's own CV is not a reliable source. – bradv 🍁 06:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Where? The sole thing that was sourced from his CV was his education and I have now replaced the cite with his faculty-profile over NPS' website ∯WBG ^converse 06:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
You updated it after my comment. Nevertheless, I stand by my !vote - this does not satisfy NPROF. – bradv 🍁 14:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 05:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete: as per the subject's request. Could be marginally notable an an author, but not overwhelmingly so to ignore the wishes of the subject of the article. Some people pay good money to have a BLP article, while some don't want to be in Wikipedia. The second case is certainly healthier and we should honour reasonable requests. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
K.e.coffman, that's not even remotely policy based and we haven't even confirmed if this is even the subject of the article. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The guy has written books published not too long ago, if confirmation is needed that he really is the one complaining it really shouldn't be too difficult to contact him or his agent... 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 18:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The bottom line is that Wikipedia would not be significantly improved by retaining this article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

K.e.coffman, Wikipedia isn't significantly improved by retaining any specific article. We have policies for a reason. Let's just chuck them to the bin because one person is upset that there's an out of date article about them, rather than fixing it and following the procedures we already have. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Is it possible the article's subject could be switched to Maness's book Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities? I think that would be a good compromise since that seems to be his most notable work and it passes the first criterion of WP:NBOOK. – Tera tix ₵ 08:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Teratix, the third one has ample reviews. I am yet to add all. ∯WBG ^converse 08:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
More than one article could be written. – Tera tix ₵ 08:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Teratix, if there's more than one article regarding books that an author has written, wouldn't it be fair to say that the author himself would be notable? Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Maybe. I'm just throwing out a compromise where we can keep important material while still complying with REQUESTDELETE. – Tera tix ₵ 11:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I am not him (really) but putting myself in this guy's shoes for a moment, he's published books, they've been reviewed, he might need to accept he is now, to some extent, a public figure. However, we are not journalists here, we are an encyclopedia. It would be nice if what was written about him here was kept strictly relevant to the thing he is notable for. Also, quite stressful I think to now always have to keep an eye on what is written about you. Looking at the article I'd suggest the first thing that could have been done was to 'future proof' it by removing the present tense from some of it, more explicitly just looking at 'who he was' at the time he wrote the books? Then see where we go from there? 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 18:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Since he's blocked & currently we have no further opportunity to clarify his wishes I'm going with the article being updated was his second choice, he'd prefer deletion because (as I take it) he's not offered guarantees of future accurate updates & his ongoing involvement here would be time consuming for him. I think an individual in his position has every right to be angry & shouldn't need to familiarise themselves with complex etiquette & procedures here before expressing his quite reasonable view. 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 22:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR, co-author of well known books (ie. Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities in about 230 libraries, Russia's Coercive Diplomacy in about 130 libraries, Cyber Strategy in about 195 libraries.), that have plenty of reviews (many in the article). Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't think the problem is whether Maness passes WP:NAUTHOR. The question is whether to honour his request for deletion per BLPREQUESTDELETE, as he is not a public figure. – Tera tix ₵ 13:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Coolabahapple, yeah, this is about his request for deletion and whether or not to honour it, not about the notability. Basically the argument for deletion can be summed up in this comment from AGK on an unrelated case. We strongly respect privacy as a movement, and historically we've been fairly liberal with granting requests for deletion, though it isn't guaranteed. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep The presumed (but not proven) subject of the article asked that the article either be deleted or updated thoroughly. Since then, the article has been updated thoroughly, so his request has been fulfilled. There is nothing in the article that violates his privacy in the slightest. The article should be kept, and the subject can make edit requests from his talk page if he so chooses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Not until he retracts his legal threat and learns how to behave appropriately.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. The potential harm to the subject outweighs the benefit of having a listing of book reviews in one place. - kyykaarme ( talk) 20:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. The notability through WP:AUTHOR is clear enough that I don't think we should let the subject's wishes override. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep I don't really see any valid policy based arguments for deletion. Per the keep !votes or arguments, I'm seeing strong policy based reasons. If the subject didn't want himself to be in the public eye or establish notoriety, he shouldn't have written numerous books. Unfortunately for him, he's now established himself in the public eye and appropriately so, an article about him has risen on Wikipedia. While there may have been some BLP violations in the article, we have processes to ensure that information is updated and that seemed to be his main concern. Those issues have been fixed, the article is now updated, and as such - it falls in line with WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Those are policy based arguments. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, yes Dusti, "we have processes to ensure that information is updated" but as far as we can see he has been told that he has no right to expect that any such processes are in future carried through, only that if some unpaid volunteer in future happens to feel like doing it then we might do it as a favour to him as long as there are sources independent from him available for any updated information? 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 23:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) So if your view is policy based I might be asking if some policies might be due for review given all the circumstances here in 2019? 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 00:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

And there are forums for that, however, this discussion is about if the article meets our criteria for inclusion. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The policy-based argument for deletion is that the subject, a living person, is relatively unknown (even though he may pass notability guidelines) and has made a clear request for deletion, which WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows us to honour. Additionally, there is little actual biographical information in the article and it focuses on reviews of his books, which could very easily be split into separate articles with little loss of information. – Tera tix ₵ 01:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

That's harsh. Wikipedia's policies are made up, they're not laws and there's always IAR. This man is actually a real person and not someone hiding behind a username like most of us are. He's not a politician or someone who affects other people's lives, and not having an article about him harms nobody. - kyykaarme ( talk) 22:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to change my vote for delete but to me the best reason for keeping (& keeping it up to date) is what I found on a search just now, a website I wasn't previously aware of https://deletionpedia.org/en/Ryan_Maness btw I'm taking a break now & my ISP will have changed my IP when I'm back 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 23:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete not based on the merits of the article but based on the subject's request to delete the article. This is not a high profile individual but a scholar who works in cyber-security and he might have valid reasons for not wanting to elevate his public profile. I don't think it is ethical to insist on publishing a profile of a academic who works in a sensitive area. I'd feel differently if we were talking about a politician who disliked negative coverage he was getting. This is a complimentary article so it's not the content he objects to but the presence of the article on Wikipedia. I don't think we should be stubborn, insist on keeping it and disregarding the very real impact this article could have on his professional pursuits. It's just not a high-profile article that Wikipedia needs to keep. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 03:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment are we forgetting that 1) We haven't even confirmed that this is actually the subject of the article and 2) The person stated First, my information is seriously outdated. Second, I have my own webpage and academic sites that I use for people to access updated information about myself. Your Wikipedia page does me no service if it is to be so out of date. I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly. The alleged subject of the article is (was) upset due to the fact that the information was oudated NOT because we had an article about him. The article has been updated, satisfied the request of the subject. End of story. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

"We haven't even confirmed that this is actually the subject of the article" Dusti you have been saying this for days, why don't you just give him a call? [REDACTED - Oshwah] 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 05:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Because, Ryan, if this issue is that important to you, you can follow the information and steps that I left on your talk page. You can contact our volunteer response team and they can assist you with the information located in your article. I'm surprised that you haven't been blocked yet for block evasion, however, I would suggest that you join Wikipedia as a volunteer and collaborate. Everything located in your article is editable, even by you. Try it. Just keep in mind the policies that we have in place. I'm sorry that this has been such a negative experience for you and perhaps that can get turned around. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The article subject's (apparent) user account is indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. ~Oshwah~^{(talk)
(contribs)} 05:57, 6 June 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 Jeff Smith (cartoonist). Redirect targets and merging over are at editorial discretion - the current target is solely based on a headcount. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Thorn (comic strip)

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

Totally unsourced since creation (except for an EL to a website). Other sources found are about Bone (comics) and carry only fleeting mentions of Thorn. Fails GNG, but could be merged to Jeff Smith if adequately sourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Jeff Smith (cartoonist), obvious target. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 02:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Merge with Jeff Smith (cartoonist) - as User:Ten Pound Hammer says, this is an obvious target. Vorbee ( talk) 08:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Bone (comics) which already includes most of the information about the strip's creation, importance, and reprints. Argento Surfer ( talk) 14:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Jordan Bianchin

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

Subjects fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played three professional seasons, two in the CHL and one in Serie A. None of these leagues qualify for notability regardless of how many games are played and even if they did he'd still be short of 200 games anyway. He could by all means be redirected to his father's page Wayne Bianchin since he is mentioned there. Tay87 ( talk) 00:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 00:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 00:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 00:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable hockey player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nomination, however I would oppose redirecting to his father's article. Kaiser matias ( talk) 01:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

That's fine @ Kaiser matias:, was just merely putting it as an option that's all. :) Tay87 ( talk) 09:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

All good, certainly not said with any hostility or anything. Just my preference, as I find it can be confusing. Kaiser matias ( talk) 23:51, 5 June 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) 03:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Grav (CMS)

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 🖋 17:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 17:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I haven't included many sources, because it's a stub, and I invite more experienced users of Grav to contribute. It's already on the List_of_content_management_systems, and in the October_(CMS) article, but those previously linked to a stub describing the city of Grav. It's a very popular new-ish CMS, which makes it notable. It shows up on [39]. There are a few hundred themes and plugins, as shown here: [40]. REH11 ( talk) 18:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

[comment] I have fleshed out the main article with more details, links to tutorials, mentions, awards, and a note about Grav being most popular PHP CMS on GitHub. I'm a wiki newbie, so sorry if I have done things incorrectly I'm just trying to provide some relevant data, I leave formatting to those with more experienced Rhukster ( talk) 21:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine whether the SitePoint article helps establish Grav's notability. The discussion is at WP:RSN § SitePoint for Grav (CMS). — Newslinger talk 23:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep: Seems notable enough and has reliable sources. But the article could be fleshed out instead of just listing sources. Nubeli ( talk) 00:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 30 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012

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

No longer serves a purpose. This used to be a continuously updated list of currently deployed units, but it ended up frozen in 2012 because nobody was updating it. The principal source is not current either, so I don't see how it could be brought up to date. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Afghanistan/Iraq orders of battle: time to delete? for background. Cerebellum ( talk) 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Cerebellum ( talk) 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Cerebellum ( talk) 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iraq War order of battle, 2009. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 11:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep ~~You should probably look at WP:AADD and WP:BEFORE.~~ Per WP:NOWORK, the article is still suitable to be in Wikipedia even though it hasn't been work at for quite a long time. In my opinion, the article still serves its purpose very well. INeed Support ^:3 03:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Strikethrough some comment since you pretty much knew that. INeed Support ^:3 03:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep but repurpose so that it is not a mere snapshot at one date. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - that no-one is updating it is no reason to delete it if it is well sourced. FOARP ( talk) 10:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - The discussion at MilHist had mixed results and little background. I don't see much of an explanation of the reasoning here, either. OoB's are often a useful way of organizing lists of involved units, have historic value, are common in published literature, and are present in encyclopedia-like compendiums and thus seem to be encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(
Talk) 14:18, 3 June 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. Rewrites, (potentially) moves and other edits should probably be considered, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Iraq War order of battle, 2009

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

No longer serves a purpose. This used to be a continuously updated list of currently deployed units, but it ended up frozen in 2009 because nobody was updating it. To me it doesn't make to sense to preserve an order of battle from this particular moment in the war. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Afghanistan/Iraq orders of battle: time to delete? for background. Cerebellum ( talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Cerebellum ( talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cerebellum ( talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Cerebellum ( talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment - There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 11:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - this was questionable even at the time as its scope ("the entire conflict for the year" as opposed to the order of battle for, well, a battle) skirts the edge of WP:NOTDIR, and the includion of unit CO names is slightly concerning (a lot of these I would question if they were actually publicised - lots of times they arent and therefore they would be inferred). Even without those concerns thoough this is, as the nominator mentions, not an encyclopedic subject in the state that it is in, and I don't see how it could be rebuilt to a specific level of encylopediacity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep and rewrite using a specific month chosen from the Institute for the Study of War source available at http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/irOrbat_Dec09thruNov2011.pdf. Suggest December 2009. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep but restructure -- A snapshot of the order of battle in one month is not worth having. Even if we did it should cover the whole force, not just the American part of it. I suspect that units will have been rotated in and out of deployment: either they should all be listed or, better, the higher level formations that remained there with commanders and lesser units varying from time to time. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment Peterkingiron - the UK's presence in the south ended on 30 April 2009, and by DEcember 2009 other coalition forces were probably reduced to odd liaison officers and NTM-I (already acknowledged in the ISW list). All the higher Multi-National Divisions that remained thoughout supervising rotating units are all listed in both ours and the ISW lists. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete: not useful to readers. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply

This is a bad argument per WP:USEFUL

Keep - appears well-referenced. Not opposed to renaming it to a specific month though. FOARP ( talk) 10:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - The discussion at MilHist had mixed results and little background. I don't see much of an explanation of the reasoning here, either. OoB's are often a useful way of organizing lists of involved units, have historic value, are common in published literature, and are present in encyclopedia-like compendiums and thus seem to be encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(
Talk) 14:18, 3 June 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.

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook