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

The result was speedy delete. This is A7-able as a BLP that makes no effort to establish notability. ST47 ( talk) 00:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Alexander Bove

Alexander Bove (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparent bypassing of AfC (see Draft:Alexander Bove). Could not find sources, clearly not ready for mainspace. From  AnUnnamedUser  ^{(open talk page)} 23:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. From  AnUnnamedUser  ^{(open talk page)} 23:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. From  AnUnnamedUser  ^{(open talk page)} 23:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Non-notable; no references; and as above, cannot find sources. As an unreferenced WP:BLP should not have found its way to mainspace. Eagleash ( talk) 00:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Tina Bhatia

Tina Bhatia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Subject doesn't satisfy WP:BIO, there aren't any in depth reliable sources. Most probably will be notable but suggest waiting at least a couple of years Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as it seems WP:TOOSOON at this stage with no prominent roles in notable productions (having Wikipedia articles) and most of the sources in the article are from YouTube. She may well be notable in the future when an article may be created then, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete. It looks like her career is starting to get traction with the award win at the film festival and several upcoming larger roles. At this point, she just doesn't have the RS to meet WP:SIGCOV. It can always be recreated later after more reviews of her performances are made. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Swamp Thing. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Parliament of Trees

Parliament of Trees (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable topic TTN ( talk) 21:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 21:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 21:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Yeah, um... no indication of notability here. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 13:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Swamp Thing. It's a valid search term, and this target provides sufficient detail. Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Swamp Thing - There are a few independent sources that mention the Parliament, mostly in regards to analysis of Alan Moore's writing. But, the mentions of the Parliament are brief, and do not really go beyond just a plot summary of what it was in the narrative of the Swamp Thing, which is not enough to support an independent article. That said, as a major part of the mythology of the character, and as it is already described in the target article, a redirect to the main Swamp Thing article would make sense as a valid search term. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Swamp Thing. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Ender's Game (novel series). MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Formics

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

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

Non-notable topic TTN ( talk) 21:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 21:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 21:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Ender's Game (novel series). Surely merits a mention there, though lacks notability for its own article. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 12:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Ender's Game (novel series). As a major element of a notable book series, it is, at the very least, a plausible search term. Merging can be performed as necessary, though as this current article is sourced only to quotes from the books, I'm not sure how much here is worth really transferring over. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Redirect to Ender's Game (novel series). 4meter4 ( talk) 21:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Beri Weber

Beri Weber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject is insufficiently notable within his field. Almost all of the information is about the singer as a person and not as a singer -- such as where he lived and which Hasidic sect he used to belong to vs what he belongs to now, or attempting to highlight his success and notability based on the fact that he has a single out -- this does not make someone notable. Furthermore, information is from poorly substantiated website sources almost entirely relying on the singer's submitted CV to the sources in question. DRosenbach ^{( Talk | Contribs)} 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment The article clearly lists multiple albums and singles to his credit, so the point about a single being out seems irrelevant. StonyBrook ( talk) 06:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Passes WP:SINGER: Multiple sources independent of the subject have reported about him, it being understandable that some (not all) of the sources are in Hebrew, which takes nothing away from the notability; it is being reported he is the 'heir to Mordechai Ben David', a bold claim which I don't believe would be thrown around if there were no basis for it, which bolsters the impression that this isn't just another flash-in-the-pan Hasidic singer. StonyBrook ( talk) 06:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Seems to pass WP:SINGER : "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Article gives many sources which seem to show enough of a level of notability. Adam Bernstein ( talk) 09:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Asad Sabetpour

Asad Sabetpour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Survived PROD in 2011 but I can't find anything to indicate notability. Mccapra ( talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Only one source used and also subject is not notable per wp:gng. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 02:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - minor functionary in the cog of the revolution. Bearian ( talk) 21:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The subject is not notable per WP:GNG. - MA Javadi ( talk) 23:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No significant coverage. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 01:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Deleted by RHaworth, see log entry. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 02:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

October 44th

October 44th (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. No article for the artist, which isn't a reason in itself to delete this article, but there is literally nothing online about this song other than links to YouTube videos and online record stores and streaming websites, none of which confer notability. Might be WP:TOOSOON and it's possible that either the artist or their forthcoming EP will be notable enough for an article, but right now there's nothing to support this song. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: has now been speedily deleted under A9, so this AfD may be closed. Richard3120 ( talk) 23:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. I will also be performing the move for which there is consensus as part of this discussion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Justin Collins

Justin Collins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a bit complicated, so bear with me. I was creating a short article today in response to a requested article at the rugby union wiki project for a player called Justin Collins (rugby union). We already have an article at Justin Collins for a different rugby league player (for the uninitiated, rugby union and rugby league are similar in name and practice but are actually entirely separate sports).

After completing the article, I took a closer look at the rugby league article and noticed that several facts about the rugby union player seem to have been inserted into the rugby league article, such as the birth date, birth place and physical dimensions. There are several confusing similarities between these two subjects: they both have the same name, they are both Australian by birth (though the rugby union player moved to New Zealand when he was 10 and has been there ever since); they both play a similar sport. I believe this has led to facts about the rugby union player being inserted in the rugby league player article without the authors realising what they were doing, creating a very confusing situation.

When I tried to look for some other sources to try and untangle this mess and find the real information for the rugby league article, I couldn’t find any reliable sources relating to the rugby league player. If he’s played for Hull FC as the article says then he would be notable if that were verifiable, but since I can’t verify it he fails the WP:GNG. ElAhrairah  ^{inspect damage}⁄ _berate 20:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep but move to Steve Collins (rugby league) and add to the disambiguation page at Stephen Collins (disambiguation), removing the "See also" entry for him there. It looks as if he is better known by this name - see all the sources given. There are various sources which support him playing for Featherstone Indie article, Wakefield Express and for Hull FC an Alamy photo, "Collins try ends Giants' comeback". But there's obviously a horrible mess of confusion between Steve and Gus, with all profile pages giving the same date of birth for them both, such as union club site and league club site. Plenty of work to be done disentangling. Pam D 21:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I didn't realise that - lack of rugby league knowledge shining through. I agree with your suggestion. I'm inclined to believe the bio data relates to the rugby union player, the sources look solid. ElAhrairah  ^{inspect damage}⁄ _berate 07:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep but move. The rugby league player is clearly notable and clearly a different person from the rugby union player. It's also clear that he goes by the name Steve, so the page should be moved to Steve Collins (rugby league). -- Mkativerata ( talk) 10:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep but move to Steve Collins (rugby league). There was some confusion in my mind when I initiated Justin Collins article this time last year; as the rugby league player appears to be known as both Justin and Steve in the hullfc.com reference, but apparently nowhere else. The date/place of birth appeared reasonable, as Tasmania is an island state of Australia not New Zealand, and so it gave initial credence to the date/place of birth being for the Australian rugby league player rather than the New Zealand rugby union player, but it now seems more likely to be conflated. I think we can all agree that neither the rugby league player or the rugby union player are; Justin Lee Collins. Thanks to @ Boleyn: for directing me here. DynamoDegsy ( talk) 20:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for weighing in here. Very easy to get those two mixed up! I think the sources for the bio information of the rugby union player look pretty solid, so I've removed that information from the league article if that's ok. ElAhrairah  ^{inspect damage}⁄ _berate 17:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep and move to Steve Collins (rugby league) as per all of the above. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep and move to Steve Collins (rugby league). 4meter4 ( talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. The article has already been deleted through CSD while the discussion remained on AfD. Utopes ( talk) 00:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Islamunity

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

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

No external sources provided, no evidence of notability. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 15:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Brookfield Schools

Brookfield Schools (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find any sources because the schools' website and pages where people review schools. It is mentioned a few time in articles about the town, but has no significant coverage. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There's a longstanding consensus that high schools (and above) are kept; here's a NJESD lawsuit, academic and qualitative data and presentation, public funding rates, listing as a specialized clinic, which is enough to me to prove it exists; as a school serving various groups of special needs it certainly isn't going to have as big of a profile as public schools. tedder ( talk) 09:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per reasons and potential sources to improve the article cited by Tedder. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 10:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment - I have added content and citations that I believe adequately establish notability for this stub article. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 19:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep Following the additions by Grand'mere Eugene, I then went and made a number of changes and additions such as adding an Infobox, NCES stats, expanded history, categories etc - see this diff (added logo on next edit) No longer a stub now Steven (Editor) ( talk) 05:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep I had looked at the article shortly after the AfD was created and saw an article that merited retention, but needed to be expanded with reliably and verifiably sourced material. That standard has been met with the article as it currently stands. Alansohn ( talk) 12:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Wil Reynolds

Wil Reynolds (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Some incidental coverage, but nothing in-depth nor independent. scope_creep ^Talk 18:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The article is fluffy, borderline promotional--as indicated by fake sourcing such as this. Drmies ( talk) 20:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete This article has no in depth coverage. Barca ( talk) 15:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - promotional tone, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, no evidence of general notability, and appears run of the mill. Bearian ( talk) 21:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG because of lack of RS. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

David Gilliam

David Gilliam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparently non-notable actor. His most significant role appears to have been in Severance (film). Although he has appeared in other notable films, as far as I can tell his roles were bit-parts which do not help him qualify for WP:NACTOR criterion 1. I see no evidence that the other two criteria are met. I can't find coverage in online-searchable RSs that is more than routine mentions. Severence is discussed in this book but little is said about him; similarly this news article is really about a film he produced. So I don't think he meets the WP:GNG either. I don't see an obvious target for a redirect. Wham2001 ( talk) 18:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wham2001 ( talk) 18:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable actor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - three very small roles, one of which is dubious. Bearian ( talk) 21:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Suicide Squad members. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Virtuoso (comics)

Virtuoso (comics) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable character TTN ( talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete--nothing but the usual fan sites, and not even a lot of those. Drmies ( talk) 20:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I do not see anything that establishes the notability of this character. Barca ( talk) 15:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of Suicide Squad members. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Kid Psycho

Kid Psycho (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable character TTN ( talk) 18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Another fictional entry based on nothing but comic books. Drmies ( talk) 20:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect At the very least. Why would we delete this rather than redirect, TTN? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• The content is all in-universe, so there is no need to merge. I have no objection to a new redirect after deletion, but I honestly think it's pointless considering the scope of DC's completely literal tens of thousands of characters. TTN ( talk) 23:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Vampire (Stephen King)

Vampire (Stephen King) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable topic TTN ( talk) 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Not only is this nothing but completely in-universe summaries sourced only to the works of fiction themselves, but a whole lot of this is WP:SYNTH and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, with some of it actually not even being correct. I have not yet looked to see if there are any actual legitimate, secondary sources that discuss vampires in King's works as a whole (as opposed to just on individual vampires like Kurt Barlow) in more than just terms of plot summary that would give the topic notability, but even if there are, the vast bulk of the current article needs to be removed and completely re-written. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete - After actually looking for sources, I haven't found enough on the topic that would support an article. There are plenty of sources on individual works of King's that feature vampires (largely Salem's Lot and American Vampire), but I have only found one actually decent source that discusses the concept of vampires in his work as a whole, that also features in-depth analysis that goes beyond plot summary, which is here. While it, alone, is a great source, its the only one I was able to find. Others, like this one, looked promising at first, as it seemed to have a whole essay on the subject, but then actually reading the essay itself revealed that its about vampires in fiction in general, barely mentions Stephen King's work, and when it does, only talks about Salem's Lot. So, in the end, there was only the one, good source, that talks about Stephen King's use of vampires as a whole, which is not enough. All the other sources are discussions about individual books or stories on their own, so combining them to support this article would just be WP:SYNTH. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:SYNTH, WP:OR fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 19:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: a SYNTHy topic based purely on original research. Drmies ( talk) 20:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as WP:OR. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) scope_creep ^Talk 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Antonio Roberts

Antonio Roberts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable. What sources are available are name drops. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Not independent or in-depth scope_creep ^Talk 17:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• The article is terrible, a resume stub, and more than half the sources need to be thrown out--primary, casual mentions, etc. But he's listed and gets a few sentences in that Oxford Handbook, and that should tip him over the edge. I'm going with weak keep. Drmies ( talk) 20:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Yes substantial pruning of sources is needed, but recent additions have established notability. The article just needs time and effort for improvements. keep Yaxu ( talk) 22:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, on the weak side, as above. The Oxford Handbook of Algorithmic Music has a solid paragraph. He's quoted bythe British Library blog here. The Times mentions him here but I cannot get past the paywall to see in what depth. Minor coverage in MixMag. There are a few others, which overall mean he's slightly notable. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Well spotted, well done. Withdrawn. scope_creep ^Talk 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) ---  Coffeeand crumbs 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

2019 Grays incident

2019 Grays incident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. No indication that this will have any lasting notability. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 17:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep Just one of the biggest murder investigations in the UK, and an incident revealing issues of port crossings from Europe to the UK a week before Brexit. Yeah, no notability whatsoever. Kingsif ( talk) 17:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep I am confused on why you are citing WP:RECENTISM as the very section says "Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. Also, editors updating an article affected by a current event may not necessarily be the same ones participating months (or even years) later in the clean-up and maintenance of the page. Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." As in this is meant to be used for articles that are slanted towards recent events later down the line. As for WP:NOTNEWS, a large death count has led to broad coverage. I would wait at least a week before revisiting deletion here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Snow keep - close this AfD due to being ridiculous. An organised, international gang killed 39 people together. This is similar to the 2000 Dover incident - both are very historically notable. Jim Michael ( talk) 17:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 23. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep This is a definite keep. There are organized crime implications that are probably international. 50.111.3.59 ( talk) 17:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep - too early to tell about lasting notability. all I know is that it is notable now per WP;GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 18:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Kashubian Americans

Kashubian Americans (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Bottom line is that this is a likely WP:FRINGE concept (ethnic group) that fails WP:GNG. This group has been discussed by amateur scholar Władysław Szulist (who has no pl wikipedia article, and is likely not notable). As far as I can tell (and I search for Polish term for this group too), nobody else has discussed this ethnic group, and the terms are not even used in passing and his work is virtually uncited. The publications are also very obscure: one book published by local museum, and one article is obscure Polish language minor academic journal. As such, this seems like a fringe theory - there is no academic consensus that this group exists (the few other sources used in the article are even worse, like someone's family's homepage). At best this may deserve a sentence or two in Kaszubians#Diaspora, so a soft delete and merge might be an option, through I am still unsure if Szulist work is reliable enough to be cited (it's rather borderline). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete we do not need articles advancing fringe theories on ethnicity. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The term is used in passing in Chicago Churches and Synagogues: An Architectural Pilgrimage,George Lane, Loyola University Press, 1981; A Kashubian idiolect in the United States by Jan Louis Perkowski, Indiana University Press, 1969; Polish Genealogical Society of Wisconsin, 1995, page 5; and The Prayer of St. Hyacinth Parish, Detroit, Michigan ; Michael A. Krʹolewski, St. Hyacinth Parish, 1984. Ethnicities are generally notable. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep If Kashubians is deemed to be an encyclopedic topic, then this should logically be kept as an appropriate WP:SPINOFF. StonyBrook ( talk) 06:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Deleted per G5. Drmies ( talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Ashish-Pawan Ishwar

Ashish-Pawan Ishwar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Blatantly promotional. Declined G11 (for some reason) and moved to draft, then moved back by a sock with no improvement. DePRODed by an anonymous account that added promotional sources only covering the topic in a passing matter. Etzedek24 ^{( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record)} 16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• The G11 was declined and the article moved back to draft space--that's a good enough reason. But G5 applies here, given the history. Drmies ( talk) 20:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Sathyananda Saraswathi

Sathyananda Saraswathi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG ^converse 12:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 12:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 12:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 12:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 12:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - very limited coverage; even if a movement were notable - which I'm not conceding - its "chairman" isn't necessarily so. Bearian ( talk) 21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Johnny Ferreira

Johnny Ferreira (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Low fan count on Youtube. It has a combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism, including the sale of music on WP. scope_creep ^Talk 12:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC) scope_creep ^Talk 12:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - he's not really notable except for working with other bands. Can this be merged or redirected? Bearian ( talk) 21:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Bearian, could do. I see it has been open for ages. I usually trust your judgement but I'm not doing the work for merge and I don't think there is anybody available, hence the lack of discussion. I propose a redirect. It would seem to be the sensible approach. scope_creep ^Talk 21:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. There really isn't an obvious redirect because he has mainly worked as a session musician with a variety of groups. Redirecting to anyone is not really helpful. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. No previous deletion attempts and no objections (or other commentary) after two weeks. RL0919 ( talk) 17:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Sri Sathya Sai International Centre for Sports

Sri Sathya Sai International Centre for Sports (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT. ∯WBG ^converse 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 13:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies ( talk) 20:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

UCrush

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

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

Defunct. One working reference, but doesnt appear very notable. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The website garnered only minor and fleeting attention. There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage to establish notability. Slideshow Bob ( talk) 18:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Sathya Sai School

Sathya Sai School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I am unable to land on a single piece of significant coverage in any reliable secondary source, covering this school.

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NCORP. ∯WBG ^converse 14:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 14:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 14:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - private school now closed, difficult to write a full article. Bearian ( talk) 21:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Sri Sathya Sai Vidyapeeth

Sri Sathya Sai Vidyapeeth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I am unable to land on a single piece of significant coverage in any reliable secondary source, covering this school.

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NCORP. ∯WBG ^converse 14:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 14:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 14:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. NACADEMIC explicitly suggests it is an alternative to GNG - however it still requires verifiable evidence. Several editors have commented, to varying degrees, that Ansari, might be notable under NACADEMIC but none have attempted to show this with verifiable evidence. As such the consensus of those editors suggesting Ansari is not notable holds. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Zoe Ansari

Zoe Ansari (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

This Article on Zoe Ansari, is an important addition to Wikipedia. I will highly appreciate if you give me some time to complete this article. This article should not be deleted. Kindly read the Progressive Writer's movement page. His name was already there but no page linking to it. He was a great writer and translator. It is because of him the south Asian community got a better introduction with Russian literature and Literary criticism. Thanks in anticipation. Khadem Hussain, India. ( talk) 14:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

We need some RS saying all this, I found none. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I didn't understand. Kindly elaborate. What's RS? Khadem Hussain, India. ( talk) 14:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

reliable sources, please read wp:rs. Also wp:n should be read. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have found one source, an article in Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies, which compares Ansari's translation of Russian texts with another Urdu translation. There are some other English language sources which have some information about him or his work. I think there are likely to be more sources about him in Urdu, though. Some of the references in the Urdu Wikipedia article might be useful (though the first, although published in a reliable source, is an obituary/reflection on his death by someone who knew him well, and probably doesn't meet WP:RS requirements). Perhaps there are other obituaries, however, and certainly there are more sources than are currently in the article. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 17:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete no notability; poor sources. Strandvue ( talk) 00:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Do not Delete. The article definitely needs rigorous work, but it does not deserve to be deleted. I am trying to find out details of his PhD as well. I have just added a line about his contribution to the study of an Indian-Persian Poet. Zoe Ansari is a figure, who is overlooked despite his encyclopaedic contributions. Instead of a discussion on deletion, there should a discussion on improving this article. Thanks to all you senior editors. Khademhussain ( talk) 15:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

You say it yourself, he has been overlooked, we have articles on people who have not been overlooked. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Wow, that shouldn't be the spirit. Genuine scholars should be remembered. Here is a link to the british library's entry of his Urdu-Russian Dictionary, which he edited. http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=moreTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=BLL01001986729&indx=8&recIds=BLL01001986729&recIdxs=7&elementId=7&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&frbg=&&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope%3A%28BLCONTENT%29&vl(2084770704UI0)=any&tb=t&vid=BLVU1&mode=Basic&srt=rank&tab=local_tab&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=Zoe%20Ansari&dstmp=1572286009351. Khademhussain ( talk) 18:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I am not sure what you think this proves. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

What I mean is. Simply producing a small biographical account on here, wouldn't hurt. It will be beneficial to those who are researches and students of both Urdu and Russian literature or comparative literature or world literature. Plus, his urdu page already exists, so I see no reason, to delete this, small account. (to be improved of course) Khademhussain ( talk) 18:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Its called policy, to be precise wp:n. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

What is your opinion on this /info/en/?search=Raaz_Lyallpuri Khademhussain ( talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I understand that, I read wp:rs. I have since then updated the article and added various RS. The link I sent above is of an urdu poet who's page is on Wikipedia and he has no notability. That page should be deleted. Khademhussain ( talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Maybe, but that is irrelevant here. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Definitely, agreed. What do you think of the Zoe Ansari added references now? Khademhussain ( talk) 19:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

In reverse order

A WIND OF CHANGE, cannot check.

"The Debate on Amir Khusrau's "Inventions" in Hindustani Music", Journal of the Indian Musicological Society cannot check.

Music and Society in North India: From the Mughals to the Mutiny. cannot check

But as they are not about him, and you give the full article page numbers (and in one case the fist page does not mention him) I cannot help but wonder of these are all just passing mentions.

http://nyazamana.com is a review, so might be OK, but I see no byline by anyone whose view might be notable, and may be a comments page.

Youtube is not an RS.

Can you link to two in depth RS about him here on the AFD? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment I am finding a lot of academic peer reviewed journal articles, doctoral theses, and academic books that cite Zoe Ansari. I am not finding any sources about Zoe Ansari. The number of publications citing the author though make me wonder if he might pass WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep I just did a cursory search through Google Books. This writer is mentioned many times in scholarly texts related to the literature and politics of South Asia. This article definitely needs to be re-worked, preferably by an expert on the subject. Lovelylinda1980 ( talk) 22:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: here's a source assess table:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/waraq-waraq-z-ansari-ebooks	WP:SPS			✘ No
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/chekhaf-zoe-ansari-ebooks	WP:SPS			✘ No
https://pakistaniat.com/2007/11/29/the-cyber-rebirth-of-pak-tea-house/	WP:AGF, no apparent affiliation	It says "this list was taken from Wikipedia"	Passing mention in a list	✘ No
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/communist-aur-mazhab-z-ansari-ebooks	WP:SPS			✘ No
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/abul-kalam-azad-ka-zehni-safar-z-ansari-ebooks	WP:SPS			✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/No-time-for-Trotsky/articleshow/15098451.cms			Passing mention in a list	✘ No
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ALA8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT353&dq=dr+zoe+ansari&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqsNLoqL_lAhVirHEKHcL_CZYQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=dr%20zoe%20ansari&f=false	?	?	Passing mention in a list	✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/books/chasing-khusro/article3672990.ece		?	Sharma is the main point of coverage, a short paragraph details his interaction with Ansari.	✘ No
https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/khusrau-ka-zehni-safar-zoe-ansari-ebooks	WP:SPS			✘ No
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/urdumedia/biblio.html	?	?	Bibliography entry	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imaYYMK03Bk	Recording of subject's speech with no context as to where or the occasion	?	It's his speech, so yes	✘ No
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4419584			Single entry on bibliography page is not significant coverage	✘ No
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Li4uAAAAMAAJ&q=dr+zoe+ansari&dq=dr+zoe+ansari&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqsNLoqL_lAhVirHEKHcL_CZYQ6AEIMzAB			Single short quote, mentioned once, does not constitute significant coverage	✘ No
Error: a source must be specified				? Unknown
http://nyazamana.com/2016/01/book-review-liaqat-ali-2/	WP:AGF, no apparent affiliation.	Appears to be a blog post, not a major reviewed publication.	Appears to review one of his books.	✘ No
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23329101			? Single paragraph on eleventh page.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

I'll fill in sources 12 to 16 in a bit, more research is needed. But so far the subject doesn't meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. SITH (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Edit: all of the sources I can access have been put in the table. Still not seeing the significant coverage required to be considered notable. SITH (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Blatant Disarray (EP)

Blatant Disarray (EP) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, having no sources at all, and no reliable sources found online, just the usual non-RS sites for metal bands such as Spirit of Metal and Metal Archives. All the articles related to the band were recently created by a SPA and have borderline notability, but this fails outright without any sources. Redirect not really an option as the EP name is the same as the band. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete due to a lack of coverage in third-party, reliable sources. I agree that a redirect would probably be quite silly as a person who starts to enter the title into the search bar would easily be able to find the article on the band before they type out the (EP) part. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete This article clearly fails the notability test for albums but also general notability. There just isn't anything here to make an encyclopedia article out of. Lovelylinda1980 ( talk) 22:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

QuizFace

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

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

Can't find any independent coverage - all from Capital ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Trivial. No independent sources. Lard Almighty ( talk) 15:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that content is purely in-universe without showing notability, as well as being an unneeded content fork from the individual/series articles. Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable collection of in-universe WP:PLOT only details. The details about one planet being in the top ten of naming a celestial body are completely trivial. There is a main series article and five novel articles, so there should be no issue describing the necessary context of the relevant locations in each individual page. TTN ( talk) 13:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Before looking at the state of the article I was thinking that maybe one or two of these had potential, but not after looking at it. I don't see anything that can be rescued to the series pages' that isn't already covered there in the narrative. -- Masem ( t) 14:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom and multiple WP:INUNIVERSE violations. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom and per WP:TNT. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 19:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: No one will take up the challenge to repair this should it be deleted. The legacy of this deletion will be a swarm of redlinks. Serendi ^pod ous 11:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• It would need a full rewrite regardless to comply with Wikipedia standards. But surely fine details about the planets of a fictional work are not super necessary to understand that work. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 12:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Foundation universe planets

List of Foundation universe planets (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

List of in-universe WP:PLOT only details with no sources to establish notability. There's some 40+ novels in these series, along with three individual series pages. That is plenty to summarize the proper context of the main locations of each setting and the relevant locations of each individual novel. TTN ( talk) 13:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete- I actually quite like the Foundation series, but this is vast, sprawling, unsourced fancruft that belongs on a Wikia. Reyk _YO! 18:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom and Reyk. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 19:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Enough with the fictional planets lists already! Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the article for the series. Some of the information might be merged over there if not already. Dream Focus 15:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Draftify. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Aaron Drinan

Aaron Drinan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has never played in a fully-professional league and doesn't look like doing so any time soon). Article should be deleted; can be restored if/when he is notable. Giant Snowman 12:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Drinan is on a professional contract in a professional league in Sweden at the moment. He's on loan from Ipswich Town where he's also on a professional contract and has been on other pro contracts at Waterford and Cork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersaints2014 ( talk • contribs)

@ Supersaints2014: - that is not sufficient. He has not played in a WP:FPL. Giant Snowman 12:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Drafity He might be in a professional team which doesn't mean automatically make it as a Wikipedia page. Looking through the references, I see that most of them are basically the norm with transfers and match reports so you can't really deemed to be notable there. For me I would say to move it to draft as the Superettan season is finishing up and we will see what Ipswich Town do with this player. HawkAussie ( talk) 23:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Clarification Requested: This person seems to have appeared in games for teams in the League of Ireland and in Superettan. This would seem to qualify under NFOOTBALL, assuming those leagues count as "fully professional". Are these leagues not "fully professional"? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: @ Eggishorn: WP:FPL states that the Superettan and the League of Ireland is not a professional league which would have the player fail due to that. But because they are contracted to Ipswich Town which is in the English Championship that is why I voted for drafity. HawkAussie ( talk) 02:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

In that case, I agree that Draftify is the correct action. Thank you, @ HawkAussie:, for the information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Midnight Sonder

Midnight Sonder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Little-known film with no remarkable actors. Questionable sources also found within article, not sure if the award is good enough to prove notability? Suspected originally created by film creator as a way of self-promotion. Night fury 10:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Night fury 10:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Night fury 10:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I wish the folks behind this film the best of luck, but there's just not sufficient coverage for notability (as Wikipedia defines it). Neither of the film festival awards are sufficient to confer notability. They are both small, recently established festivals (2 years each), with little external attention. CIFF in particular openly advertises the large number of award categories as a draw for filmmakers to enter films into competition there (because that makes a larger percentage of the field into winners, of course), and the award at Fameus is effectively a third place award. These do not satisfy NFILM #3. And beyond the minor festivals, the closest thing to a reliable source is this snippet of an article, which is really just a vehicle for the trailer. I can't find any full reviews in the industry media, just a scant handful of user-submitted opinions that don't meet project standards. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 21:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

ConveyIQ

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

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

Non-notable company, lacks significant in-depth source from WP:RS, clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya ( talk) 06:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I see a lot of press releases and routine industry coverage, but not much of the sort needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

TheLadders.com

TheLadders.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya ( talk) 06:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Meeanaya what is your WP:BEFORE assessment of the discussion and the sources identified in the previous AfD which led to its Keep conclusion? AllyD ( talk) 17:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• I don't see why this AfD should succeed where the last one failed. The sourcing is decent enough. Keep. Drmies ( talk) 20:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep I found new WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources at Slate and HuffPost and significant recent news about it from May 2019 at TechCrunch. Passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. - Lopifalko ( talk) 05:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Edward Rubin (attorney)

Edward Rubin (attorney) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

article has been tagged with "may not meet notability guideline" since 2012. So let's have the discussion - what makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Quakewoody ( talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Quakewoody ( talk) 15:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. lullabying ( talk) 17:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. WP:BEFORE gave me obits in LA Times (in-depth, major news outlet of global-level city), a San Francisco Chronicle reprint of LA Times obit (though with some info cut) and same state), and Sun Sentinel (shorter, but quite far from where the person was prominent in), but that's about it. ミラ P 18:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - easily passes my standards for notable lawyers: lauded in a reliable source as a "having a reputation" in his field, trustee of major charities, "service on a major bar association committee or section", etc. I found this list that mentions his bar presidency. Bearian ( talk) 19:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep a bit more work is needed it references-- Dreerwin ( talk) 03:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Obituaries do count as RS when they are journalist written and unpaid for, which is the case here. The substantial obit in the Los Angeles Times is compelling, and the fact that other newspapers chose to print the obit or write their own on a national scale is further evidence that this is a notable person. This is enough coverage to just barely meet WP:GNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Nivedita Menon. This is, as Madness points out, a difficult nomination to close. XfD, though seeking a generation of consensus, is not a vote, and assertions of notability that fall short of the requirement of in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources, or assertions that notability will be discovered in the future can not be weighed in favor of a subject. With respect to WBG's concern that BLPs should not point to other BLPs, that is a valid concern, but the subject in this case is already mentioned in the proposed target article, and asserted familial relationship between the BLPs does not appear to be in controversy. Even if there were no discussion here, the proposed target article would be the natural redirect target for the term. Of course, this close is without prejudice to the article being restored should sufficient sources be found. bd2412 T 20:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Pramada Menon

Pramada Menon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO ∯WBG ^converse 11:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 11:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 11:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 11:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep I added a little more information about her activism and her artistic work (film and standup). She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  GNG necessitates multiple instances of significant coverage. She gets a host of trivial mentions (mainly as general acknowledgments of help in scholarly publications) but barring an interview over a city-supplementary of the Hindu ( which FWIW, are almost always paid-for), am not seeing remotely anything like that. FWIW, Plainspeak ain't a RS. You are requested to provide the specific sources that lends to GNG and quote the exact passages. ∯WBG ^converse 06:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  LiveMint is an RS. The Hindu is an RS (and unless you can definitively show this one was paid, then don't say it was.) Why do you feel that Plainspeak not an RS? It's a digital magazine with submission guidelines, etc. It's not a blog. All of her "mentions" in scholarly publications are pretty significant indicating a person that's respected in her field. All put together add up to GNG. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 23:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  You can't ever definitely prove that something was paid (follow the link, in case you thought that it was just me!) but interviews/coverage in metro supplements are almost-always paid (and they don't really carry colorful banners proclaiming they are paid).

  Pray provide some of those significant mentions in scholarly sources. (Quote the paragraphs, please.)

  As DLinker says below, Plainspeak is not a RS. A website of a NGO, masquerading as a scholarly magazine and an interview over there contributes nothing to notability.

  The Mint (merely) has a review of their work. ∯WBG ^converse 13:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Preferably Merge to Nivedita Menon and mention there in the family section. The problem here is largely because the few articles in (reliable) Indian media are all interviews. Not that I have anything against interviews, but I think we should not use them for notability since it is not really a third person's view. Some of the other sources like Plainspeak are not really reliable sources, it is actually the website of an NGO. I have known about Pramada Menon's work since a while and she has done some good work; unfortunately most of it is behind the scenes which is perhaps not flashy or sensational enough to be covered in media. There is a good chance though that in the coming years there could be coverage about their work. Perhaps a good solution right now would be to merge some of the information into the article of Nivedita Menon under the family section and not outright delete the article. I cannot support an outright keep here, so a merge would be best-- DreamLinker ( talk) 08:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Agree on all aspects. But, am very skeptical about redirecting BLPs to other BLPs ... ∯WBG ^converse 13:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep per the work done by Megalibrarygirl, which seems to point a bit more towards notability. DreamLinker's points, too, are solid, making this a close and difficult decision. Madness ^Darkness 23:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep It may not fulfill the notability issues for now, but it can improved in the coming days. It can be further expanded and the article is available in other languages as well. Despite the issues, I would still prefer to keep this. Abishe ( talk) 14:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  You might take a look at WP:AADD. Thanks for saying It may not fulfill the notability issues for now; once she fulfills, we can recreate her article for we are not a crystal-ball. ∯WBG ^converse 15:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that individual isn't notable, including a !vote after the addition of more info Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Pretty Vee

Pretty Vee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is a American rapper. A WP:BEFORE found only sources from Pinterest, Soundcrowd, Spotify, social media and noting about her on indepedent, reliable sources to indicate she passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 10:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 10:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 02:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable rapper. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Just added more info, plus more to come. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caterpillar84 ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Vaselineeeeeeee ^★★★ 18:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Lakewood Football

Lakewood Football (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable article of high school sports team.

Last AFD closed as withdrawn and WP:G12 tagged, but the creator is going through OTRS to donate the material, so bringing it back here. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete There are a large number of issues with this article, including WP:PROMO, and with WP:YOUNGATH I don't think we typically include articles about youth school sports clubs. SportingFlyer T· C 10:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep My article merely discusses the history of a football team and its accomplishments. I don't understand how this may be considered advertising or promoting. As for notoriety, there are several references listed to prove the validity of my article. A comment was made about generally not hosting material about "youth sports." My article focuses on the sport of football, regardless of its level of competition. Please reconsider instating my article. Another interesting fact, it is my understanding that this website is in need of art or graphic designs. I can contribute a vast amount of this work through my article, if given the opportunity. Is history not one of the top subjects on this site? That is all I wanted to share in this community. BigRed66 ( talk) 16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Create a fan website page for it on your own or ask the school if you can contribute to their website. tedder ( talk) 09:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete We don't even have an article for the dominant Oak Hill Academy basketball or Mater Dei football programs; just another high school football team. The non-PR copy and donated pictures should go into Lakewood High School (California). Nate • ( chatter) 23:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete, *Redirect to Lakewood High School (California), where and instead place a brief paragraph covering the team at the Lakewood High School (California) page to adequately cover the team in the main school article. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 23:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Not optimum at all; there are nine other Lakewood High Schools in the United States, and we aren't going to redirect to one while cutting those other nine out. Nate • ( chatter) 20:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Good point. With such a common school name, I guess there's no logical redirect target. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 06:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Perhaps a few sentences can be merged into the main article. I'm not confident a redirect is even necessary. tedder ( talk) 09:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Promotional piece, not notable separate from Lakewood High School. Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 10:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not notable sports team. WP:PROMO also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete clearly non-notable team. The sentence "The purpose of this newest web site is to bring to the forefront the proud tradition and history of Lancer football" also suggests a lack of understanding of the concept/purpose of Wikipedia -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment "Notability" here is defined as accomplishment recognition, and clearly there are notable professional alumni listed in the article. This is far from a promotional piece. It merely focuses on the history and achievements of a football team. If it's a simple phrase about a proud tradition, it can be removed. BigRed66 ( talk) 02:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately, almost the entire article is full of weasel words and promotional language, it would need a full rewrite to conform to Wikipedia's writing standards. The fact that notable professional athletes played for this team when they were children is not enough to merit inclusion on this website (per WP:NTEAM). Eagles  24/7  (C) 02:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Eagles247: Would you mind directing me to an example of what is an acceptable sports team article? Almost all of the current football articles hosted here mention an enormous amount of history, which is what I'm trying to do with my piece. BigRed66 ( talk) 02:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

The history isn't the problem, it's the notability of the actual subject being described as well as the language used in general. Maryland Terrapins football, 1892–1946 is recognized as a good article on Wikipedia if you are looking for an example of encyclopedic writing practices. I've also added some templates in this article to highlight sentences that use weasel words. Eagles  24/7  (C) 02:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Eagles247: I noticed the highlights. Thanks for pointing them out. I'll have a look at Maryland's page for more insite. BigRed66 ( talk) 03:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Just to make clear, simply re-writing the article (and, as commented above, it would require a near-total re-write if kept) will not in and of itself resolve the major problem, which is the notability of the subject. WP's notability guidelines specifically state the following: "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond routine coverage." So you would need to be able to demonstrate that the team has received extensive coverage in independent news media, books, etc, which goes beyond simply noting the team's results. If such coverage doesn't exist then I don't think there's any chance of the article being kept -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 19:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:YOUNGATH. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ ChrisTheDude: You mentioned media coverage. I've listed several references to validate that point. Can you clarify what you mean by "routine coverage?" The updated article mentions extensive coverage of the team's coach, which is independent of the subject I would say. BigRed66 ( talk) 21:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

To which reference(s) do you refer? I can't see any references currently in the article which contain "extensive coverage of the team's coach". And to answer your question, routine coverage in the context of sport essentially mentions reporting on games. So if a newspaper runs a short report on each of the team's games the following morning, that's routine coverage. So there needs to be evidence of coverage more in-depth than that -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 22:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment@ BigRed66: You have clearly spent lots of time researching and writing about the Lakewood football team, and your passion for your subject is obvious. I respect your sportscaster perspective, with the history laid out almost like a play-by-play report. For Wikipedia writing, however, it fails on several important counts: first, and most importantly, the subject matter fails at the elemental level because we do not publish articles about young athletes unless their coverage in reliable sources is beyond routine. Think sources like Sports Illustrated,Sporting News. ESPN Magazine, and not just mentions on a list, but significant coverage. When was the last time any of those publications covered a high school team? They might cover an outstanding individual high schooler, such as LeBron James, or other prep-to-pro player, but high school teams very rarely will make the cut. Secondly, the article lacks an encyclopedic tone, because it reflects your passion for your team, written almost like the second broadcaster in the booth who provides interesting commentary on the action. By contrast, the tone of the encyclopedia is more subdued, less flashy, less hyperbolic. Think dull as dirt, without any promotional verbiage whatsoever. If you want to contribute to Lakewood High School (California), consider adding an "External link" to your website at the bottom of that article. As writers and editors, we appreciate your effort, but in this instance you have just missed the mark entirely. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 00:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, and do not redirect. The creator of this clearly worked very hard on this and should look to finding a host, but we are specifically not a website host. Oh, and Grand'mere Eugene, we specially discourage adding links to pages like this in school article guidelines. Sorry. An encyclopedia article is built of information paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. There are only a couple articles on high school football programs in the US. These cover schools that have programs 125 + years old that have been the subject of multiple full length books. John from Idegon ( talk) 20:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails notability. No Great Shaker ( talk) 07:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Al-Anwar Club. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Al-Anwar Club Stadium

Al-Anwar Club Stadium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Willbb234 ^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 10:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• redirect to Al-Anwar Club - no independent notability. Giant Snowman 10:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Al-Anwar Club, I don't know if a redirect is necessary, seems rather generic in name. Govvy ( talk) 10:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep it's too early to delete it . I already add source and i will adding more media just waiting to visit the place. Slayym ( talk) 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as per GiantSnowman because it can then be easily retrieved if Slayym provides the additional data. No Great Shaker ( talk) 07:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 11:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Chitrak Shah

Chitrak Shah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced BLP. Fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, and BLP. Also, may be a WP:COATRACK to publicize negative information. I removed poorly sourced negative BLP material - see diff here - [1] Steve Quinn ( talk) 09:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG. -- RaviC ( talk) 18:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Nom withdrawn. Tagged as G12 copyvio. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Lakewood Football

Lakewood Football (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable page for a high school American football team. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Catalina Maya

Catalina Maya (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is questionable, most of the appearance are special guests, lacks significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya ( talk) 06:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya ( talk) 06:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I never know what to do about articles on Colombian radio and TV "personalities"... most of them are similar to this one, in that you can find sources for the university studies and internship mentioned in the lead [2] her two husbands and children, and living and working in Miami [3], [4] or her entry into the world of YouTubers [5]. All the sources in the article are reliable ones, mostly well-established national newspapers. Ms. Maya is certainly a well known personality in Colombia, but I understand the nominator's concerns that despite the sources the article just adds up to a lot of fluff – sadly, this is exactly the depth of reporting you will get in Colombia for most people involved in the entertainment business, and there are dozens of articles on Colombian TV presenters and soap opera stars which will never be any better than this one, because it's all on the level of Hello! magazine. But there's no question that the sources in the article and mentioned above are reliable ones. Richard3120 ( talk) 12:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep as there is significant reliable sources coverage directly about her as detailed above. While she does not pass WP:NACTOR she found fame as a model and that is where the main claims of significance are, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Atlantic306. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. While there is a lack of clarity as to the existence of the film, there is clear consensus that it lacks notability Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Radical (film)

Radical (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no sources beyond IMDb and no proof that the film was ever released. SL93 ( talk) 06:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply