Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 September	9 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Perevozchikov

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Though he signed for Ak Bars Kazan in 2012, he never played a game for them and thus he never played in the KHL, thus fails #1. Russia's second-tier league, the VHL, and its junior league, the MHL. doesn't qualify for notability, or in the very least it is not listed in the criteria, so his MHL All-Star game honour is not enough to establish notability. Tay87 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If/When he actually plays in the KHL, or otherwise passes notability guidelines, it can be re-created. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Miran Al Naqvi

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

Notability concerns. The only claim of notability is descending from Muhammad, and the references are self-published or to "old archived Manuscript". power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough to satisfy WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely delete as there are no references that meet WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would invite readers to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how many people who lived a millennium after Muhammad were descended from him. Even on the most conservative estimates it would be millions, so that won't do as a claim of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence why the subject is notable. Does not appear that he has done anything worthwhile. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, I agree with keen observation of Phil Bridger on the number of his descendants after a millennium. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE no evidence that dude is notable.Strandvue (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article he made is made on lies and fake propaganda (not notable as well) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MemonBhai (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Every person with the honorific sayyid (or other transliterations) is descended from Mohammed and among Muslims that is not so uncommon as to be noteworthy. Obviously NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toni D'Alto

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

Delete Other than being related to famous people, it does not appear that this individual is notable for any other reason - particularly acting. According to her IMDB, her only credit is in a 1996 TV movie: [1] KidAd (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. A half-sister of a very famous person could be included in a a"family" article, but this is a stretch. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one minor film role does not constitute notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gardners Candies

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

`somewhat promotional article on minor firm--the refs are pr or local, and the evidence for the claim of first not sufficiently reliable for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything here beyond passing mentions and rewritten press releases, fails WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The only thing that's clear here is that people disagree on whether this meets WP:NPOL, or if it even applies to this position, or if the LCfWiGaB Hall of Fame is a "significant award or honor". -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Bryan Moore

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

Technically a state-level elected official, but a quite minor one, and not really covered by our practices with respect to DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Register of State Lands" is a bureaucratic role, not an WP:NPOL-passing legislative office, so the notability test she would have to pass would require much more evidence of reliable source coverage than this. Three of the five footnotes are primary sources, not reliable or notability-making media coverage, and the two which are media (but are incompletely cited for the purposes of being able to locate them for proper verification, as they both lack the titles of the articles) appear, based on what they're actually being used to footnote, to just be routine verification of raw election results rather than coverage about Moore. This is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes this article had been deleted at PCP because it was created by the serial copyvioer User:Billy Hathorn (who also made dozens if not hundreds of nn articles, many of which I've sent to AFD). But he did make hundreds of legit notable articles, even if they must be deleted at PCP, and this one is it. And as for the "bureaucratic role" part, that is not true. While "Register of State Lands" is currently bureaucratic, it was still an elected office when the subject held it. Of course, if anyone has more adequate access to reliable sourcing to prove the fact that she held an elected office that was an elected office when she held it but is no longer an elected office (given that she held the elected office during a time where the internet did not exist), I would be glad. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the office happened to be elected is not an exemption from having to consider the nature of what the job entailed — the job duties were administrative, not legislative, in nature, so it's not an office that consitutes an automatic free pass over NPOL just because there was an election involved. There are lots of elected offices that we don't just uncritically accept as "inherent" notability freebies just because they were technically elected offices (e.g. city and county councils), and lots of offices that we do accept as notable even though people are appointed and not elected to them (e.g. the Canadian Senate and the British House of Lords) — we take into account the nature and scope of the work a person does in the role and the amount of coverage they get for it, not just the trivial details of how they got the job. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[W]e take into account the nature and scope of the work a person does in the role and the amount of coverage they get for it: Based on the vast majority of coverage found in a WP:BEFORE in some of the parish libraries hosted by Advantage Preservation, it seems the scope of Land Registrar involves the approval of financial exchange of land and having the associated notices posted on newspapers across the state of Louisiana. Hundreds (if not thousands) of these notices seem to have been published while she held the office. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point: she has to be the subject of media coverage, not the creator of newspaper advertisements, to clear our notability standards. What you're describing is administrative, not political, work. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and arguably WP:NPOL as well, the sourcing of this article is primary, hyper-local, or both, and is nowhere near enough to push her over the notability line. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ANYBIO#1 The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.Lightburst (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They thought she notable enough to be placed in the Louisiana Center for Women in Government and Business Hall of Fame decades after she was in office. Dream Focus 12:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a statewide elected official, which passes WP:NPOL ("Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office"). The presumption of NPOL is that coverage exists and that there is sufficient coverage to write a substantive article about the subject (even if it is not currently in the article, is primarily local, or not online). --Enos733 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL #1 is talking about governors and cabinet officials and legislators, not purely administrative jobs. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can read into anything in the language of NPOL that it only means governors and other specified positions. The guidance at WP:POLOUTCOMES does not specify that either. I also am not sure how "administrative" the position was when the subject was in office. --Enos733 (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Trying to do some archive and news searches but I can't find much coverage of her or her campaigns. While statewide elected positions often pass NPOL, Louisiana had 11 at that time and no state even has that many now and this is not a coverage-receiving role. Though, I laugh at the idea that a local hall of fame for a specialized topic is a "well-known and significant award"; most inductees to that are not notable and she does NOT pass Anybio1. Reywas92^Talk 19:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Statewide hall of fame for women broadly construed (and also the occasional men who help women), actually, and Section 1 of Article V of the 1921 Constitution of the State of Louisiana listed only eight members of the executive department (including Register of the Land Office). FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I couldn't care less if it's statewide rather than local, you're absolutely nuts if you think this is "well-known and significant" even within Louisiana; it's a nice way to honor people but certainly neither of those for our purposes. "Members of the executive department" is not the same list as elected officials, which Political party strength in Louisiana has as eleven until 1974. I don't think this is a notable position (don't even have an article for those below AG, or most of the officeholders) but that's fine if it's kept, still being statewide. Reywas92^Talk 03:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the keep !voters have discussed things based on WP:SNG-based guidelines, but the sourcing of the article is absolutely terrible. We have her tombstone, an archived biography of her from the state of Louisiana, an oral history/interview, two alleged newspaper articles from a town of 10,000 people, and a website showing she got an award which just lists her name without any biographical information there at all. The only two sources here which potentially pass WP:GNG are sourced as routine election coverage. This article badly fails WP:GNG, and we should not be looking to keep it on a technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 06:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". You don't have to meet the GNG if you meet any of the subject-specific guidelines. Dream Focus 13:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once a subject clears GNG or a SNG, the current state of the sourcing or content of the article does not change whether the subject is notable or not (see WP:NEXIST) and there is not a prohibition on using interviews or other primary sources (or information which is off-line) WP:PSTS. --Enos733 (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there's a bit wrong here: the SNGs are designed to make it clear what will meet WP:GNG. They create presumptions something will pass WP:GNG. If a subject meets a WP:SNG (which it doesn't here either, but that's beside my point) but is shown to definitively fail WP:GNG, we can't keep it. And I'm not concerned there's an interview in the article, but you can't use an interview to show notability. If I gave 20 interviews about my own life, I wouldn't become Wikipedia-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer is correct; people are not exempted from having to have any reliable source coverage just because the page asserts that they pass an SNG. For one thing, sometimes people make false claims to passing SNGs that they don't really pass: we have seen articles created about writers and musicians making award-based or sales-based notability claims that were actually PR lies (charting hits or bestselling books that weren't; whitewashing the major distinction between "submitted to the award committee for consideration" and "actually shortlisted by the award committee as a nominee" so that they can claim to have award nominations; etc.), and we have seen hoax articles created about political officeholders who never actually existed at all. And for another, even if the notability claim is the truth, we still have to be able to properly verify everything else the article says about the person too. So appearing to have attained technical passage of an SNG does not exempt a person from having to have any reliable source media coverage for the purposes of fulfilling GNG; the SNGs serve to clarify what counts as a notability claim if the article is supported by reliable sources, and does not exempt a person from having to have any media coverage just because of what the article says. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I solidly disagree. First, there is no question in this case that the subject served as Register of State Lands, an elected, state-wide position in the State of Louisiana. We have verifiable, independent sourcing for this statement (including from the State of Louisiana itself). The other claims in the article do not need (although it is nice) to be secondary sources. Primary sources can be used for descriptive claims WP:PRIMARY and all the claims in the article are found in the sources provided. --Enos733 (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

And what we don't have is reliable or independent sourcing to verify that "Register of State Lands" is a noteworthy or significant role in the first place. We're able to verify lots of things about lots of people that don't translate into exemptions from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage; as I've often had to point out in AFD discussions, even an actual president of an entire country would not qualify for an article if he somehow managed to hold the role without having any reliable source coverage in media, such that we had to rely entirely on his own self-published content about himself to have any sources at all. It's not the fact of having a job that gets a person into Wikipedia; it's the volume and depth and range of reliable source coverage in media that they received for having that job. Even "inherently" notable political roles (which Register of State Lands is not) still require media coverage — the "inherence", in fact, is precisely because of the depth and range of media coverage that exists, and is never an exemption from actually having to have any media coverage at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of academics, SNGs not overriding GNG is solidly established policy. See: [[2]] SportingFlyer T·C 02:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's only for the sports guideline. The WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, meet one or the other not both. Dream Focus 03:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's all guidelines. There is never any such thing as any SNG that confers an exemption from having to have reliable source coverage just because the article says something that some people apparently seem to think sounds notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat on this point - all claims must be verified. However, my larger point is once a subject is presumed notable (by passing a SNG through verification of the claim to notability), it is acceptable to turn to a variety of sourcing (including primary sources) to "support the content in the article" WP:BASIC. Volume and depth of independent, RS material is nice, but not necessary. --Enos733 (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Interesting discussion but Ellen Bryan Moore is statewide elected official. Notability has been established. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just started looking for sources now. Her obituary (from Associated Press, published in The Times, Shreveport and other papers), has a lot more info about her, including her father's name and occupation and where she was born, her education, what she was responsible for as registrar of state lands (management of state property, management of state parks, collection of oil and gas revenues - and she worked to improve the Louisiana state park system, including the purchase and preservation of a Civil War battle site and lobbying the governor for guidelines on salvaging 400 year old Spanish ships that sank off the coast of Louisiana ([3]. An article in the same paper two years later called 'Women making strides in political arena' has a list of 8 women who had held statewide elected office in Louisiana, including Moore [4]. It certainly seems that she meets WP:NPOL, which does not exclude bureaucratic office. There is probably other coverage, but sifting the 4,432 results on Newspapers.com for "Ellen Bryan Moore" for articles about her rather than notices published by her will take some time. (Though I have found coverage which gives her husband's name and the fact that she had two daughters.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @RebeccaGreen: Thanks. I've already incorporated parts of the AP obituary, so you wouldn't mind doing that for the newspapers.com entries, wouldn't you? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pensacola State College. I find many of the keep arguments unconvincing. The fact that an article is still in the process of being written doesn't mean we need to keep it around if the underlying subject isn't found to be notable. There are some claims that there's sufficient sources to satisfy WP:N, but nobody actually listed which ones they are. I know nobody actually suggested a redirect, but it seems like a reasonable middle ground and a WP:ATD, given that the target already mentions the newspaper. The history will still be around, so if anybody wants to merge material, it's still there for them to do so (with proper attribution, of course). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Corsair (Pensacola State College newspaper)

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

no evidence of notability , and college newspapers are not ordinarily notable. DGG' ( talk ) 22:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, I apologize, it may be my oversight, but I don't see any reason for deletion listed on this AfD page, what is your concern? - Navarre0107 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

typo--I fixed it DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, I would note that many college newspapers are included on Wikipedia; therefore showing that college newspapers aren't, by nature, unnotable. In addition, from the citations and refs I've found so far, the paper is relatively independently notable for a student newspaper of its size. - Navarre0107 (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - Epinoia (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia:, I understand this rule; however, I was just commenting on the original statement that claimed that college and university newspapers aren’t “ordinarily notable,” not trying to make an independent claim that this is notable because others exist. Sorry, I certainly could have worded that more clearly, I sincerely apologize if I caused any confusion because of this :) - Navarre0107 (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, espically since this article is only just beginning to be made, much more information and more refs can be still be added in order to further show its notability, and the fact that, as of the writing of this comment, no straightforward reason for deletion has been written on this AfD, I see no reason to delete the entire article at this given time. (edit: please note that the latter point of this comment was written before the typo was fixed, meaning that point is now invalid; however, this should not affect the other two points, which should still be valid.) - Navarre0107 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Navarre0107 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

@DGG:, Thank you for adding your reasoning, I don't entirely agree, as noted by my above comments, though I very much appreciate the clarificaitons :) - Navarre0107 (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace, if the editor states that they are just beginning to create the article. – The Grid (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:STUDENTMEDIA says that student newspapers are to be judged by the same criteria as any other newspaper - no substantial references provided - does not meet WP:NNEWSPAPER which requires reliable sources that write significant commentary about the periodical - the only thing that could save the article is the criterion that the periodical has received a notable award; the article states that the paper and its staff have won awards, but are they "notable" awards? - Epinoia (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia:, per the article, they received two Online Pacemaker Awards from the Associated Collegiate Press, which, according to both that organization’s website and Wikipedia article, is among the highest awards a college or university newspaper in the U.S can receive. This is in addition to the good number of state awards they’ve recived that has gotten relatively good attention from the press. - Navarre0107 (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am persuaded by the above argument concerning the notability of the newspaper's awards. It seems there are a number of reliable sources, and that the page is quite substantial. It also is not unusual for a student newspaper to be notable, there is a decent sized category just for student newspapers in Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Student_newspapers_published_in_Florida Mharbert20 (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this college newspaper.Strandvue (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pensacola State College, per WP:ATD-M, WP: VNOTSUFF and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Even if technically crossing arbitrary notability thresholds, articles like this one rarely become more than defacto mirrors of official websites, loaded with disproportionate coverage of run-of-the-mill stories, fleeting trivia, and name-dropping bonanzas of non-notable writers and editors (trivial pablum like "As of the August 2019 issue, The Corsair has 11 staff writers, with additional members reportedly signing up for the fall of 2019 term" is of encyclopedic use to nobody). The paper can be succinctly and adequately summarized, including all notable awards, in a few paragraphs in the parent organization's article. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clearly not enough coverage here, also as pointed out WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Standorf

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

no apparent evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) What is the criteria for 'notability' and who considers items 'notable'?

2) One reason that someone may not have heard of this person is that this was 1991 and well before everything was digitized and put online

3) Another reason would also be that perhaps something that goes against the corporate media narrative doesn't encourage them to even cover it? When someone on Wikipedia says 'not notable', then aren't they really saying "I've not seen it in the mainstream corporate run media"?

4) The barebones of the article are there, it can be fleshed out laterApeholder (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Apeholder (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

@Apeholder:, Delete, the criteria for notability are covered by Wikipedia:Notability. From the current information provided, it doesn't appear to meet those guidelines. In addition, the article seems to have a sense of unproven conspiracy theory to it, your 3rd previous statement, while maybe not meant in this way or misinterpreted on my part, seems to give this sense as well. - Navarre0107 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Navarre0107: Keep, by your logic, then nothing outside of the narrow field of the mainstream media should never be on here. Nothing reported from Wikileaks, leaks before they hit CNN, etc. You do realise that sometimes big stories start out at smaller sources, sometimes for quite sometime before the mainstream media may decide to run it? Clearly if you've not heard of it, then it's invalid? StrangeApeholder (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Apeholder:, but, by both the article and your own notation, these events occurred in the last decade of the 20th century, nearing 20 years ago. If this had any notability to it, it would have already been placed within reports of some sort. Those reports don't have to be within mainstream media, but they have to be at least notable reports of scientific, cultural, or newsworthy value of some sort. Personally, as based upon my understanding of the rules of Wikipedia, this article does not apply to those standards. I encourage you to edit and rewrite the page in order to prove its notability; however, at the current time, I don't see it. - Navarre0107 (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per [5], [6].----Pontificalibus 15:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arguendo that this was a conspiracy, it's not a notable Conspiracy theory. There's been no ongoing coverage, no government reports, no leaks, nor public investigations. In a conspiracy-filled Washington, this is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage of death does not rise above routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Qazi Muzainul Haq

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

Fails WP:GNG ,WP:NAUTHOR now therre are thousands of Islamic scholars not clear how the subject is notable and lacks third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches mainly just turned up WP and WP-mirrors, nothing that would establish meeting general notability or any other standard of notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. subject has not been covered in detail in any reliable media. This Jagran link in Hindi [7] is an article about a village event and merely mentions the name of the subject without elaborating on him. The subject appears to me as a local Islamic priest of a village. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No info that supports notability. Barca (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete as not notable.Strandvue (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOREO

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

Advertisement --Bageense^(disc.) 18:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that the article is primarily advertisement. Rockphed (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, looking at the sources posted in the previous AfD, I am leery of their independence. Rockphed (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing rises above the level or passing mentions and rewritten (if at all) press releases. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pârâul Varului

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

This stream does not meet the WP:Notability guideline (significant coverage in reliable sources). The only mentions I found of Pârâul Varului (apart from Wikipedia and clones) were about a stream with the same name flowing into the Mureș. It is shown on a detailed hiking map as a short stream (about 1 km long) southwest of the village Valea Zălanului. Markussep ^Talk 17:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: the other stream Pârâul Varului I mentioned above flows into the Mureș near Izvorul Mureșului in Harghita County, and is probably not notable either. The stream described in this article flows into the Pârâul Bradului, which is a short tributary of the Tecșe, in Covasna County. Markussep ^Talk 10:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a simple stream lacking substantive sources with details beyond location it does not appear to pass WP:GEOLAND. Reywas92^Talk 18:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GEOLAND says a stream may be notable provided there is enough information beyond statistics and coordinates - the article does not even provide the basic statistics and coordinates, nothing to show that the stream itself is notable - it's a run of the mill stream WP:MILL - we need something to show that the stream is unique to distinguish it from millions of other streams - no references to establish notability, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - also Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make - Epinoia (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 13 Reasons Why. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Saif

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

An actress that has only one noble role, see 13 Reasons Why, does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. In addition, see WP:ONEEVENT. She has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. No large fan base or a significant "cult" following nor made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. This also falls in the WP:TOOSOON category. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. WP:TOOSOON -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received significant media coverage for her starring role in a popular TV series. KidAd (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the article (and citations) is about a single social media incident. Take that incident (which is pretty common these days) away, and there's not much left: "Young actress has done a little work." It's true we have many articles which have even less notability, but that's no reason to let this one off. ubiquity (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Ubiquity. And, while I am incapable of contesting that she starred in a major TV show, the guideline requires multiple major roles in multiple major productions. She has had 1 role. Regardless of how major it was, she cannot have multiple major roles in multiple major productions. Rockphed (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 13 Reasons Why where her name appears in the cast list - not notable enough for a stand alone article; does not meet WP:NACTOR - Epinoia (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 13 Reasons Why. WP:TOOSOON for her to meet WP:NACTOR, as that show was her first and so far only significant role, as far as I can tell. I don't believe that she meets WP:GNG yet either, from the coverage about her in that role - much of it is speculation, or based on her online profiles, and most of the discussion is about the character and her role in the series. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Gotō (actress)

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

No indication of notability. There was another AFD a decade ago, but I am not impressed with the Keep arguments, since none of them conform to the WP:ENT guidelines. So let's start up a new discussion, why don't we? Sk8erPrince (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the jawiki page, she was a candidate for Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, so I'm adding her to WP:DSPOL. And please, check the page for other info. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Japanese language article is much more extensive and seems to have both inline citations and external links. Has the nominator reviewed them? matt91486 (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody with better Japanese-language skills than I have can do better than this. While it's true that the Japanese article is longer, it isn't what I could call better-referenced: two of its three footnotes are unrecoverable dead links, one of those two was a primary source which was never actually support for notability at all, and the one reference that is still live is just a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article about somebody else, not coverage that's substantively about her. And per WP:WAX, the fact that an article happens to exist on another language Wikipedia is not in and of itself an inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to have reliable sources; on the basis of the sources present in it, I'd personally nominate the Japanese article for deletion if I had any ability to navigate the deletion process in a language I can read only through Google Translate. If somebody with better Japanese reading skills can actually find evidence of better sources, I'd be happy to reconsider this — but the sources here aren't cutting the mustard, and the sources in the Japanese article aren't any better. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. Ja.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprise @Bearcat: did not bring up that she does not meet WP:NPOL because she was only a losing candidate for Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one film appearance does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus that coverage of Morressey, in both his role as Mayor and State party chair, does not satisfy either general notability guideline or the political SNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morrissey (Arizona politician)

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

The mayor of Payson, AZ, a town of a little over 15,000. Does not meet WP:NPOL. My prod was removed by the article's creator, AcceptJesus2020. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Bearian since you endorsed my prod. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is not meant as a canvass, just to make sure that Bearian saw this to take another look. Also, when the prod was removed, the reason given was This guy was the state chairman of The Arizona Republican Party. This doesn't meet NPOL however. I'm pretty sure state party chairmanship does not constitute statewide office in the sense required. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any significant press coverage, so WP:NPOL is surely a slam dunk. Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party doesn't cut it for notability IMO, and there's nothing in the WP:NPOL guideline suggesting it does. Bishonen | talk 18:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep, agree the office doesn't meet WP:NPOL, but I think there is enough coverage for GNG. Lots of articles in the AZ Capitol Times, Phoenix New Times, Huff Post, Arizona Republic, NPR, Politico, Huff Post again. Much of the coverage came from the birther controversy which isn't even in the article. MB 19:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely doesn't meet WP:NPOL, however, he does appear to meet WP:GNG, as per the sources found by MB.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would have to say that, as the mayor of such a relatively small town, having not received significant news coverage, he doesn't meet WP:NPOL from that front. However, he may meet this standard, and at least meets the general standards for notability, due to his position as the state chair of a major political party. - Navarre0107 (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Thank you for the ping. I'm not sure that being chair of a smaller state party counts for notability. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:NPOL. Being the head of a state party isn't really notable. Of the sources shown above, I don't think any of them definitively show WP:GNG. Looking through the Arizona Capitol Times news blog, he's really only definitively mentioned in his GOP party chair win (where he got 600 votes) and only received about five or six articles on him during his entire tenure, all of which were routine "Republicans may oust Morrissey" and for his failed run for state parliament - and this is a specialty news source dedicated to local politics. His national news coverage is limited to the birther controversy. Not enough there. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being mayor of a small town nor being state-level organizational chair of a political party constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL, but the links shown above are not terribly compelling evidence that he passes WP:GNG in lieu: AZ Capitol Times is a local media outlet covering him in local-interest contexts; his name is not present in the Phoenix New Times article at all, but rather it's about an unrelated person named Bill Tonnesen; HuffPo #1 is just an aggregated reprint of the same Phoenix New Times article that fails to have his name in it; the Arizona Republic article is just about his ability to sing, not about anything relevant to whether he passes NPOL or not; the "NPR" link is not from NPR itself, but from NPR's local affiliate in Flagstaff, and is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that is not substantively about him; and what's left (Politico and HuffPo #2) does not add up to enough coverage to get him over GNG in lieu of having to actually pass an SNG. GNG is not just "anybody who can show that they have surpassed an arbitrary number of mentions in any media outlet" — it also tests for the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading and the context of what they're getting covered for, and is not just automatically passed by every single person on earth who can show two media hits about their singing voice. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing makes him default notable and sourcing is not deep enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agasha Temple of Wisdom

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

This was supported by only one substantive source, a self-published book from within the group. WP:BEFORE finds mainly Wikipedia mirrors and directories / namechecks (a category which includes the sole remaining third-party source). That leaves only the one book source from the 50s which is stated to "prominntly" feature this, but I can't find any evidence that it's considered significant. It scores zero hits on Google Scholar, for example. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May add sources later: ^[1]^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilded Snail (talk • contribs) 05:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lewis, James R. (March 2001). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. ISBN 9781615927388.
^ Lewis, James R.; Petersen, Jesper Aa (2014-07-16). Controversial New Religions. ISBN 9780199394364.

Didn't find the second one on my search, the first is basically justa directory so doesn't pass depth. I'm happy to keep as long as we can add context for its status - on the face of it "controversial" would be a reasonable assessment. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found the following references:

Leslie Shepard (Editor) Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology Volume 1 A-L, The Gale Group, 2001 ISBN: 978-0810385702
J. Gordon Melton Religious Bodies in the U.S.: A Dictionary, Routledge, 1992 ISBN: 978-0815308065 (although this is a listing only)
a writeup in: LeRoy E. Froom, Professor of Historical Theology, Andrews University, Occult Forces of Both East and West, Ministry, International Journal for Pastors
the Ministry article is based on: Gordon Collier Make Your Own World (3 volumes), Book of Destiny, 1955 (no ISBN and could find no information the publisher, Book of Destiny) - Epinoia (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will also WP:SALT due to clear attempt to get around the salting of the usual spelling of the name. RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Maheshwarii

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

Sheer paid-for spam; evading salt-protection at Sandeep Maheshwari as well Draft:Sandeep Maheshwari.

All sources currently used are textbook unreliable or PR.

There's nothing in news apart from a few name-drops in long list of youtubers as a motivational speaker. (FWIW, The Indian Wire is not a RS.) Fails GNG and ANYBIO. ∯WBG^converse 17:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 17:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cannot see that subject achieves notability. Eagleash (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and it looks like WP:SPAM. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per nom. Rockphed (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown to Armageddon

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

Unnotable TV documentary that comes nowhere near WP:NFILM. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they share the same lack of notice:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These articles were all created by different users and should not be bundled in one nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this as there has been specific dissent as to the bundling,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - non-notable History Channel programs all lacking sources - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - notability not established - Epinoia (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diono

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I looked at all the references in the article. They are links to the company's own website, reprints of press releases, routine coverage of funding and other business announcements, and reviews of some of the company's products. Nothing that talks about the company itself.

My own searching failed to turn up anything better. Searching for the company name brings up a large number of hits, but they're mostly just mentions of the company name on web sites that sell or review their products. I found some announcements of product recalls; I don't hold that against them, but it's not something that supports WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see there was a previous AfD on this, which I had some minor involvement in (relisted), and long since forgotten about. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources I can find are reviews of one of their products. I'm not sure that the reviews are in reliable sources. Either way, notability is not inherited. Rockphed (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are limited to mentions in passing, local press and product reviews, nothing to suggest the company is significant and warrants an encyclopedic entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Robinson

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

Not notable, no reliable sources. The sources are: the subject himself, YouTube, YouTube again, The Christian Broadcasting Network, and a credulous interview from 2001 in Charisma Magazine, and a small-town local interest piece from the Brunswick, OH Post.

Description above largely copied from Bishonen's PROD, which had two endorsements before the article's creator AcceptJesus2020 canceled it. AfD needs to look at this article. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Bishonen and Bearian since they prodded it and endorsed the prod respectively. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this was not meant as a canvass, just to make sure that they saw this to take another look. I won't do it anymore. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator removed the PROD template without any explanation on talk, which is their right.(Notability claims made in the removal edit summary by the creator.) As I said in the PROD, quoted in the nomination above, the sources are truly lousy, with no reliable secondary sources anywhere in sight. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - as with the Prod, I don't see how this person is notable. Psychics and media (is that the correct plural ?) are dime a dozen. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Mediums" seems more natural to me in this sense of the word, and Wiktionary thinks so too. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO and there is nothing I can find that would satisfy WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(With some regret) Delete -- People who have visions during near death experiences commonly then devote themselves to religion. It is inevitable that only the subject can recount what happened, which means that it is impossible for there to be independent sources. It seems to follow that the subject could only have a WP article if notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G3 by Reaper Eternal. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BreezeAgent

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

No substantial secondary coverage of this eSports participant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worse. The whole thing appears to be a hoax. His YouTube channel with a claimed 1+M views not only doesn't have a million views, it doesn't even have any videos published [8]. He did not compete in the Fortnite Fall Skirmish in 2018; here is Newsweek's coverage, which includes the roster for the "Rift Raiders" team that Bah claims to have been on [9]. The entire article is fabricated. I suspect this is a schoolboy's fantasy, and is should be speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Mirror Cracked: I restored the article back to before your changes. You almost gutted the article, and after you did that it was tagged as a7. At this point in the process, if you think the article is a hoax, then you should tag it as an g3. Otherwise, your comments here are sufficient for the community to evaluate the notability of the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bbb23: as it stands the article is a significant violation of WP:BLP and lacks any reliable sources. What "sources" it has are fakes. I've tagged it as a blatant hoax, as you suggested. Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as an obvious hoax. The "references" are all created by the same person on multiple websites that allow user submissions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to APO Hiking Society. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1-2-3 (APO Hiking Society album)

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

Non-notable album by barely-notable group. This seems to be another example of the age-old "notability by inheritance" error. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either APO Hiking Society, or possibly the 1-2-3 disambiguation page if admins deem this title to be a viable search term. As for this album, I can find no evidence that it was noticed by reliable media sources and all that can be found are the typical retail and streaming entries. Editors may also want to consider the notability of several of this band's other albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to APO Hiking Society. The topic does not have enough coverage to support a separate article, but it could be a viable search term. I think the article on the group would be the best redirect target, but I would not be entirely opposed to the disambiguation page if other editors agree with that. I would just imagine that any users looking for this particular album would find more information on the group's page rather than the disambiguation page. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Dawar

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

Doesn't fullfill wikipedia (WP:N) Zinzhanglee (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC with no claim to notability (checking the Instagram page provided shows that he has just over 5000 followers, which is far from warranting a Wikipedia article), has no sources besides links to Spotify and Youtube, incredibly biased to the point where I believe this is an autobiography, and has plenty of grammatical issues, however that is not the basis for deletion. All in all, the article seems to be either an autobiography or a COI article; there is no claim to notability, and there are no reliable sources provided. Utopes (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this article approve it please
My opinion is that please do not delet this article because thisa article is important and contain information which should be on Wikipedia page
Please Wikipedia team remove this claim of delection policy this is false claim please make this page love in Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.12.209.142 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - |no reliable sources for a BLP. There are many hundreds of thousands of young rappers who are under the age of 18, so the claims are specious. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:non notable musician Ceethekreator (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable media. Fails WP:NARTIST due to lack of notable songs. IMHO not enough to pass any notability criteria.--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most cool article should be live on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.12.209.142 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A number of sources are clearly available, providing some level of reliable coverage, but reasonable uninvolved editors seem to strongly differ on exactly whether there is enough. WP:BIO does not ask for a specific number of sources, but asks for "multiple", and specifically "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". There is evidently good-faith disagreement over whether this threshold is usefully met here. ~ mazca ^talk 09:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Graves (entrepreneur)

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

non-notable business person. Looks like he appeared on one episode of a TV series, founded a restaurant chain based in Baton Rouge, and has received the local coverage expected from that kind of local notability valereee (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this guy is very notable in the state of Louisiana and passes WP:BASIC with multiple substantial coverages. He seems to be notable on multiple subjects ranging from TV, books, restaraunt awards. ^[1] The guy has also been featured in two books. ^[2] ^[3] According to his IMDB profile he's been in 3 TV shows. ^[4] He's also apparently the top CEO in America. ^[5] This guy is all over the place, he apparently even gave Chuck Norris $100,000 for his charity. ^[6] The Louisiana governor regularly mentions him on the louisiana.gov website. ^[7] He partnered with Southern University to donate over 1 million dollars in academic scholarships. ^[8] His coverage is not limited to Louisiana. He has substantial media coverage in Texas, Arkansas and for some reason... Hawaii. ^[9] His business is operating in several countries including United States, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with over 400 restaraunts. DavidDelaune (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One more thing... if I were born in the year 2050 and read an encyclopedia about this era... I might want to know about someone that owned 453 restaraunts. DavidDelaune (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  DavidDelaune, none of those sources look like proving notability. The food channel one is an interview, the Orlov book is self-published, the textbook is possibly significant coverage in a reliable source, so that's a SINGLE support for notability; we need at minimum three. IMDb is crowdsourced. What is QSR magazine, and what is a Glassdoor Employee's Choice award? Whatever they are, that is from a Raising Cane's press release; it states at the bottom that the info hasn't been verified. IMDb again, not usable. louisiana.gov is a bare mention in a story about Lemonade Day. Southern Uni's is a bare mention. Hawaii News Now (not sure what that is?) is again a bare mention, and btw it's just an apparent reprint of a Raising Cane's press release. None of these go to proving notability. --valereee (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd not heard of him until this AfD, but not hearing of some person is a bad reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Todd Graves 6". Food Channel. Retrieved 2019-09-02.
^ How you can reach wealth by using proven millionaires ideas. Zoran Orlov. pp. 86–. ISBN 978-953-95909-0-9.
^ William M. Pride; Robert J. Hughes; Jack R. Kapoor (1 January 2012). Foundations of Business. Cengage Learning. pp. 130–. ISBN 1-111-58015-4.
^ "Todd Graves". IMDB. Retrieved 2019-09-02.
^ "Raising Cane's Todd Graves Named a Top CEO in America". qsrmagazine.com. Retrieved 2019-09-02.
^ Marcy de Luna. "Raising Cane's donates $100,000 to Chuck Norris' Kickstart Kids organization". IMDB. Retrieved 2019-09-02.
^ "Gov. Edwards and Todd Graves Kick Off Ninth Annual Lemonade Day". gov.louisiana.gov. Retrieved 2019-09-02.
^ "Raising Cane's Announces $1 Million Partnership with Southern University". Southern University. Retrieved 2019-09-02.
^ "Raising Cane's offers Hawaii chicken lovers a new option". Hawaii News Now. Retrieved 2019-09-02.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable businessman. Zinzhanglee (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both businessman and business appear to be notable. Page needs additional sourcing but theres enough to deter deletion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye Jack, which three sources do you think prove notability? I'm just not seeing it. --valereee (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DavidDelaune and Horse Eye Jack. = paul2520 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul2520, which of DD's sources look like proving notability to you? HEJ didn't provide any. --valereee (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee the The Food Channel source, the Houston Chronicle site, the text book, the Hawaii News Now source, and http://gov.louisiana.gov, to name a few. I agree with Hyperbolick below; where does it say three sources are needed? = paul2520 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers. The subject has done lots of stuff but our notability guidelines are very clear and the sources do not provide the necessary significant, in-depth coverage in independent RS to meet WP:BIO. However, redirects are cheap and one would be helpful. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No rule requires three sources to prove notability. Can just as easily be from the aggregate of many more minor sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment a possible source: [10] (yes I know the article is mostly about the business, but there's useful biographical information also) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

78.26, I'd actually call that a second sigcov in rs, along with the textbook. --valereee (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conectiva

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

Too few sources availableto sustain a valid neutral article about a barely notable software company. damiens.rf 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete It looks more like a Linux distro than a company, but still it's short-lived, some years ago and distinctly lacking evidence of notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 10 years is not that short, and before this AFD nomination in Special:PermaLink/887650564 the article was more explanatory. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seen that deletion, and although it doesn't change my views on the notability of Conectiva, I did consider either reverting it or !voting as a procedural keep here, as no nominator should be blanking so much of an article as part of the process of nominating it.

But still, I don't see this as a notable Linux distro. Many distros existed and that was recorded,[11] but it's not enough to make them notable. Maybe (which your LWN article claims, and I certainly hadn't considered) it's all about who worked for Conectiva, and you could get an article out of that, or at least a section in Mandriva Linux or Mandriva. But otherwise I'm still with the view that it's, "just another Red Hat clone". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A mere 90 seconds' search brought me to Jang 2006, pp. 152–153 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJang2006 (help) where the aquisition by Mandrake to form Mandriva is documented, as are things like what this is and some of the design decisions that went into it, all blanked by from the article by the nominator immediately before nomination at AFD. Searching further finds Danesh & Jang 2006, p. 800 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDaneshJang2006 (help) which confirms the name of the company producing the software and some of the software's distinguishing features. Clearly zero searching for sources went on by both commenters here so far. I would certainly have expected M. Dingley to have turned up the likes of Bodnar 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBodnar2003 (help). And that's not even looking for stuff in Portuguese. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Jang, Michael H. (2006). Linux Patch Management: Keeping Linux Systems Up to Date. Bruce Perens' Open Source. Prentice Hall Professional. ISBN 9780132366755.
- Danesh, Arman; Jang, Michael (2006). Mastering Linux (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780782152777.
- Bodnar, Ladislav (2003-04-30). "A Look at Conectiva Linux". Linux Weekly News.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It lacks any actual content for which anyone cares. One must apply common sense in these matters. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say the same about its state before this AfD? [12] Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The version you are showing tries to demonstrate the impact of the company on the world around it, but it lacks source. Without source, we will never know the truth of it. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is unclear if Uncle G has explicitly !voted to Keep in this AfD, but his research has revealed two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Both the "Linux Patch Management" book and the lwn.net article provide in-depth information on the company. Topic therefore meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 'research' mentioned above does not discuss how significant the coverage of the company is in detail, but gives the impression it simply confirms the company was mentioned in passing for its business as usual/press release type activity. Nothing presented so far suggests it would pass WP:NORG. PS. I did, in fact, look at the first book source, [13], which mentions the company several times, but in passing. The book does not discuss the company, just talks a bit about the product (code) it produced. If this represents the best sources we have, this is very much a failure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there are sufficient reliable sources to meet the "significant coverage" standard described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Edgeweyes (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Valley School, Greater Noida

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not major alumni from the school yet and the page doesn't cite any type of the citations to establish the notability. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No adequate sourcing found and no indication of notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yeah well with their German Club and their Robotics Club and so on, they are learning more than your kids are, and they are gonna eat your lunch. --Doncram (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that there are many schools in India and there may not be adequate news coverage on each of them. However, quite a few schools in Delhi/NCR region are often reported in newspapers, usually in context of some student activities or if they have some well known students. For example, for this school I found Noida’s Arjun Bhati wins third junior golf world title, 14-year-old Noida golfer Arjun Bhati: My target is to be World No 1 and win an Olympic medal for India. I believe the school is also recognised by CBSE (can be cross checked from the website)--DreamLinker (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

n number of schools have been recognised by CBSE. Here, you are failed to provide rationale on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Alumni of this school have not been participated in olympic yet. Plus, trival mention doesn’t pass WP:GNG. Your argument more seemed like WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me explain my rationale. I think if a school has well known students (not only alumni), that is an indication that there could be more coverage available, particularly in non-English media. Activities of various schools are often reported in the newspaper (particularly the "city" pages) though these resources may not always be available online. I am reluctant to delete articles like this. Another factor I consider (to guess if coverage would be available) is how long the school has been established and the location (rural or urban). In this particular case, I looked at Hindi sources after DBigXray mentioned Navbharat Times and I can find quite a lot of news reports which I think justifies keeping this article. I will add the sources shortly.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioning of CBSE recognition is to ensure the school is genuine. If a school doesn't have recognition from the education board, I am usually reluctant to keep the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the source and rationale put forth by DreamLinker, I would add another coverage of the school in Navbharat Times, (Noida News: ग्रेटर वैली स्कूल में हुआ समारोह का आयोजन - celebration held in greater valley school) It is a senior secondary school and more SIGCOV can be found in Hindi language media. The existing sources confirm this assumption. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some more sources in Hindi (apologies as I don't have enough time to properly format these) ^[1]^[2] ^[3],^[4]^[5] ^[6].--DreamLinker (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DreamLinker, Formatted it for you.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Noida News: अनमोल और यशिका बने मिस्टर व मिस ग्रेटर वैली - anmol and yashika made mr. and miss greater valley". Navbharat Times. February 2, 2019.
^ "बच्चों ने फैशन में जलवे दिखाए". livehindustan.com.
^ "कैंब्रिज व ग्रेटर वैली स्कूल को मिली शानदार जीत". Dainik Jagran.
^ "क्रिसमस कार्निवाल में स्कूली बच्चों ने की मस्ती". Amar Ujala.
^ "ग्रेटर वैली ने दी एएसएन स्कूल को शिकस्त". jagran.com.
^ "Noida News: मुकुंद ने ग्रेटर वैली स्कूल को दिलाई बड़ी जीत - mukund congratulates greater valley school". Navbharat Times. April 17, 2019.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable and can be improved.Zinzhanglee (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable run of the mill school, nothing to establish notability and distinguish it from a million other schools; WP:MILL - coverage is run of the mill for school activities, no in-depth coverage of the school itself - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORGCRITE which require significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources with an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the school - Epinoia (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm just going to say that neither side gave compelling, policy-based arguments. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Senstad

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

Just being a coach is not enough. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, invalid reason given for the desired deletion. Geschichte (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is all they seem to be notable for, What else dose the article say about them? They are Norwegian, again this is not a reason for them to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstration of notability in article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, He's a coach of a handball national team, because of this he's notable. Additionally he was coach of an elite club team. --Malo95 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know how much weight IP views carry but, FWIW, this is a clear fail of WP:BIO lacking the substantial multiple coverage in reliable sources required. The first 'Keep', above, is invalid as it gives no justification for keeping and the second 'keep' is just plain wrong. There is nothing in WP:NSPORTS that says that a coach of a handball national team is inherently notable. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a little research about him and after this it's clear for me that he's notable. He played professional handball in Norway and Switzerland, was in the national team and coached professional teams. Furthermore there are news coverage about him in Norway, Poland, Switzerland and Germany.--Malo95 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable for inclusion in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinzhanglee (talk • contribs) 15:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zinzhanglee: Why? Please can you sare your reasons? And not only say no. --Malo95 (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My lack of Norwegian and Polish language skills caused me to need computer translations. I did get a lot of ghits, but the translations all seemed to be either typical sports reporting or about his becoming the head coach of the Polish women's national handball team. I don't see anything as a player or coach that would show he meets WP:NSPORT and I would deem the coverage of his becoming Poland's head coach as WP:BLP1E. I might feel differently if he had played or coached at the world championships or Olympics. If someone can provide some other significant coverage I would consider changing my vote. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upsilon Sigma Phi leaks scandal

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

This incident initially occurred Nov 20, 2018, and caused a minor scandal in the Philippines. There was a two-week flurry of outraged press coverage as everyone and their grandmother rushed to comment on the situation, and then - nothing. I searched Philippine news sites like Rappler, PhilStar, Inquirer.net, and ABS-CBN news and came up with basically nothing new since the initial incident. That tells me that there is no lasting effect to this scandal, and that it should not have its own standalone article.

As it stands, the article is half a tabulated list of nasty comments, which is inappropriate since we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. The other half is a list of reactions from people, including individual non-notable fraternity members. We do not exist as a repository for reactions to events.

Full disclosure: I tagged this for merge to Upsilon Sigma Phi in April, but the discussion didn't go anywhere. Having circled back to the article and realizing how limited the coverage really was, I've changed my opinion about the appropriateness of the merge. In my opinion, a significant merge would constitute undue weight relative to the degree of coverage the leaks received. I think the summary already present at the USP article is sufficient coverage without becoming overly focused on a single negative event.

Pinging Naraht and Koakaulana, who commented on the merge request, and DGG, who did some work on the article during its creation in November. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (expand somewhat the entry in the parent article) I agree with the indiscriminate list, at most, descriptions of the type of comments in the newsmedia. If one of the sources consider them Misogynistic, list it that way. Given the level of converage at the time which was National, I think there is more information, if only the reaction from significantly notable Upsilonians which needs to be kept. By comparison, this generated considerably more coverage than the Theta Tau at Syracuse issue, but considerably less than the Trijicon bible quotes. (Also, I'm much happier to see this in this context than a SLA trying to completely delete the issue from Wikipedia.Naraht (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete or, possibly restore to my version, [14], and protect or instead of protection ban the user who restored my deletions from the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People in the Philippines can be very passionate, but they are quick to forgive and move on too. This incident had no lasting effect. Filipinos moved on. I think there was a "boys will boys" attitude towards this incident. In addition, the country is patriarchal and very Catholic so the misogny and anti-Muslim part of the controversy never got much long term traction. Wikipedia's Filipino values article indicates: "Women in the Philippines are expected to become caring and nurturing mothers for their own children. Female Filipinos are also expected to lend a hand in household work. They are even anticipated to offer assistance after being married. On the other hand, Filipino men are expected to assume the role of becoming the primary source of income and financial support of his family." In other words, traditional gender roles and a more patriarchal society exists in the Philippines and feminism is less influential than in the West. So the misogny part of the controversy didn't have enough passion about it to be a defining moment in Filipino history/culture. In addition, Wikipedia's article Filipino psychology article indicates: "Pakikisama and Pakikipagkapwa: Smooth Interpersonal Relationship, or SIR, as coined by Lynch (1961 and 1973). This attitude is primarily guided by conformity with the majority." In other words, there is more of a live and let live culture in the Philippines and less culture war like in the West.Knox490 (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How does any of this related to whether the Wikipedia article should be kept or deleted?Naraht (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Wikipedia notability rules for events, although we may want to summarize the quoted statements, rather than quote them directly. The event has had lasting effects on and is part of a pattern of Fraternity behavior and politics in the Philippines; it's geographical impact is arguably large given that UP is the Philippines' National university, with members consistently occupying high government positions; there's clearly both depth of coverage and diversity of coverage based on coverage by interaksyon, abs cbn, the star and the inquirer. - Koakaulana (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to L.G. Balfour Company. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celestrium

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

As a trademarked product (steel alloy) - should probably at most be a subsection on L.G. Balfour Company. Setting aside the fact that the second paragraph has some apparenty COPYVIO with https://www.reference.com/beauty-fashion/celestrium-a04f2ef0decf191d . I also don't think this article will ever be more than a stub. Ich (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to L.G. Balfour Company - Epinoia (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - worthwhile content to add (post copyright considerations), but an unneeded fork. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Working Red

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

Completely fails GNG and V, zero RS. Cavalryman (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability – no verifiable hits on Gbooks, no hits at all on Gnews. Appears to be an invention of the American Preservation Dog Registry, a wholly non-notable organisation (no verifiable hits on Gbooks, no hits at all on Gnews). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no method to the madness of all these new registries and fictitious dog breeds popping up on the internet - the here today, gone tomorrow types - most of which are simply marketing and trying to get recognition for new dog types that long established, reputable breed registries refuse to recognize because they do not qualify as purebred. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, not recognized by any reputable registry. oknazevad (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with the editors above. William Harristalk 09:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all the reasons above. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Monster Pit

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

Completely fails GNG and V, zero RS. Cavalryman (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY, and one of the two cited "registries", the website ibcdogs.org, does not claim that it is a registry but a dog breeder. William Harristalk 09:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources qualify as RS - we must not allow WP to be used to promote fictitious breeds. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the comments recorded here. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk)
Delete - Unable to find any decent sources on the subject. Plus, I'm not sure that even were reliable sources available, that the subject is noteworthy enough to merit it's own article. ZBM-2 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Barba

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

It's totally an autobiography. It contains unreliable sources and doesn't have significant coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, we strongly disagree. There are reliable sources in the press (in French) that are cited. In addition, Gerard Barba's partner, Bruce Craig, has a page in Wikipedia, so it should be a reliable source. Together they sold their company to Apax Partners. It was the first major private equity transaction since the fall of Lehman Brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardBarba (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GerardBarba, who is "we"? Shared accounts aren't permitted. creffett (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparently not notable. He gets about a dozen verifiable hits on Gnews, almost all relating to the possibility that he might have bought a rugby club; he didn't. One verifiable hit on Gbooks relates to the same (non-)event. Blatant COI/autobiography problems, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given it's unambiguous advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to be policy compliant. There's a reason that we have rules around COI and it's because the ability of such an editor to write neutrally is going to be compromised even with the best of intentions. Note that this is a delete purely on these grounds, which if it weren't at AfD would have lead me to nominate for speedy deletion, and I have made no assessment of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the supposedly significant coverage in reliable sources doesn't exist. There might be more coverage out there, but it is unlikely. Rockphed (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete creating articles on oneself is a total violation of Wikipedia rules which we must act to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Careers and Courses

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

One of the numerous state-government initiatives. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. ∯WBG^converse 10:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage isn't substantial; what little there is is brief, routine, news coverage of a government announcement. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; if the policy comes to something, there may eventually be substantive sources about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. How is a local cram course notable? Bearian (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working Pit Bulldog

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

Article fails GNG and V, none of the sources come close to being RS. Cavalryman (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY, and the dog appears to be a marketing opportunity by the organisation promoting it, because these types of dogs were once classified as APBTs but now fall outside the new APBT breed standard, so they classified them as a new "breed". William Harristalk 09:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another case of WP being used to market/promote a fictitious breed. In full agreement with William Harris in that it fails our core content policy, WP:V. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A pitiful attempt to bypass our standards. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehar Baba Charitable Trust

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

Fails WP:NCORP by a few many miles. Nil significant coverage in any reliable source. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I have searched Google, Google scholar, Google books, and news: Mehar Baba Charitable Trust is mentioned in several reliable sources but I found no significant coverage. JimRenge (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. I am unable to find substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslims in business

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For countries with significant Muslim majorities, this amounts to just a random list of businesspeople and is of no value. There is possibly some interest in having a list of Muslims in business in countries where this is unusual (though even this is doubtful). If such a list were to be created we would need solid evidence that everyone included was in fact a Muslim by self-identification and not just by heritage. For example there’s nothing to support the inclusion of Zaha Hadid in this list. Mccapra (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What's next, a list of left-handed civil engineers? Agree with WP:LISTCRUFT. Simon Wright (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly broad article; with a fifth of the world's population being Muslim there is little keeping this from being an indiscriminate list. This is virtually all business people from many countries and it is not worth listing in this fashion. Reywas92^Talk 23:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough solid sources backing inclusion and no strong evidence this is looked at as a cohesive group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslims in entertainment and the media

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Obviously no indication that Islam has an effect on their lives or helped them in their careers in entertainment. Fails list purpose. Störm (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready to take a position yet, but just out of curiosity, which of the 12 reasons for something to fall afoul of WP:LISTCRUFT do you think this falls under? Cause I don't really see this as falling under any of them. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep listcruft is an essay not a policy. While it's fine to include it in your reasoning for nominating an article for deletion, it should not be your sole argument. We have numerous lists of Muslims. See Lists of Muslims. The article is well sourced and is not too long. I see no reason at all for deletion. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment Please expand your deletion reason for all three of these noms; WP:CRUFT has specifically been called out in the past as an inappropriate deletion rationale, especially alone as the only reason. Nate • (chatter) 16:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the moment I'm inclined to keep. Unlike some of the other lists of Muslims we've recently considered, this list refers to a more clearly definable set of people and is not indiscriminate in its nature; it also appears that every entry is individually sourced. In my view the section on Literature and Art should be removed as these don't really qualify as entertainment or media, but apart from that I'm waiting for someone to explain clearly what's wrong with the article as it stands. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for the reasons above I can’t see what’s wrong with it. Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think WP:LISTCRUFT applies here. Mujinga (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what does being a Muslim have to do with being an entertainer? - if they converted to another religion would they stop being entertainers? - an arbitrary category; WP:INDISCRIMINATE - WP:LISTPEOPLE says "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion" (see also WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R) - Epinoia (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia:. Why does being a Muslim have to have something to do with entertainment? How is this list more indiscriminate than List of Hungarian Nobel laureates or List of Catholic clergy scientists? Here again you say that ‘special care must be taken.....’ implying that it hasn’t when it looks to me like it has. Mccapra (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - Epinoia (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-The onus is on the nominator and on those supporting deletion to show that notability is not met. ‘What does being a Muslim have to do with being an entertainer?‘ is not a rationale for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, how it is a notable cross categorisation that they are also famous entertainers or media personalities? Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773: a false argument since nobody is proposing a list of a billion or more people. There are perhaps some thousands of Muslims in the music and entertainment industry so we’d likely end up with something larger than List of Jewish American entertainers. The issue is whether the people on the list are otherwise notable, and whether their religious views can be reliably sourced. Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-American is more of a categorisation as it deals with a minority religious group in that country. In this AfD, the list criteria is a global categorisation. If we listed only the notable ones, the list would be unwieldy and indiscriminate. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons already given by User:JDDJS above. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list. This would basically include all entertainers in Muslim countries. We don't have "Jewish entertainers" or "Christian entertainers" either. Following Ajf773, I could imagine a category "Muslim American entertainers" or Muslim Hungarian entertainers, but a worldwide list of Muslim entertainers is not manageable. In addition, for many of these people, being Muslims will hardly affect their performances, so I doubt even the usefulness of national lists. --Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim leaders and politicians

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Massive catch-all with no real scope. I think there would be value in having a list of Muslim politicians from countries without a Muslim majority as this is a much smaller and definable set, but sources would be required to show that each individual entry was Muslim by self-identification and not just by heritage. Mccapra (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, there are many countries in the world (Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, etc.) where a large majority of politicians and leaders would simply be expected to be Muslim — meaning that in those countries it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, while trying to keep their sections manageable by imposing some arbitrary standard beyond being a Muslim politician would violate WP:ARBITRARY. Mccapra has a point that a list of Muslim politicians in non-Muslim majority countries might have more value — but including politicians from countries where most politicians would simply be expected to be Muslim approaches total unmaintainability. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bearcat and the list is indiscriminate. "Leader" is too vague of a term to pinpoint all the entries who fall under this over-extending umbrella. Utopes (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said before, the thousands in Category:Pakistani politicians, Category:Indonesian politicians, etc. could be imported in mass to List of Muslim leaders and politicians, making this even more of an indiscriminate list. Perhaps a well-sourced article appending "outside the Muslim world" could be a legitimate way to do this. Reywas92^Talk 23:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draftify Delete per nom and per Bearcat. Since there is encyclopedic value in a list of Muslim politicians from a specific country (specifically those from non-Muslim majority countries), sending the information to draft space preserves the information currently contained here until country-specific lists are created. --Enos733 (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in many places this will be a list of all leaders and politicians, some places going back 100s of years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, how it is a notable cross categorisation that they are also famous political figures? Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paško Rakić (politician)

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

Not meeting WP:NPOL. Just being a Deputy Mayor of a city is not enough to demonstrate notability. Available online references about the subject are mostly from local news agencies. Not meeting WP:GNG. Hitro talk 08:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 08:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 08:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 08:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Just being a Deputy Mayor of the twelfth largest city in a country is not enough for a Wikipedia article. A majority of sources are from local news agencies, not from major, national news agencies, as required. LefcentrerightTalk 10:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deputy mayor of a city in the 30K population range is not a role that guarantees passage of WP:NPOL #2 just because the person exists — it's a role that would require him to be the subject of a lot more nationalized reliable source coverage than this is actually showing. Two of the four footnotes are just photographs of him, not substantive prose content about him, and the two which are actual prose journalism are purely local — but every municipal councillor in every city on earth can always show two pieces of journalism in their local media, so that does not represent enough coverage to hand him a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. GNG, as always, is not just "anybody who's gotten their name into their local newspaper(s) twice for any reason whatsoever": it tests the sources for volume and depth and geographic range and context, not just for n>1. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - fails my standards and based on our recent past practice should be deleted. There's insufficient evidence of general notability. FWIW, I've been to Croatia twice, and have never heard of this town. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS --SalmanZ (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medi Script

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

I recently put this up for PROD but it was contested by another editor. This article has been unsourced since 2007. The only things I can find online are Wikipedia mirrors so unless anyone can find anything to show otherwise my conclusion is it’s not notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unreferenced, fails GNG. I don't see anything relevant in Scholar/Books. Contesting this should be considered borderline vandalism; I'd have expected better from the otherwise very experienced editor who deprodded it... :/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even convinced that this supposed credit system existed. This article might be a hoax. Rockphed (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo-quality printing

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

I PRODed this article but another editor disagreed. The reasons for deletion are: “photo-quality printing’ is a descriptive advertising term and not the name of a recognised process. The article is essay-like original research and the talk page shows that there have been major concerns about the reliability of the content since it was written in 2007. It has no sources and while sources could perhaps be found to support individual statements in the article (or to correct them), the topic as a whole is essentially as meaningless as ‘restaurant-quality cooking’ or ‘F1-quality driving.’ Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No citations, but more importantly, no real reason to exist. So it's just printing that is a bit better than other printing? Like Mccapra said, this is an advertising term that isn't grounded in any technical definition and doesn't qualify as encyclopedic content. I was surprised to find the term in a scientific paper, but it's a paper published by Hewlett-Packard Laboratories and even there the term is only used to describe "print images that are comparable, in terms of image quality and image permanence, to the traditional prints produced on silver halide photographic paper".^[1] So it's not a function, it's not a technical process, it's just good printing.PraiseVivec (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per nom. I'm not seeing anything here that can't be covered at existing articles on related topics; and I'm not seeing anything after a quick search suggesting this is a coherent topic distinct from existing articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Cursed House in Amityville

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

Non-notable Spanish adaptation of a notable book. Searching for sources for "That Cursed House in Amityville" to prove notability of this adaptation only lead to finding sources for the English adaptation, "The Amityville Horror". The Spanish adaptation within itself is non-notable with no claim to notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Don't let the notability of "The Amityville Horror" add to the discussion; keep it centered on this particular Spanish translation. Utopes (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG due to complete lack of sources - does not meet WP:NBOOK as it does not appear to have been been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in reliable sources - Epinoia (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Braden

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

Pure puff piece. Please note that things like this don't add to notability, and that "references" like this one are just spam links. Maybe db-person or db-spam are applicable. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article reads like a resume. And not a terribly impressive one at that. Guy seems to have appeared in a bunch of ads and the occasional TV Show episode and is now a group crossfit coach. The only mention of him I found on a website that's not some sort of model search engine is this one article in Queerty, where, to be fair, he is described as a "top male model".^[2] He also seems to have appeared on the cover of a magazine called iFitness^[3], but I don't know enough about the field to say if that's a big deal or meaningless. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:NMODEL. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination reason. Abtehas98 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Simon Wright (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bell (businessman)

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

The subject of the article doesn't seem to have done anything notable per WP:GNG. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE.

Most notable for being a middle management employee who resigned by sending a company-wide email? Simon Wright (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Simon Wright (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Simon Wright (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article isn't written very well, but I think he does qualify per WP:GNG. Mass email antics aside he was notable enough to have several article written about him in the Hollywood Reporter ^[4], to make the list of Most Creative People of 2016 in Fast Company^[5], and to be profiled among the Snap "power players" by Business Insider^[6]. His teenage dot-com-era success story with teenfront is also mentioned in more sources than I could cite here. This page needs improvement, not deletion. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Agar, A. Ufuk; Dispoto, Gary J.; Tastl, Ingeborg; Koh, Kok-Wei; Damera-Venkata, Niranjan (April 2011). "Photo Quality Printing on a Digital Press". Hewlett-Packard Laboratories: 1.
^ Gremore, Graham (19 July 2018). "Two top male models accuse renowned fashion photographer Rick Day of sexual assault". Queerty. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ "Kai Braden". TNGModels. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ Jarvey, Natalie (24 August 2017). "Snapchat Content Chief Reveals Key to Creating Shows for Mobile". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ "Nick Bell: VP of content, Snap - For creating and curating the most clickable content on the Internet". Fast Company. 2016. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
^ Carson, Biz; Heath, Alex (7 February 2017). "Meet the power players who help Evan Spiegel run Snap Inc". Business Insider. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

Comment - Fair enough, though my reading of GNG suggests the threshold is rather higher than this, especially for businesspeople. To go through your citations... Hollywood Reporter: non-journalistic interview. Fast Company: a citation handed out like confetti to 100 people every year. Business Insider: an arbitrary list of corporate employees which says manager inside company led team that built feature. This is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. Simon Wright (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like your mind is made up and you're not going to be convinced regardless of how many sources people will bring here. Yeah, this is Wikipedia, not LinkedIn. That's why I argue that having dozens of articles written about him in the media, from Hollywood Reporter, to Vox,^[1] to CNBC^[2] to Variety^[3]^[4] clearly makes him claim WP:GNG. Or maybe you believe that the entire web media is reporting whenever any old middle management guy quits his job. The guy was profiled constantly while he had his position at Snap, his departure was widely publicized, and there's even articles dealing with his new position. I feel like the last link, where he joins a startup incubator gives it away. Since that particularly company is pretty obscure, it's clear that Bell is the main subject of the article and his notability has grown beyond that of his position at Snap.PraiseVivec (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Johnson, Eric (25 October 2018). "Taking a page from YouTube, Snap VP Nick Bell wants to find the next generation of media stars". Vox. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
^ Castillo, Miechelle (12 November 2018). "Snap's vice president of content Nick Bell is leaving the company". CNBC. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
^ Spangler, Todd (12 November 2018). "Nick Bell Out as Snap's Head of Content". Variety. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
^ Spangler, Todd (5 March 2019). "Former Snap Content Head Nick Bell Joins Startup Incubator Human Ventures". Variety. Retrieved 10 September 2019.

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Jackson

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

Sources are self-published book, documentary which I couldn't find much info about, and an old BBC article. Her son Luke may barely meet notability guidelines but she doesnt Jerry (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't a slam-dunk keep, but there's a fair bit of source material out there if you look hard enough. There's a full profile in The Guardian [15], a profile in the BBC [16], a non-trivial amoung of stuff in the Evening Standard [17], a scholarly review of her book [18], a fair amount of material in a book by an independent author [19], a BBC2 documentary about the family (see previous book source), a film based on said BBC documentary starring Helena Bonham Carter (see previous book source), some commentary on the documentary [20], and at least some mentions in another book which I can't access [21]. Now it's possible this article should be about the family, rather than the mother; but she is the focus of a lot of the stuff, and there's certainly enough to clear GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vanamonde93's post above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vanamonde93.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apparent lack of enough independent sources to demonstrate notability. RL0919 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeRose (yoga teacher)

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

Not notable. Approximately two daily lifestyle-section type articles mention him. The article is obvious promotion and the previous AFD notes that it was created by someone affiliated with him. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, searching gives very few links, but there are 12 citations in the Portuguese Wiki article, and they include ITU.com.br which seems to be a serious broadcaster, Folha de S.Paulo which is a national daily newspaper, and Globo.com which is a major web portal in Brazil. All three have given DeRose substantial coverage. I think we should ask a Portuguese speaker or better a Brazilian resident, but this looks close to notability to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one does appear to be a press release. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese -- thanks! Of the 11 refs in the Portuguese Wiki, how many do you think are substantial and in reliable sources? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional context, a yoga teacher by that references is not notable. Abtehas98 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may well be correct, but I would welcome confirmation from Portuguese speakers on the quality of the sources cited in the Portuguese Wiki (linked above). Abtehas98, does that include you? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having looked through the sources on portugese wiki, the only one I see that is significant and independent is an article in globo [22]. Rockphed (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for checking. We should therefore Delete for lack of sources in any language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably clarify that I used machine translation and threw out about half the sources as unindependent because they were sourced to one of the schools he founded. Rockphed (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be adding Portuguese to your WikiBabel list of userboxen, then... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources to establish GNG. MB 16:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This article is promotional crap, but I think there's a case to be made that the DeRose method, at least, has some claim to notability; I'm seeing a number of mentions in reliable sources, and it's possible that there are more substantive mentions that I'm not seeing. It's "delete" on the person, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per sources found. Renaming is a separate matter that can be addressed through the usual processes for moves. RL0919 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part Time

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

Fails notability criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Notability (music), or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Sources might be alright for content, but not for advancing notability. Talk page discussion was ignored and two sources added, 1)- a 2014 promo for a future "My Jamey" single and, 2)- The 405 source centers on the "musical project" and what is provided centers on David Loca with virtually nothing on the band (group) to be in line with NBAND. Otr500 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [23], [24], [25], [26], etc. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Drmies. The sources he found are significant and look to be independent (if in smaller papers). Rockphed (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown above and in the article so passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criteria#1 (only one criteria needed) thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if kept, the article should be moved to Part Time (band) to disambiguate from other uses of "part time", which is a common term - Epinoia (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep based on updated sourcing. RL0919 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of film director and actor collaborations

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

Doesn't pass notability WP:LISTN as a stand-alone list. The article has a complete lack of sources, almost no inclusion criteria and is mostly just an indiscriminate collection. Any future attempt at anything similar to this should surely start from new. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep as I find the new form to be sufficient. How do I withdraw this nomination? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onetwothreeip, unfortunately, per WP:WDAFD, you can only withdraw it if no one else has supported the deletion proposal. Unless the outstanding delete !votes get struck out by the editors, we'll have to see this through. My assumption is that it will not close as "delete", only "no consensus" as the worst outcome. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, but leaning toward delete. I can name a few notable ones off the top of my head - Alfred Hitchcock and Cary Grant, Preston Sturges and a group of actors he regularly used - but is that enough to overcome the lack of definition of what a "collaboration" is? Probably not. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information can be found in the articles linked to. There is no need to have a lot of pointless references confirming this person worked in that film. This seems like a notable topic. Search for the names of the director and the actor and the word collaborations and you can find reliable sources giving significant coverage of this such as [27] Dream Focus 07:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have nothing against someone trying to start this article from new after it's deleted. The current article is simply not appropriate for an encyclopaedia, which completely exaggerates collaborations. Would you agree? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to destroy something that has been worked on for years by many different editors, because you hope a new article more to your liking will be created in its place, is ridiculous. Use the talk page to discuss how you think the article should be changed, and work from there. Dream Focus 07:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to seek discussion on the talk page, but nothing has been forthcoming. I have brought the article to the attention of other editors as well, to seek their advice. I agree that what you describe would be ridiculous, but it is completely not what I hope to happen or am doing. This isn't an article that has really been worked on, it has simply been added to with no care about notability or inclusion criteria.

I have also tried to find reliable sources for the collaborations but there are none for the vast majority. This is clear when searching the supposed collaborations alphabetically, and that's after I've removed entries in the "A" section where there were only three films between the actor and director. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a director works with same actor in several films, does that make it a collaboration or is it something shallower? It could just be that there are a finite number of directors and established actors and they happen to get assigned to the same project again. You work long enough, and reteamings are bound to happen. Or maybe a director likes an actor's performance in their first film together and decides to use them again later. That in itself isn't noteworthy. You'd have to establish something stronger (and sourced), like the director insisting on using a specific actor over and over again. Are Robert Altman and René Auberjonois really indelibly linked together? I think not. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm inclined to agree with the nom here, the list is indiscriminate and completely unsourced. There has to be a better way of covering genuinely notable director/actor collaborations, Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio being one such example. PC78 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a subject best fit for an article, where some of the more notable examples can be mentioned.★Trekker (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:Original research. Obviously some director-actor relationships are notable (Scorsese/DeNiro, Woody Allen/Mia Farrow & Diane Keaton) and it is not unusual to discuss such collaborations (see Martin_Scorsese#Frequent_collaborators and Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro) but I see little purpose in this index. It is completely unsourced and while some colloborations are notable these are best served by the categeory at Category:Filmmaking collaborations, where a suitably sourced and notable collaboration can be simply categorised as such. Even if the list was pared down to just include those articles in the category (and thus just including notable collaborations) I am not sure it would satisfy LISTN even then. Collaborations are generally discussed in the context of the careers of those people, not in the context of collaborations. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Category:Filmmaking collaborations for a variety of categories and lists of this kind. Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much work to source - and a bit overwhelming. However WP:NEXIST. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but absolutely nuke the unsourced content. This is a notable list topic that has multiple reliable sources:

10 Great Modern Day Actor/Director Collaborations by IndieWire
It Takes Two: The 15 Most Influential Actor-Director Movie Combos of All Time by VH1
The Freshest Actor-Director Collaborations Working Today, Ranked by Tomatometer by Rotten Tomatoes
7 greatest actor-director collaborations in sci-fi movies and TV by Syfy
15 potent Hollywood partnerships by Entertainment Weekly

I get that the article as it is is garbage. I could simply go ahead and wipe this content and start from scratch with the above references. Not sure if I should do that now or after this gets deleted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using the above references and others that I found, I've overhauled the article from this to this. I apologize that the names are not sorted and that some actors are grouped under the director and that some are not, and that the "Films" column does not have titles at this time. If editors can see the potential in this kind of list, being strict about sourcing and inclusion criteria, then we can hammer out the formatting and organizational details. Pinging those who have commented here already: Onetwothreeip, Clarityfiend, Dream Focus, PC78, *Treker, Betty Logan, Andrew Davidson, Lightburst. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A grand improvement I'd say.★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I put the table in alpha order but did not add any sort keys yet. A few directors were listed in seperate rows while others had multiple actors on one row. For the directors in multiple rows I merged their listing but I didn't break out the actors into their own separate rows as I wasn't sure what the intent or plan was. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current, greatly improved form. As long as the list is maintained to only include sourced examples, and doesn't become the indiscriminate mess it was before, it is a valid list article, as demonstrated by the now-included sources. Kudos to Erik for actually taking the time to put that work in! Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now Erik has worked on it, trimmed the cruft and sourced it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Will try to withdraw later today. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It needs more work but it's certainly an improvement, so I guess we should give this new version the benefit of the doubt. PC78 (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by Erik and WP:SKCRIT withdrawn nomination. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Lewis, James R. (March 2001). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. ISBN 9781615927388.

[2] Lewis, James R.; Petersen, Jesper Aa (2014-07-16). Controversial New Religions. ISBN 9780199394364.

[Todd-0-3] "Todd Graves 6". Food Channel. Retrieved 2019-09-02.

[4] How you can reach wealth by using proven millionaires ideas. Zoran Orlov. pp. 86–. ISBN 978-953-95909-0-9.

[PrideHughes2012-5] William M. Pride; Robert J. Hughes; Jack R. Kapoor (1 January 2012). Foundations of Business. Cengage Learning. pp. 130–. ISBN 1-111-58015-4.

[Todd-1-6] "Todd Graves". IMDB. Retrieved 2019-09-02.

[Todd-2-7] "Raising Cane's Todd Graves Named a Top CEO in America". qsrmagazine.com. Retrieved 2019-09-02.

[Todd-3-8] Marcy de Luna. "Raising Cane's donates $100,000 to Chuck Norris' Kickstart Kids organization". IMDB. Retrieved 2019-09-02.

[Todd-5-9] "Gov. Edwards and Todd Graves Kick Off Ninth Annual Lemonade Day". gov.louisiana.gov. Retrieved 2019-09-02.

[Todd-4-10] "Raising Cane's Announces $1 Million Partnership with Southern University". Southern University. Retrieved 2019-09-02.

[Todd-6-11] "Raising Cane's offers Hawaii chicken lovers a new option". Hawaii News Now. Retrieved 2019-09-02.

[12] "Noida News: अनमोल और यशिका बने मिस्टर व मिस ग्रेटर वैली - anmol and yashika made mr. and miss greater valley". Navbharat Times. February 2, 2019.

[13] "बच्चों ने फैशन में जलवे दिखाए". livehindustan.com.

[14] "कैंब्रिज व ग्रेटर वैली स्कूल को मिली शानदार जीत". Dainik Jagran.

[15] "क्रिसमस कार्निवाल में स्कूली बच्चों ने की मस्ती". Amar Ujala.

[16] "ग्रेटर वैली ने दी एएसएन स्कूल को शिकस्त". jagran.com.

[17] "Noida News: मुकुंद ने ग्रेटर वैली स्कूल को दिलाई बड़ी जीत - mukund congratulates greater valley school". Navbharat Times. April 17, 2019.

[18] Agar, A. Ufuk; Dispoto, Gary J.; Tastl, Ingeborg; Koh, Kok-Wei; Damera-Venkata, Niranjan (April 2011). "Photo Quality Printing on a Digital Press". Hewlett-Packard Laboratories: 1.

[19] Gremore, Graham (19 July 2018). "Two top male models accuse renowned fashion photographer Rick Day of sexual assault". Queerty. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[20] "Kai Braden". TNGModels. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[21] Jarvey, Natalie (24 August 2017). "Snapchat Content Chief Reveals Key to Creating Shows for Mobile". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[22] "Nick Bell: VP of content, Snap - For creating and curating the most clickable content on the Internet". Fast Company. 2016. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[23] Carson, Biz; Heath, Alex (7 February 2017). "Meet the power players who help Evan Spiegel run Snap Inc". Business Insider. Retrieved 8 September 2019.

[24] Johnson, Eric (25 October 2018). "Taking a page from YouTube, Snap VP Nick Bell wants to find the next generation of media stars". Vox. Retrieved 10 September 2019.

[25] Castillo, Miechelle (12 November 2018). "Snap's vice president of content Nick Bell is leaving the company". CNBC. Retrieved 10 September 2019.

[26] Spangler, Todd (12 November 2018). "Nick Bell Out as Snap's Head of Content". Variety. Retrieved 10 September 2019.

[27] Spangler, Todd (5 March 2019). "Former Snap Content Head Nick Bell Joins Startup Incubator Human Ventures". Variety. Retrieved 10 September 2019.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]