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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラP 01:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Chilton[edit]

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

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

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. One book, Michael J. McVicar (27 April 2015). Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 217–. ISBN 978-1-4696-2275-0., mentions him in passing a number of times, and calls him a promising theologian: , but that doesn't constitute significant coverage. However,Tim F. LaHaye; Thomas Ice (2003). The End Times Controversy. Harvest House Publishers. pp. 60–. ISBN 978-0-7369-0953-2. contains one and a half page dedicated to him, and that is something. Add to it the few mentions in passing I see out there, and this is borderline, but might merit keeping. Not seeing any more sources, however, so this may be all we have to work with (well, I wouldn't be surprised if some of his books got some reviews in obscure academic journals, but that wouldn't count for much anyway, as notability is not inherited). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I struggle with the idea of a dedication in a non-notable book being significant coverage. LaHayne is notable and has written notable books. This wasn't one of them. Further, reviews of his books may make a case for the book being notable, but that doesn't always translate to the author. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found passing mention in two blogs on Patheos ([1] [2]) and a few others but his extreme views have not garnered the subject significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. The problem is that there is a notable Canadian entrepreneur who has the same name and I had to add "pastor" to the searches to filter that out. It may have resulted in some missed entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF #1. Google Scholar shows citations for his top three books at 119, 69, and 44. In fact, he is one of the key figures in both Christian Reconstruction and Preterism. See, for example, the coverage in Julie Ingersoll, Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp 28-31. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:PROF as indicated above, also book reviews count as significant critical attention as per WP:NAUTHOR last criteria, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How does he pass criteria 4 of NAUTHOR? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

criteria 4c "won significant critical attention" Atlantic306 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What significant critical attention? The single book that talked about him?Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I have to agree with StAnselm. Notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:PROF.4meter4 (talk) 11:46, 29 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 Jitters (band). Consensus is that the article is not notable. Redirecting to the band's article per comments citing NALBUM. ST47 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promo Disk 2005[edit]

Promo Disk 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Couple of very brief blurbs in Muzykalnaya Gazeta, other than that, no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We may witness 2 (two) review pieces by Олег «О’К» Климов (Aleh Klimay who wrote a lot under the moniker О’К), chief editor of Muzykalnaya Gazeta, a famous Belarusian music journalist, at hand. He was a music columnist over at Sovetskaya Belorussiya – Belarus' Segodnya (https://www.sb.by/author/153909-oleg-klimov/), anchor of music programs over at the National State Television and Radio Company of Belarus network, and more. We can read about his opinion's weight under the umbrella of Muzykalnaya Gazeta over the selected references here and its interwikies as well, while, according to the deletion discussions taken place on Open Space (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_Space_(band)), Hair Peace Salon (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hair_Peace_Salon), we “should rely on such authoritative sources in the field of Belarusian music as "experty.by" or "Muzykalnaya Gazeta". Such sources attach importance to the subject of the article.”^[1][2][3] -- Pr12402 13 September 2019.

• Delete Fails WP:GNG Hughesdarren (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Belarus. -- Pr12402 14 September 2019.

• Redirect to Jitters (band) per WP:NALBUM - Epinoia (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Unlike the recent example of an EP/6-tracks "album" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building 429 (2000 album)) put into the deletion process, which was eventually considered unremarkable because of no references were found to back it up, there are 2 Muzykalnaya Gazeta review pieces, plus Hair Peace Salon's take on the collaboration at a later moment itself as well. -- Pr12402 21 September 2019.

• Delete Have to agree with above comments. As it stands, the article shows no sign of notability with little to zero mainstream media coverage by reliable third party sources. Robvanvee 16:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jitters (band) per WP:NALBUM and it could be a viable search term. With that being said, I am not entirely opposed to a deletion either. I just always favor redirecting an album or EP to an artist's page if possible just in case someone actually wants to learn more about it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: I would like point out on a similar case, let's look at The Older I Get (EP). We may witness just 1 (one) review by Jesus Freak Hideout, a christian music blog the page about which was deleted four (4) times, at hand that, apparently, is sufficient to bolster up the article topic's notability to stay afloat, while Walter Görlitz just added the "More citations needed" tag with no AfD or so. ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯ -- Pr12402 30 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Karley[edit]

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

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

No indication of satisfying WP:MILPERSON or WP:ANYBIO. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable person. Barca (talk) 22:45, 25 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. (non-admin closure) ミラP 01:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assured Compliance Assessment Solution[edit]

Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There's no coverage of this suggesting it would be notable and there's no reason it would be. The US Department of Defense licenses a small package of cybersecurity products that it makes available for use by its computer network operations, and refers to them internally as the "Assured Compliance Assessment Solution". It's explained here. It's just an internal name for this internally downloadable suite of retail products. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:NSOFTWARE as it has not been discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field - Epinoia (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment I've just wikified this stub for encyclopedic tone and re-written. ACAS is extensively used within DoD, but not widely reported in the media. Some additional sources have been cited, however, including the U.S. Army news article, to meet GNG. NSOFTWARE is just an essay, by the way.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the sources in the most recent version at this moment,

• Reference 1 smells very much like Segue Technologies suggesting that it can offer auxiliary services to organizations in the military wanting to implement ACAS. Advertising.
• Reference 2 is to a website sponsored by the manufacturer of the software that currently constitutes ACAS, essentially an advertisement, not coverage by an independent source.
• Reference 3 is from Business Wire, so it's already given that it's a press release. In this case, it's a press release by the manufacturer, Tenable. Not an independent source.
• The sole mention of ACAS in Reference 4 is in the caption to a photo, identifying the subject of the photo. Not significant coverage of this topic.
• Reference 5 is DISA, the organization that supplies ACAS to military users, supplying ACAS to military users. Not an independent source.
• Reference 6 is by the US Army, another instance of the military communicating to its members about its own offering. Not an independent source.
• Reference 7 alone appears to contribute to WP:GNG.

Largoplazo (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your dismissal of refs 5 and 6: these are official statements published by the Federal government and, as such, are certainly reliable sources. To say they are not "independent" is akin to saying the National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey are not "independent" of, say, their extensive use as refs in Yellowstone National Park, a FA.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing verifiably and notably. An NPS publication can be a good source to back up assertions about Yellowstone but has no role in establishing its notability under WP:GNG. If my company's IT department has built a system for recording time worked called TimeWatch that all employees are to use, then an announcement of the release of the product by the CEO, instructions and rules from the HR department for using TimeWatch, and an article highlighting TimeWatch in the internal company newsletter produced by the Communications department are reliable sources for information about TimeWatch, but they aren't independent sources establishing the notability of it. Largoplazo (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have different opinions about what constitutes notability. In my view, an infosec program that is mandated by the Department of Defense, the U.S. largest employer, is notable on its face and has reference value for the reader.  JGHowes  ^talk 14:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia supplies no guideline for finding a topic notable based on an arbitrary set of characteristics that seem to make it so on its face. The whole point of WP:GNG is that if independent sources haven't taken note of something, it isn't for us to declare it worthy of note. Right now it appears to be an internal US military detail that's obscure to the rest of the world. Largoplazo (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Being military specific and "obscure to the rest of the world" is not, in and of itself, a reason to exclude Wikipedia content. ACAS is the tool suite specified in USCYBERCOM TASKORD 17-0019, Scanning and Remediation. It is significant in the DoD and elsewhere in the federal government. I feel it has merit and should be retained. I'm not a Wiki editor, but as a longtime ACAS user, military auditor, and expert on Risk_management_framework. Jeremycec —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Re "being ... obscure to the rest of the world ... is not, in and of itself, a reason to exclude Wikipedia content": On the contrary: it's the very essence of the Wikipedia:Notability policy with which every article topic must comply, and resonates throughout this project's guidelines on that topic.

That software's users use it and even its actual importance don't make it notable under Wikipedia's definition of that word, which differs from its ordinary usage. "NotED" would be closer. Largoplazo (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. My university library system pulled up 29 published references on this topis. Here is a small selection of sources:

1. "Tenable Network Security Selected for DISA Assured Compliance Assessment Solution", Professional Services Close - Up, Apr 29, 2012 ("Agency (DISA) as the Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS). In a release on April 23, the company said tenable products will be available to the...")
2. "Cybersecurity Software protects data across multiple platforms.(SAIC Introduces CyberSecurity Edge(TM))", Product News Network, Sept 3, 2014 ("Security's Assured Compliance Assessment Solution for the Defense Information Systems Agency -- Operation of multiple security operations centers...")
3. "Defense Information Systems Agency Selects HP to Assess Networks for Vulnerabilities", Wireless News, April 25, 2012 ("terms of the contract, the Assured Compliance Assessment Solution will be available for implementation across the DoD as the compliance solution. HP will")
4. "Department of Defense Selects Tenable Network Security", Wireless News, Oct 10, 2011, ("Tenable Network Security, a provider of Unified Security Monitoring, announced that it has been selected for the Department of Defense Assured Compliance Assessment Solution...")
5. "DoD Cyber IA Range open and ready for customers", Gaudreau, Neil ; Combs, Jeffrey, CHIPS, July-Sept, 2012, Vol.30(3), p.22(5) ("Securify * DoD Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS) * IPSonar *")
6. "Enterprise security system deployment", Salmon, Scott A., Army Communicator, Summer, 2014, Vol.39(2), p.51(2 ("vulnerabilities that impact mission readiness and the ability to command and control. The Assured Compliance Assessment Solution..")
7. "Press Release: SAIC Introduces CyberSecurity Edge(TM)", Dow Jones Institutional News, Aug 26, 2014, ("Assured Compliance Assessment Solution for the Defense Information Systems Agency -- Operation of multiple security operations centers, network operations...")

Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you check that each of these sources counts under WP:GNG? I'm thinking not because at least three of them (including, explicitly, the last), are press releases, which don't count. Largoplazo (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Largoplazo, enough of these are not press releases to satisfy WP:GNG. Source 5 was tagged as peer reviewed journal article. I just copy pasted the first seven of 29 publications without cherry picking the best of the bunch.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Watt Beveridge[edit]

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

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

No indication of satisfying WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know a couple who named their child "Beveridge" -- an eyebrow-raiser. No more than ordinary life in this article, tho, so delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sign of notability Alex-h (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't find anything in RS apart from passing mentions, also found someone of same name who may be related to him, but otherwise nothing. There is nothing in the article that suggests notability, failed WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 09:37, 27 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cinematographic Score: GTA5[edit]

The Cinematographic Score: GTA5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnotable album, only sources are Discogs (not reliable) and some personal blog (also unreliable). Lordtobi (✉) 21:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 21:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 21:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Already covered at Music of Grand Theft Auto V. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Soundtrack is notable enough for its own article, it is the soundtrack by a major band with over 100 albums, Tangerine Dream, from one of the biggest video games of all time. Full disclosure, I'm the creator of this article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not inherited, neither from the artist nor the game. Lordtobi (✉) 10:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trident, you just copy and pasted the information from Music of Grand Theft Auto V, with no additional sources establish any notability for an independent article. Just because the album is from a well-know band doesn't automatically means it notable for its own article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly does not meet either WP:GNG or any SNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not notable enough to have its own article, Merge to Music of Grand Theft Auto VSpy-cicle (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article somehow has even less information than the listing at Music of Grand Theft Auto V—all of the information should be covered there. – Rhain ☔ 06:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Barca (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 02:42, 29 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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashu[edit]

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

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

very poor WP:RS lacks wp:gng, cited links are either the dead links or self published website Worldnpeace (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldnpeace (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Begs the question whether winning awards makes notability in a field. Would have to depend on the award, but it would need to be sourced somewhere other than the person's own website, or that of the award-giver. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The claimed facts in the article probably support notability. However, if the claimed facts were true, it is hard to believe that we could not achieve WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if the mononym is preventing discovery of content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mand Munda[edit]

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

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

Described as a village with "a total number of 2 houses and the population of 2 of which 2 are males while 0 are females". Hardly a village; less than a city block even. Seems part of an autocreated run with little attention given to what was generated. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The source in the article has gone dead. Searching the live Indian census site draws a blank. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The place appears to be officially recognised [3][4]. Although it is not much of a village with only 2 persons, per WP:GEOLAND, it is presumed to be notable even if the population is very low or has been abandoned unless it can be shown that it is just a census tract. Hzh (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make this Keep for now for the reason given unless the nominator can show that this is merely a census tract. Hzh (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Recognised settlement as confirmed by Hzh. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 27 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 Elders of the Universe. History is available if anyone wants to merge additional details. RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possessor (comics)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Elders of the Universe. BOZ (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No sources. No keep. All WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Rockphed (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Elders of the Universe. WP:CHEAP and already there. Starting to feel like a broken record. -2pou (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Elders of the Universe per 2pou. No sources to indicate any independent notability, however as the character is already present on the main "Elders" page with a basic description, a redirect there would be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 15:13, 28 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: M. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Magnum[edit]

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

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Significant coverage in scholarly literature.[5] StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One source is not significant. That source itself is good, but not on its own. TTN (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M. BOZ (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While StAnselm found a good source, I am afraid it is the only notability conferring source I can find. Rockphed (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M. While there are not enough sources to justify an individual article, the one good source identified by StAnselm puts it above 99 percent of all the other characters on the bloated Marvel Character lists, and shows that he is one of the few characters that actually have justification to be included in them. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Virgin[edit]

I Am Virgin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This low-budget b-movie is far from notable, per guidelines set in WP:NFO. KidAd (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 02:29, 28 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) Meatsgains^(talk) 20:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Abutbul (politician)[edit]

Moshe Abutbul (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable mayor. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Member of the Israeli parliament (Knesset) all of the 120 members have articles in multiple langaudges. Also was in a very well known mayoral race and am astonished you put up this afd. IsraeliIdan (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IsraeliIdan. Mccapra (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Knesset. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Just been elected to the Knesset. Nominator needs a good trouting. Number 57 18:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as described above. --Enos733 (talk) 20:10, 21 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Tajali[edit]

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

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

Article deleted by PROD in 2010, and then recreated, deleted again, and recreated again a few days later. PROD reason: "Footballer who fails NFOOTY and GNG". I concur. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hold up, this guy hasn't played a single match as a pro? This is a clear failure of WP:NFOOTY, and I'm surprised the article has existed for nearly a decade in mainsapce. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Only spent one season with Persopolis (2010–2011) with no apperances, per this. GiantSnowman 13:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ,Per above, Not much coverage in reliable independent sources, not a professional player, not notable Alex-h (talk) 13:04, 24 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) 18:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zaman Ali (philosopher)[edit]

Zaman Ali (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR. Ali was a candidate for the National Assembly of Pakistan but was not elected. The article claims Ali received attention "as one of youngest candidate to secure votes", but the cited sources are just routine coverage that contain passing mentions of Ali. Ali is also the author of two books, but I can't find WorldCat entries for either, much less anything that would satisfy NAUTHOR. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If these article is for delete then what about all of these articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Khaliq_(philosopher) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._A._Qadir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalim_Siddiqui https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaheen_Shah_Taji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intisar-ul-Haque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saifuddin_Bohra

They don't have even one single good reference and don't have any identifiers from prominent identifiers. so you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Bolingbroke what you say about all of this because u know nothing.

and Zaman ali world cat entry will be here in few days then what? then you have to accept this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyl8901 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: See Zaman Ali, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaman Ali 01 and c:User:Achim55/Sockpuppet investigations/Zaman Ali. --Achim (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NPOL as he did not win any election, he lost one though. dont see any reason for him passing WP:NAUTHOR either.  Danyl8901 please see WP:OSE you can go ahead and delete them if you find them not passing WP:N criteria. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, so he doesn't pass WP:NPOL as a politician — but if you have to source the existence of his books to GoodReads and BookFinder entries, because reliable source coverage about them is nonexistent, then he doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR as a philosopher either. And Dany18901 needs to read WP:WAX if they think their ability to find other articles that aren't better sourced than this means this has to be kept: more likely those other articles need to be deleted too, and just hadn't been noticed by a responsible editor until Dany pointed them out. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepSo where is your criteria that many articles are on Wikipedia from years and not deleted despite having bad sources. that mean wikipedia is total fraud, and any admin can delete any article whenever he want and no check and balance on all those articles that are here. and i could show you thousands of worse articles and they all are on wikipedia. so how can we say you guys are doing better work here. that's why wikipedia is losing it's credibility. if you want to delete this then delete all those articles. and i know many paid admin who works for others and make fake articles and because they are admins and know how fake bad sources into good one and then articles don't get deleted. what about them? answer me with valid argument then delete this article. and if you don't have any valid argument then you are wasting your time here. because fake but expert people are making articles here with not any good sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyl8901 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Danyl8901, you did create your account on 25 June. Just that day Zaman Ali's d:Q42709759 has been deleted. And - surprise! - just that day you created a new one d:Q64826519. So you shouldn't be surprised, if someone starts an SPI against you. --Achim (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Achim watch out man you have some wrong agenda here, you are fake and not the right person here, wikipedia is about putting articles with references but you fake shit you are here to make and delete articles on your personal likes and dislikes, wikipedia should ban you from here. and yes i created articles but with citations and sources and not without that if you have problem with sources and citation then talk otherwise do some right work in life and not waste others time. you are not the only one to delete this, let votes here and if people think article doesn't have right citations or not good enough then delete it on that basis. but your opinion here is fake one and doesn't matter because you are here with wrong intention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyl8901 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL - this is a twenty-something writer without major publications. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR, subject wasn't notable the first time the article was deleted and isn't notable now. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom but also per G4 and G5. This is obvious sock puppetry and vanity spamming. Praxidicae (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Danyl8901 okay delete it, looks alike you are in consensus for deleting it. —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR and isn't notable now. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:56, 26 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. Sandstein 07:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EndChan[edit]

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

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

Not really seeing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (WP:N). Specifically, everything that's more than a brief mention is solely in the context of Bærum mosque shooting. As it's mentioned in that article, a redirect is probably in order, but a stand-alone article doesn't seem necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Bærum mosque shooting has covered all that matters about this website, which amounts to on sentence. I have no prejudice against a merger or redirection verdict, but deletion appears the most appropriate. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Outside of a sea of passing mentions, I found one [6], but that's about it. I'm switching to delete unless any more can be found. ミラP 01:18, 30 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 G5: created by a sock of User:Cuty Pie Sweetu. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Classic[edit]

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

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

The article was speedy deleted three times as non notable. The new version, recreated today, contains some sources, which, in my opinion, are not sufficient to establish notability. Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Classic is a popular television channel in India. There were no pages for it. That's why created this page with following all guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitra Saha (talk • contribs)

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) 18:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of the third-party content in Super Smash Bros.[edit]

List of the third-party content in Super Smash Bros. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:GAMECRUFT. While the third-party characters are notable, their stages and related trophies and stickers are almost never notable, at least in the context of a spin-off list such as this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this page by just copy/pasting (and formating) content from List of crossovers in video games to improve visual clarity of the page. This is not the only version of the page which is overloaded with Super Smash Bros. content, it is rather final version. You can check version history of that Page to confirm that. If we delete this page, original author will undo one of the older versions of List of crossovers in video games, and I am not sure do we want that. If you can prevent that or have any other solution, I am fine with deletion. EchoBlu (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That list is entirely unsourced and also seems to violate WP:VGSCOPE. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete then. I hope List of crossovers in video games won't start to grow again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoBlu (talk • contribs) 10:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We have the list of playable fighters from third-parties on the series page, and from that, it is infered that those characters bring along stages, music, and other facets from those games. To list those all out would be improper. Listing out all the third-party content that comes from non-playable characters (like Assist Trophies, Mii costumes, and the Spirits thing in SSBU) is definitely GAMEGUIDE. However, on those games' pages, where the inclusion of a character or similar has been added to Smash as noted by third-parties, that can be included (eg: Shovel Knight, Sans/Undertale). But there's so many as to list them out from the context of SSBU would be wrong. --Masem (t) 16:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. Any notable content is already covered in the game and series articles anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VGSCOPE and Sergecross73's comment. This kind of game info belongs to game specific Wikis like Wikia and Gamepedia. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Super Smash Bros. Spy-cicle (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every one else has said it best.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:08, 28 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 for recreation of deleted material. Article has also been salted. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Michael[edit]

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

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

Biography of a person who does not pass GNG or any other notability criteria. Tagishsimon (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt This is the fourth AfD for this biography. The article was speedy deleted as NN whilst AFD1 was going on - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Michael. The item was recreated under a new name. It was speedy deleted under that name whilst a second nomination was ongoing - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Nnamdi Michael. The item was recreated again - all against rules, of course. A couple of speedy tags added to the new article were removed by the author, again against rules (diff), (diff). A third AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Michael (2nd nomination) - was started by then closed by the nominator - mistakenly, since the majority of !votes were delete and salt ... afaik one can only withdraw before delete votes are appended (see WP:WDAFD). Whatever. Time to sort this matter out once and for all. I herewith ping everyone who has been involved in the series of AfDs to date, and ask that we let this AfD run to a decision, rather than speedying or withdrawing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hugsyrup:, @SimonWright.au:, @RHaworth:, @Nnadigoodluck:, @Wakowako:, @Beasteggs:, @Praxidicae:, @AntiCompositeNumber:, @Ceethekreator:, @DGG:, @CAPTAIN RAJU:, @Mustapha dare:, @Ohnoitsjamie: --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt Wikipedia is not an extension of LinkedIn. Time to refund your client and move on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 21 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) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Dixon-Green[edit]

Martin Dixon-Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The player does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL and I cannot find evidence that he meets WP:GNG either. There are no independent sources on the article. The player has had a relatively unremarkable college and professional career (in a league that is not considered top flight) and in fact I can’t find evidence that he is even still playing since his release from the London Lightning in late 2018. Rikster2 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Playing in the National Basketball League of Canada does not give a presumption of notability per WP:NBASKETBALL. I found this press release that mentions Dixon-Greene re-signed with the London Lightning for the 2018–19 season, but like nom I couldn't find any independent sources that would establish notability. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as nominated, doesn't meet notability guidelines.......PKT(alk) 17:22, 25 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mira_Gonzalez[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person, does not pass WP:BIO. Published a single book of poems 6 years ago and does not appear to be active. Appears to be a vanity page for the author to link to on twitter. KiTA (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to pass WP:AUTHOR 4)c. Was featured with new poetry in a literary publication 3 years ago ^[1]. Alternative to deletion: the page should be updated with this content. Linking to her twitter is relevant considering her creation of a poetry book based on collages of her (and others') tweets, which also supports WP:AUTHOR 2.

• Delete - Per nomination, does not seem notable and author seems to promote her own Wikipedia page via social media, suggesting the page may be a vanity piece. Saget53 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article fits the criteria for notability. In particular, the bio receives significant coverage from independent sources that do not come from and are not directly related to the subject of the bio. The sources are reliable mainstream publications such as the Guardian. I agree with what was stated above - this article should just be updated to reflect more recent info about the subject. I should also point out that there is considerable new interest in deletion after comments the subject made against a well-known personality, so arguments favoring deletion may come from a biased intent against the subject rather than an impartial evaluation of the article itself. MindPrism (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per two previous Keep discussions. Notable poet, reviews in reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. 71.103.224.224 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I’ve seen articles on less notable people survive AfDs. I agree that the article now looks like a vanity page. However, the better response is to correct the article, as opposed to delete it. I already tried to do that by deleting all puffery that was supported by ñon-existing articles, but that got reverted. I’ll leave it to other users now. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: appears to be notable: notability is not temporary so "does not appear to be active" is irrelevant, and she is no less notable than when passing two previous AfDs. PamD 11:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: She meets notability, but the article needs a serious edit - it is a shining, A+ example of puffery. JSFarman (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of sources talking about her in depth. Current activity is irrelevant. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 26 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 G5. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Ortega[edit]

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

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

Purely undisclosed COI. Beasteggs (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 21 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 Draftify. Consensus is to draftify. Article will be moved to Draft:International Relations Lecture Series for further work. Note that at least one of the "draftify" !voters has indicated a willingness to review the updated article before it is moved back to mainspace. ST47 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations Lecture Series[edit]

International Relations Lecture Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems like a notice-board announcement of a series of lectures. The only reference is not independent and I could find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source citation has been added to the article, so there is now an independent reference. The article is not a notice board post--it purposes to document this speaker series and to present the results of research into its 90-year history. I prefer to build the article in a sandbox, but I'm already working on a major edit of the Deb Lavender/living person/MO State Representative wiki page in my sandbox and do not know how to fork a sandbox so I can work on two articles at once. More boxes of MO Historical Society records are being shipped to UMSL for me to dig through next week. I believe the article should be expanded, not deleted, because it defines and explains an historical St. Louis women's event.PatriciaBishop (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's a lecture series which has apparently been running since 1929 so it doesn't seem like they need Wikipedia's help in terms of promotion. Mccapra (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Hello, thank you for your message. As soon as possible I will add reference sources and facts to further build this article--what I really need is to move it to a sandbox until I can complete it, but I don't know how to do this. On notable coverage by local news sources: Last year local St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Tony Messenger mentioned this speaker series in one of his articles because Dr. Jeffrey Winters was one of the visiting speakers. Dr. Winters is an internationally renowned expert on income inequality and professor at Northwestern University, department chair. Dr. Winters' work has been cited in Plutocrats by Chrystia Freeland (who is also internationally famous as a business reporter, member of the Canadian parliament, and because she was the point person for her government explaining to President Trump why there is no trade imbalance) and Dark Money by Jane Mayer. Further, the article is a part of women's history in St. Louis. The event series has been the work of two women's groups for almost 90 years, which is notable for many reasons I won't go into within this format. PatriciaBishop (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)The series has never been for-profit. PatriciaBishop (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC) This article now has a recent source citation from the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, Tony Messenger of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Tony interviewed one of the Series speakers because the speaker, Dr. Jeffrey Winters, is a world-renowned expert in international finance and how it relates to power and government. Dr. Winters traveled from Chicago to speak at the Series.PatriciaBishop (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The article is just blatant advertising at the moment and will need a complete re-write to be acceptable and as for the comment above, it is irrelevant that a "Pulitzer Prize winning reporter" interviewed one of the speakers. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being held to an unreasonable standard. It is difficult to present women's history that is well documented. This subject matter happens to be very well documented in the mainstream press and in Missouri Historical Society records. That this Series ever happened at all--and has endured--is amazing. Women in history were usually birthing, child rearing, cooking, cleaning, sewing, and working on farms & in factories with absolutely nothing notable happening to get them into history books. Everyone seems to want to know what the white men were doing and record their work for history--or give the white men credit for the work others actually performed. This article is about women interested in solving world problems, in seeing and understanding multiple points of view on tough issues. This is far, far more interesting and impressive than Imo's Pizza, HOK, Oldani's, and many other popular subjects that are even less notable--yet somehow are approved for Wikipedia. If this article is deleted, articles Imo's Pizza, HOK architects, Oldani's, and many more must be deleted. Not all history is popular; this should not be a popularity contest. I hope to continue expanding this article with cross-references to historical influences across the decades as these series were being held. I understand the impulse to derisively dismiss this subject matter as unimportant, but I disagree.PatriciaBishop (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• - see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - Epinoia (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong Hi, I see a point in re-ordering the information, putting an historical overview in the first paragraph. Maybe I should leave out the current day event details; they really aren't necessary. I put the details there originally because I only had the website as a source as I waited for documents to be transferred to St. Louis from Historical Society's main storage in Columbia, MO. Thursday of this week I'll have a chance to dig into the records again, so the results of that dig will change the direction/organization of the article, I'm sure.PatriciaBishop (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC) I put Tony Messenger's interview of one of the speakers in the article because in the Wiki notability guidelines, there's mention of significant news coverage. The other place I'm going with this is that historically the Series has attracted expert speakers who are giants in their fields, and this is part of what makes the Series notable. And, I still maintain if the Series had been produced by white men since 1929--it would already be a Wikipedia page. Women's history tends to get a short shrift.PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify to allow time for sources to be found per WP:DRAFTIFY - as it stands, I couldn't find any significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, not newspapers, books on women's history, etc. - the only guideline that may save this article is WP:SUSTAINED, that the lecture series has attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time, but there are no obvious sources, possibly because the series pre-dates the internet, but there may be newspaper archives, etc., that provide writeups on the lecture series from the past - the notability of individual lecturers has no bearing as notability cannot be inherited, the lecture series itself must be notable as evidenced by significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - another approach would be WP:PRESERVE to allow time for the article to be improved and sources found (but in the absence of sources the article could be up for deletion again in the future) - or finally, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; if there is consensus that a lecture series that has been running since 1929 is inherently notable then it could possibly be kept under common sense editing - however, WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS says, "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus", so there's that - Epinoia (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your comment and suggesting more time for research. I'm going back to Missouri Historical Society at UMSL in St. Louis to piece more of the history together, and have found newspaper articles in St. Louis Post-Dispatch archives, but need to pull together these items now into a cohesive article. I'm also struggling with the idea that a lecture series is quintessentially the speakers it is able to attract and the intellectual purpose & vision its organizers have had to invite certain speakers. Also the presentation topics are weighty, and have tended to be prescient. So I'm kind of going in this direction to establish notability--yet the struggle comes in because, logical as this approach is, it doesn't fit exactly with Wikipedia notability guidelines.PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Further research reveals this lecture series was chaired at least twice by Edna Gellhorn, the famous St. Louis suffragette who organized the Golden Lane demonstration at the 1916 Democratic National Convention, and later went on to co-found the National League of Women Voters. This discovery speaks to two issues. First, the notability of the Lecture Series is boosted by the fact that historically important people have been associated with it. Secondly, it furthers my previous argument about how difficult it is to document women's history. Facts and events don't make it into recorded history unless, at the time, someone thinks these things were important. Women's activities were not generally considered important. Gellhorn was a particularly good publicist. See her Wiki page.PatriciaBishop (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify the editor who created this has said that they are prepared to do extensive further work on it and it sounds as though further sources can be found to improve it. Mccapra (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per Mccapra.4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I nominated this article for deletion. I am happy for it to be draftified, but that will not actually solve the problem of whether the lecture series is notable or not. Having well-known speakers does not of itself demonstrate notability. The creator needs to find sufficient reliable, independent sources to demonstrate notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @PatriciaBishop: if this goes to draft and you want help reviewing it before sending it back to mainspace, contact me on my talk page. Mccapra (talk) 05:15, 30 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. Additional reviews found during discussion appear to satisfy WP:BOOKCRIT. RL0919 (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before Jerusalem Fell[edit]

Before Jerusalem Fell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that the book meets WP:BOOKCRIT or has significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the book is notable as the most cited support for Preterism and Postmillennialism, contrary to the majority view, but nonetheless giving a balance of view. The article needs major expansion. JohnThorne (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Tough call. I couldn't find reviews in the conventional sources but the article links to an article which discusses the book's arguments at great length.[7] There are 82 citations to the book on Google Scholar which is not amazing but not nothing either. For Gentry's own compilation of comments on it see here: [8] Some of those look like they might go to reviews or other usable coverage. This is as far as I've got. Haukur (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This will be a controversial topic. However the fact that this book has reached a third edition suggests to me that it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What notability standard uses number of editions as the criteria? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT which requires two or more non-trivial reviews (only one review is linked in the article), has not won any awards, etc. - notablility not established - Epinoia (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this review was published in Bibliotheca Sacra, so that would be the second one, as required. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found one from the The Journal of Theological Studies.[9] StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:BOOKCRIT #1 as demonstrated above. StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, 3 reviews are enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abeil[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced stub article about a little-known fictional species. I couldn't find any mention of them in any reliable independent sources. Not a very active user (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge' to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the proposed target for the merge is also being considered for deletion. Not a very active user (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this could be redirected to Abiel, as it's a likely mispelling 46.132.187.159 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Very unnotable fictional creature, with nothing in the way of reliable, secondary sources indicating any sort of real world notability. The proposed merge/redirect target is already a bloated, border-line unnotable list, so I don't recommend any sort of redirection there. The IP user's suggestion of using this as a redirect as a potential misspelling of Abiel is not a bad one, and can be done after this is deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:08, 29 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. Consensus is to delete on WP:GNG / WP:NPOL grounds. There are some suggestions to merge or redirect to 2019 San Francisco mayoral election, but not enough to call that the official "outcome" of this debate. So I will delete and unlink (the only mainspace links are from 2018 San Francisco mayoral special election and 2019 San Francisco mayoral election, and if folks think it should be a redirect, they can feel free to do that. ST47 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Lee Zhou[edit]

Ellen Lee Zhou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unelected politician, passing coverage, seems to fail both WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:NBIO. De facto electoral advertising, complete with a DYK nomination and the usual red flag of WP:SPA contributions (Pray4america (talk · contribs)). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Piotrus: it should be clear that Pray4america vandalized the page I wrote, no? Did you check the history? They didn't write the article, they just tried to turn it into a campaign ad, which I've reverted as they are a WP:SPA with an obvious WP:COI. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that they tried to make it even more like an ad is not helping, no. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In what way is anything I wrote an endorsement of Zhou? Certainly I'm helping her campaign by reporting her belief in conspiracy theories and her endorsement of a Trump wall in a city as Democratic as SF? Is it not our aim to feature more women in politics? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, I am not going to argue you wrote an ad, again, the version I reviewed initially was the one rewritten by the SPA, yours is certainly more neutral. My main concern here is not neutrality, but notability, which we discuss below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the way, editors should be aware that Piotrus is trying to get even the image File:Ellen Lee Zhou.jpg deleted completely without merit. Per commons:COM:YT the image is clearly allowed to be on Commons regardless of the outcome of this AfD. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image is free, I've withdrawn the nomination for it. It is in either case mostly irrelevant to this topic, through it is worth noting that currently, the article at the point of its nomination did not use that more neutral image, but instead an explicit election poster... Now, I see that there is an edit war there between the SPA and the creator (Psiĥedelisto), through I expect the SPA will just get blocked soon for edit warring, solving one problem. I concur that the Psiĥedelisto's version is more neutral, through I still don't believe it passes NBIO.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I disagree on two counts. A single revert of obviously unencyclopedic content is not an edit war. I'm not the only one reverting Pray4america's improper edits, although you're probably right that they're going to be blocked. WP:POLITICIAN states Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Zhou has been covered in World Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate, Mission Local, San Francisco Examiner, National Review (!!!), and extensively in The Epoch Times, which I realize is a problematic source. There is more than enough coverage for an article Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a paragraph or a single sentence quote is very much 'not' extensive coverage. Instead, it is the very definition of passing, minor coverage that is not sufficient for NBIO. Did any of those sources dedicate at least several paragraphs to her? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all there in the article. National Review wrote three paragraphs about her. The Epoch Times has covered her extensively. World Journal wrote an article entirely about her. Mission Local wrote a long piece about a protest Zhou organized. KTSF wrote a long piece as well, and regularly covers her in Chinese. SFGate wrote a long piece about her before she was even a politician. The article has 14 sources and I haven't even found everything yet. Did you even check them? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of this in in-depth, but I have stricter criteria than some, and this is a borderline type of an entry, in my experience this AfD can swing 50/50. Let's leave this to others and see what they think about this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you will not withdraw, there's nothing else I can do, is there? You've moved the goalpost from "three paragraphs" to "in-depth", whatever that means. There is tons of in-depth coverage in both English and Chinese. I think you opened this against a vandalized article, failed to check the history, and now when faced with overwhelming evidence that I attempted to write this article in a NPOV way with now 15 sources, you can't admit your error. So yes, let's see what others say. 50/50 is being very optimistic on your end. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: FWIW I have added the licensereview tag to the Commons pic. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pray4america (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC) I agree that the original picture should be deleted. This is 2019, and Piotrus was still using 2018 picture (out of thousands currently public available pictures, he used that ugly one on purpose). Please remove that picture, and use a latest one. Also, please remove all the unfair labeling words, it's not your role to judge a person to be a far right or leftist, so do not do it! I will for sure add some more neutral materials after this is settled down. Of course your advice will be put into consideration. A simple revert to the last year version doesn't help the world to know a candidate what she is, it was a very politically skewed one. Thanks.[reply]

Hello pray4america. Are you Ellen Lee Zhou? Do you work for Ellen Lee Zhou? You sent an email to OTRS for the picture, that is not something I can do as I have no connection to Ms. Zhou. Please understand Wikipedia's policies on this matter. A free image must always be used if available. Only dead people can have copyrighted images of them used under fair use, as making a free image of them is impossible after their death. I found many pictures of Ms. Zhou in my research, but the only one that was freely licensed was the one I used. Please always assume good faith here on Wikipedia unless you have a good reason to believe the image was purposefully chosen. I don't think Ms. Zhou looks bad in the 2018 image at all. In fact, I purposefully chose a timestamp where Ms. Zhou had a neutral expression. I could have easily chosen one with Zhou having an open mouth, or closed eyes, or any other wacky expression as happens when people are talking. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pray4america (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)::Hello Psiĥedelisto I am not Ellen Lee Zhou, and I do not work for her. I only wanted to help her to appear the way she should be. Ellen Lee Zhou is still alive, and she has a 2019 campaign site with a lot of pictures. Also she has social media account where you can easily use to contact her directly. For all the personal life, professional experience and media coverage. Yet you didn't do any of these, and you removed all the social media info I put into this page. I understand as the original author of this page, you felt a little at loss when somebody else came and modify it with so much enrichment. Yet I ask you to also understand that this page does not belong to you, and it's not your property. When you contributed to wikipedia, it belongs to the world, and it should be tested by all sides of all the social/potitical/ethnic issues. Yes, that's true that you could easily choose a much worse picture, but you do know that if it's across the boundary, it's not neutral any more even on the looking. Please be open to other people's contribution. Only after hearing more inputs, this page can start to be neutral. The content right now, it very much skewed. And my goal here is to help wikipedia to be true source of truth, and prevent it from being hijacked by a few political views. Thanks.[reply]

@Pray4america: If you aren't Ms. Zhou, and you don't work for Ms. Zhou, did you take the photo File:Ellen Lee Zhou New Profile Pic.png? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pray4america (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Psiĥedelisto I got this email directly from her. It was simple I just wrote her an email. Do you want to see our email exchange?[reply]

@Pray4america: So you emailed Ms. Zhou, she agreed to license her image under the CC 4.0 license, and then you forwarded that email to OTRS? I don't have a problem with the new image if it is properly licensed. You're under no obligation to show me the exchange (that's what OTRS is for), but if you'd like you can send it to me at Special:EmailUser/Psiĥedelisto and I can tell you if what she wrote to you is enough, and if it wasn't, what you need to get her to tell you instead. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pray4america (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Psiĥedelisto Since this picture is from herself, Ellen Lee can give any license you need. That's why I put the license part as: can provide when requested. Thanks.[reply]

Did you email OTRS? I don't tend to make contact with the people I write about. I am not obligated to do so, and if they want to change the photo in their article, they can join the project and upload an image themselves, then let me know on my talk page (or just change the image). I will not be emailing Ms. Zhou. Did Ms. Zhou license File:Ellen Lee Zhou New Profile Pic.png under the terms of the CC 4.0 or not? Or have you uploaded it just on the assumption such license would be provided on request? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems well sourced with 3rd party sources to me, I'm not seeing the election advertising that the AFD originally claims in the current version. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they have not won; a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to clear WP:NPOL. But candidates also do not get a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL just because some local campaign coverage exists in the election context — every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of local campaign coverage, so if the existence of that coverage were enough in and of itself then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would become completely meaningless. Furthermore, a considerable number of the media hits here are not about her in any substantive way, but just glancingly mention her name in the process of being about somebody or something else (which are not sources that help to demonstrate or bolster her notability, because she isn't their subject) — and several more are primary sources (committees' self-published meeting minutes, raw tables of ballot counting results, etc.), which are not support for notability either. GNG does not just count the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses an arbitrary number: it also tests for the reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about her, the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and the context of what she's getting coverage for, and the sources here all fail one or more of those tests. Running for mayor is not an inherently notable context that would get her over GNG just because some election coverage exists in the city's local media, because every candidate for mayor of anywhere can always show that. Obviously she'll qualify for an article on or after November 5 if she wins, but nothing here adds up to a reason why she would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: She is very well known in the Chinese-American community in San Francisco and is always protesting something or another. We have articles about quite a few perennial candidates who became notable just by running for office repeatedly. I cited a few primary sources but respected the guidelines around doing that. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that a person is well known in one city's local ethnic community is not a notability criterion in and of itself, and neither is "always protesting something or another". The notability test is not measured in terms of counting up how many people in one city you think have heard of her; there are lots of notable people in the world you probably haven't heard of, and lots of non-notable people you probably have. The notability test is measured by whether she has a credible claim of nationalized significance (i.e. a reason why she might be just as important for people in Portland, Maine to read about as for San Franciscans) that can be supported by a nationalized range of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: World Journal and National Review are certainly national publications. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking for nationalized sources that mention Ellen Lee Zhou in the process of being about something else — we're looking for nationalized sources in which Ellen Lee Zhou is the subject. Y'ain't shown none of that. Being asked to give soundbite to the media in an article about something or somebody else is not the same thing as notability-supporting sources about her. Bearcat (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think that's necessary, I don't see anything in the relevant policy pages to support that being a necessity. Can you point out to me where this requirement comes from? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's right in the basic definition of notability: a source supports a subject's notability if it is substantively about said subject, and does not support notability if it merely mentions the subject's name in passing in the process of being about something else. For an example, this newspaper article is valid support for the notability of novelist Rachel Cusk. It is not valid support for the notability of Nathan Whitlock as its author, and it is not relevant to the notability of William Shatner, D.H. Lawrence, Edith Wharton, Natalia Ginzburg or Elizabeth Gilbert even though their names are all mentioned in it too — because it isn't about any of those people, it is about Rachel Cusk. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete candidates for election will have news coverage. We have decided not all candidates are notable. We either need truly significant news coverage or non-election related coverage, both of which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: At least one source dates from before she ran for office. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need a lot more than just one piece of pre-campaign coverage to establish that she was already notable enough for an article before being a candidate. GNG is not just "anybody who's ever gotten their name into their local newspaper"; it requires a lot more than that. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apart from what has already been elucidated regarding articles about election candidates, I have concerns about such an article being published during an election campaign - it compromises the perception of Wikipedia's neutrality. I am referring to how it might be perceived; I'm not questioning the creator's intentions. Also, at least one source is not neutral and is clearly poking fun at the woman's inability to draw much support at a demonstration (Mission Local. Crowd of 4 show up). Felixkrater (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Felixkrater: Supposed effects on the perception of the project by outsiders is never a valid reason to delete. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you are a candidate who runs rallies that get less than 10 at a rally which is then the subject of a mocking article in a hyper local publication you are not fitting the definition of notable. We had way more people are the pro-religious freedom rally I attended in Ann Arbor, a rally that was specifically targetted at angst against the Obama birth-control mandates. We were at over 200 people, maybe even more than that. So yes, even in a bastion of liberalism like San Francisco or Ann Arobor you can get attendance at a conservative rally, doing a rally with less than 10 participants shows you have little pull or organizational leadership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable participant in San Francisco politics for many years. – Athaenara ✉ 02:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no evidence of that in the article. If she really was a notable political figure, it would have been possible to write a more substantial article about her and to find better sources. Note: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office" and "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" WP:POLITICIAN. Someone who has never held office and who can muster only 4 to 8 people for a demo on the steps of city hall, during an election campaign, is not a major political figure. She does not fit the notability criteria.Felixkrater (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Felixkrater: She is a human being with a history, not merely a politician. I don't normally argue with people on Wikipedia because I consider it a colossal waste of time, particularly when it's treated as a political battleground. I'll just note this article about her fourteen years ago^[2]. (I live in San Francisco, by the way.) – Athaenara ✉ 08:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The existence of one 14-year-old article in her local newspaper is not enough coverage to demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons before becoming a candidate — and that's the same article that was already profferred and responded to above, so it isn't a new data point. If one piece of coverage in the local newspaper was enough to make a person encyclopedically notable, we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got into the local newspaper several years ago for finding a pig in her yard. GNG is not just "anybody who can show that their name has ever appeared in any newspaper for any reason whatsoever": as I already explained above, it requires a lot more than just the existence of an arbitrary number of footnotes. It also tests for the reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about her, the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and the context of what she's getting coverage for. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 2019 San Francisco mayoral election - Candidate is not inherently notable on her own outside of her candidacy for mayor. Move information about her campaign and the racist op-ed to the article about the election. Bkissin (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This has been a somewhat difficult decision, but on balance I think the concerns with GNG are justified. That there are sources that make reference to her with regards to her political ambitions is not in doubt, but the coverage is far too limited. The article hangs the notability squarely on her running for political office, but in the absence of her not yet having held any notable office, there is nothing beyond that. The article is a collection of her campaign work, policies and statements, which any campaigner in this election, or any other would be able to demonstrate, and that does not itself confer sufficiently notability to pass wikipedia policies. Spokoyni (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've all but accepted at this point I'm going to need more sources to recreate this article. I'm not happy about it but I'll wait until after the election and see where things stand. Editors should be aware User:Pray4america has admitted the COI I suspected, see evidence at WP:COI/N. I will recreate the article after the election if it is deleted and if in that time a national newspaper profiles her, to meet the request of User:Bearcat, although I don't think that should be necessary. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psiĥedelisto "User:Pray4america has admitted the COI I suspected", wow! Good job putting your words into other people's mouth. Getting permission with a publicly available email to contact the person in question, is COI according to your definition? And constantly smering a person with leftist idiologies is "neutral"? I do not understand it, and I do not understand if that's the way wikipedia is functioning. Pray4america (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psiĥedelisto, just to be clear, the thing you're being asked to understand is that every mayoral candidate in every city can always show some evidence of mayoral campaign coverage in the local media — just last year alone, the city I live in had 35 mayoral candidates, the city I grew up in had 11 and the city where I went to university had 12, and since all three of those cities have local media, every last one of those 58 people can be referenced to some evidence of campaign coverage — but Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that maintaining an article about everybody who ever ran for mayor of anywhere is not our role or mandate. A person has to win the election to clear NPOL, and otherwise candidates are accepted as notable only if they can credibly demonstrate that either (a) they were already notable under another Wikipedia notability criterion for other reasons independent of the candidacy, or (b) their candidacy is much more special than everybody else's candidacies for some nationally significant reason. That's why you need to show nationalized coverage: this article is not demonstrating that she was already notable enough for an article before running for mayor, so it has to show that her candidacy is somehow much more notable than Joel Ventresca's, Paul Ybarra Robertson's, Robert Jordan's or Wilma Pang's; somehow much more notable than the 34 people in my city who ran for mayor last year and didn't win; and on and so forth. And even if "a national newspaper profiles her" between now and November 5, that still won't be the magic ticket by itself: we would still need to see several such pieces, not just one, before the notability equation would start to shift here. If she wins, then yes, things will automatically change and an article will be justified — but if she doesn't, an article about her isn't justified unless you can show convincing evidence that either she was already notable for some other reason, or her candidacy was special. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be sufficient news coverage apart from the campaign-related matters. Of course, the natural stance for Wikipedians is to deny current candidates an advertising opportunity, rather than restoring to a neutral version and protecting it. If this was deleted and then re-created after the election I wouldn't be upset about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the article showing any coverage about her "apart" from the campaign-related matters? Nearly every single footnote here that's not campaign-specific is a glancing mention of her existence in a source whose primary subject is something or somebody else besides her, not notability-making coverage about her — and the only one that is about her in any non-trivial way has already been addressed at least twice in this discussion as not in and of itself enough to make her notable outside of the campaign itself if it's the only "both about her and predating the campaign" source that can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I can understand overlooking routine sources from campaign coverage but I don't think we have to discount all sources that mention the subject is a candidate, as if that doesn't matter. There are multiple citations about the crime perceived to be targeting the Chinese community, wherein Zhou is mentioned. That's not routine coverage. What puts me off from your rationale is the degree to which you argue with opposing views, which leads me to believe you're some sort of partisan. If you think sources from during a campaign don't count, then you need to re-read WP:GNG. This subject doesn't have to pass NPOL if she passes GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to reread anything. We have a long-established consensus that because all candidates in all elections can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, but all candidates in all elections are not always notable enough for Wikipedia, campaign coverage does not establish that a person passes GNG unless it explodes far, far out of scope with what every other candidate can also show. It's the same as the reason why we don't accept most city councillors as notable just because they have some coverage in their local media, and why we don't accept that every restaurant on earth is notable just because the local restaurant critic has reviewed it in the local newspaper — just because local coverage exists, in a context where local coverage is simply expected to exist, does not add up to a reason why the rest of the world needs an article to exist. GNG is not just "count up the media hits and keep anything that exceeds a certain arbitrary number" — it also tests for depth and geographic range and the context of what the person is getting covered for, and being an unelected candidate for mayor is not a notable context where the mere existence of the expected local campaign coverage is enough to make the candidate notable. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As stated on my user page, I am intermediate in Chinese. I've found some more sources in Chinese or by Chinese publications:

• 李愛晨力排眾議 嚴辭反注毒中心 [Ellen Lee Zhou denounces new anti-drug center], Sing Tao Daily, 12 April 2019
• 華人基督教領袖林修榮 挺李愛晨選市長 [Chinese Christian leader Lin Xiurong (林修榮) endorses Ellen Lee Zhou for mayor], World Journal, 22 May 2018 (please note that this is not the same World Journal piece I already linked)
• Asian Americans rally for better social security, crackdown on crime in San Francisco, Xinhua (national Chinese state run media), 9 July 2019
• 美国华裔李爱晨加入共和党籍 再战旧金山市长选举 , [American Chinese Li Aichen joins the Republican Party and fights for the San Francisco Mayor election], Overseas Chinese Network (中国侨网), 13 December 2018
• 加州2018選舉季候選人介紹, [California 2018 election season candidate introduction], this is a 30 minute interview with Ms. Zhou in Chinese on New Tang Dynasty Television

I ask that editors rethink their decisions in light of the multitude of Chinese sources. She is important in the Chinese-American community. I could keep going but let's stick with these. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been explained to you that campaign-specific coverage does not bolster the notability of a candidate who is not already established as having already been notable enough for an article independently of the candidacy — every candidate can always show campaign coverage, and you're still not showing any sources which demonstrate that her candidacy is more notable than Joel Ventresca's, Paul Ybarra Robertson's, Robert Jordan's or Wilma Pang's, or the 34 people in my city who ran for mayor last year without winning. So no, showing more articles about her mayoral campaign speeches doesn't change anything, articles which briefly mention her name in the process of being fundamentally about something other than her don't change anything, campaign endorsements from other people don't change anything, and Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person don't change anything either. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: That's simply not what WP:NPOL says. That's just your standard, which I don't agree with. Furthermore, I don't know if you can read Chinese, but some of the sources are not even about the campaign, but rather about the rallies of Ms. Zhou, mostly for gun rights and against crime in San Francisco. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you ask me, why is Mrs. Zhou special? Let me try to answer, but these are just my opinions, what motivated me to research her and write the article. For one thing, she's the only Republican running. For another, she's not ordinary—hanging around with far-right YouTubers like Stefan Molyneux (and making documentaries with them where she accosts homeless people and says they want to be homeless), spouting baseless conspiracy theories, and getting a lot of the Chinese community around her. She also says a lot of thinly veiled racist messages. This makes her interesting, she is like the mythical fed up Chinese–American so often in the right wing imagination, she even wants a border wall...as an immigrant herself! National Review and The Epoch Times love her for that. None of the other candidates are interesting at all. We all know she'll lose, but after she does the Chinese press will keep turning out new articles and I'm sure she'll keep holding rallies and doing whatever she can to advance right-wing politics in San Francisco. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is exactly what NPOL says, and is most certainly not just my personal standard. It's not sufficient to stand on just the letter of what you think a notability standard technically says — you also have to understand the established consensus around how notability standards are actually applied at AFD when differing interpretations have come up for consideration, because all of our notability standards can be read in self-serving ways by people who are trying to oversell their pet topics. Every candidate in every election can always claim that they've been exempted from having to pass NPOL because campaign coverage exists to get them over GNG, for example — so if that were how it worked, then NPOL would literally mean nothing anymore and Wikipedia would just be a database of campaign brochures rather than an encyclopedia. So we have an established consensus that candidates for municipal office are accepted as notable only if they can be properly demonstrated as already having been notable for other reasons prior to their candidacies, or if their candidacies can be demonstrated as much more special than other people's candidacies, and are not automatically deemed to pass GNG just because some campaign coverage happens to exist. And whatever you think the distinction between "campaign coverage" and "coverage of rallies" would be, it's undercut by the fact that the rallies are campaign rallies.

People are also not special just because of what political party they happen to be associated with, or who they happen to hang around with, or who thinks they're "interesting". It is not our role to keep an article about everybody who happens to pop up in the current news cycle; our role is to keep articles about people whose notability claims pass the ten year test for enduring significance, and none of what you're saying constitutes strong evidence that she has attained that: nothing here suggests that people will still be looking for an article about her in 2029 even if she loses the election and fades away. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know your position, and your interpretation of the current consensus. I disagree, I think even if Mrs. Zhou, God forbid, dropped dead tomorrow, San Franciscans will be interested in her mark on American history in 2029. I don't think you can be convinced, and I don't wish to argue with you further. I understand you think I'm not interpreting the guidelines right, and you understand I don't think you're right about the current consensus (even not assuming WP:Consensus can change). I don't see any point in further argument; you're likely to win anyway as I already pointed out in a previous comment. It's up to the closer what happens now, and other editors to consider my evidence. I knew when I posted it you would not accept it, but you're not the only one that's pro-deletion here. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since when is getting less than 5% of the vote notable? This is ridiculous. And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! Nor is it an incubator for what we want people to be one day. Trillfendi (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: The percentage of votes gotten has absolutely nothing to do with notability. Vermin Supreme never even gets that much of the vote, he's lucky to receive half of a percent. See perennial candidate for a long list of other notable people who are lucky to get even 1% of the vote in their elections. Zhou is notable whether or not she becomes mayor, that's my position—if anything, her ability to get 5% of the vote bolsters her notability as it shows she has more support than her fellow perennial candidates. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vermin Supreme's article is demonstrating notability for much more than just being a losing candidate. In actual fact, even most perennial candidates are not kept either, unless they can demonstrate notability for much more significant reasons than just being a perennial candidate per se — John Turmel, for example, doesn't have an article just for being a perennial candidate, he has an article because he has been verifiably named to the Guinness Book of Records as the single most perennially losing candidate in the entire worldwide history of politics. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: The point is, if it wasn’t obvious, that she isn’t a notable politician, having lost her initial attempt at political office so disastrously. Is she notable in other areas? From what I’ve seen, no. Not enough for an article. If by an act of God she wins something then refund, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Trillfendi (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteand then REDIRECT or Merge to 2019 San Francisco mayoral election. Fails WP:NPOL and isn't inherently notable outside the election. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW the user who made the article has been blocked w/o TPA for using WP for promotion. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the two users, the one who was a SPA. I think the other author is safe and sound, as he is an established Wikipedian who did nothing wrong :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:NPOL, and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:NPOL, and WP:NOTPROMOTION.4meter4 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others above. DoudouTh appears to have a COI, as they are trying to upload an own work photo to Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:31, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Belgian F-16 crash[edit]

2019 Belgian F-16 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:GNG WP:NOTNEWS Military aircraft crashes are non-notabler unless notable due to other factors such as notable casualty or casualties on the ground Petebutt (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not particularly noteworthy, military aircraft regulary crash and only if they hit something important or kill somebody important would make them worth considering, which doesnt appear to be the case here. About 650 F-16s have crashed since the type was introduced 99% of them are not noteworthy for a stand-alone article. No reason why it cant be added to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). MilborneOne (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try and avoid invoking WP:AIRCRASH as it is only an essay and not a proper guideline, though it is more or less exactly what is required to assess if articles are noteworthy.--Petebutt (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I disagree. In Belgium and France especially in the region where it got hit is it a really important event. Local news claimed that there was a casualty, okay yes it was denied that the victim was killed during the event. As I can tell it was a major hit in the region and 15 residents were even evacuated. If this article should be in added in the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) then every incident should be included. It is notable the police even established a "crisiscel" and a no-go zone and a no-fly zone were established due to the explosions and the fire. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (Sad, sympathetic look) It definitely should be added to the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). To warrant a stand-alone article, it needs to clear WP:AIRCRASH, which says:

Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent. They account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft. Military aircraft accidents may be suitable for inclusion in the relevant List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. For accidents involving light aircraft (maximum gross weight of 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) or less) or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:

• the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
• the accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).

I concur with Petebutt that WP:AIRCRASH is only an advice essay, and not a formal policy or guideline, and that there may be other reasons why a crash is notable, but I'm not seeing any here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Run-of-the-mill crash of a jet fighter like countless others, without even a fatality (thankfully). This is unlike for example the 1989 Belgium MiG-23 crash, in which there was a fatality and the circumstances of the accident were quite extraordinary, which makes it notable. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable military aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS also applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Atta[edit]

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

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

No references found in google about Roshan Atta پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 08:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are no notability guidelines that require google search results. This actress had obituaries in two major newspapers, Dawn and The Sindh Times. The latter's website seems to have some problems, so I am unable to access it. I find it difficult to assess whether she meets WP:ACTOR for several reasons, including that the romanised titles of the films she appeared in are spelled differently in this article from the List of Sindhi-language films, and there are very few WP articles as yet (in any language Wikipedia) about the individual films - which is not evidence that they are not notable, just that no-one has yet written the articles. Also, while there are indeed few search results on Google for "Roshan Atta", the reasons for that could include that contemporary sources (in English or other languages) have not been digitised, or that a different romanised spelling is used. I will search in other databases, but at the moment, I would be reluctant to delete a pre-internet actor with two obituaries just for lack of other online sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In addition to the long list of film credits in the second obit, it is noted that she received a "life Achievement Award by the PTV, besides a number of awards by some private organiosations." It would be helpful to see if the first citation is archived somewhere. Netherzone (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thesindhtimes isn't notable website and it is same as thekarachitimes or thetimesofkarachi it is user blog. according to wikipedia policies actor/actress must comply with wikipedia policies. And the result you seeing on google of roshan atta has been adjusted with roshan atta shops in india. The word 'atta' known as for wheat or bread so you are getting results of roshan wheat or roshan bread (when someone search for roshan atta).

If two articles are okay then dawn news and the news are fine i have added one more reference let see if someone add more.پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have replaced The Sindh Times reference. I see no evidence that it is a user blog (although it has a blog, as many news sites do), and it is cited in many Wikipedia articles. I have added the PTV award to the article, and now that we have 3 news sources writing about her death, that is enough to Keep. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Total three references added 1)thesindhtimes website has error [an error occurred while processing this directive] 2)dawn is fine 3) thenews added by me but where did you add PTV award to the article ?پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination is not convincing and the user who nominated is not aware of many wikipidea policies. He is nominating articles without even telling the ones who created them. This actress is not alived and the two sources which i saw will be enough for notability as noted above Ghazal Pervaiz (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claudette Cain[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, along with her fellow mayors of Gloucester, Ontario, who are also up for deletion. Local coverage only. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not that notable. I agree with the nomination. It clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. I mean Gloucester today, is a suburb of Ottawa. Not even its own city anymore and even if it was, it would not be a major one (10th largest, if you compare it to the other cities in the province). All the sources are from local news agencies and the individual, Claudette Cain, has not received significant news coverage because a quick Google search has revealed nothing of key importance. LefcentrerightTalk 09:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news is NOT a reliable metric for news coverage of events before 2010. For example, Caludette Cain is mentioned in a Globe and Mail article from 1997:"Mayors reassured taxes won't rise: But Ontario won't revive subsidies" on page 1 (photo on page A6) on 12 Aug 1997. Some Wikipedia editors appear to be under the mistaken impression that if it isn't available to them online, then it doesn't exist. Coverage of subject went beyond the Gloucester region even based on the existing references. --Big_iron (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A mere mention in a newspaper article doesn't count as significant coverage, online or not. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, this was in support of my first point, that Google News is woefully inadequate as a measure of news coverage other than for recent events. My second point was that the Ottawa Citizen which is already cited hardly qualifies as a local paper, being the primary English-language printed news source for eastern Ontario including the Ottawa valley as well as for western Quebec. --Big_iron (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether a newspaper is "local" or not, for the purposes of demonstrating the notability of a person who has to pass notability criteria that depend on having more than just routine local coverage, is not a question of the newspaper's distribution range — it is a question of the context of what the person is getting covered for. Even The New York Times is not "nationalizing" coverage for the purposes of making a municipal councillor in Yonkers or New Rochelle more nationally special than other smalltown municipal councillors — those towns are inside the NYT's local coverage area, so even the NYT is still just local coverage in that context. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also GNG specifically states Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article so this nomination is seriously flawed. --Big_iron (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. I mean Gloucester today is a SUBURB of Ottawa. If it still was a "city", it would not be the largest. It would have been the tenth largest. Just being a mayor of a city (not even the largest, if it still existed. It doesn't even exist anymore, so that is enough reason for the article not existing) is not enough reason for a Wikipedia article to be created. WP:POLITICIAN reads: "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability." WP:POLITICIAN also reads: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." A mere mention in a newspaper could not possibly be considered significant press coverage. LefcentrerightTalk 11:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, a city's ordinal ranking in a list of cities-by-size is not part of Wikipedia's notability criteria for mayors at all. Neither affirmatively ("largest city in X" is not a notability freebie that exempts a mayor from having to be substantive and well-sourced enough to clear NPOL) nor negatively (ranking tenth is not a demerit if the article is substantive and well-sourced enough to clear NPOL.) It's simply not relevant whether a town or city ranks first, tenth, fiftieth or five millionth on any given list. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• NEXIST only applies to the extent that suitable, notability-improving sources are demonstrated to exist, and does not magically shut down an AFD discussion if all you do is speculate about the possibility that suitable sources might exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again please read the standard: "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search". Also, on a separate point, news items on the contest for mayor of Ottawa were classified as news of "national" interest by the CBC. Also, the point that Gloucester is now a suburb of the city of Ottawa is not relevant since that does not relate to the post of mayor at the time that this person held the post. --Big_iron (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political notability is judged exclusively in terms of offices that the person held, and has absolutely nothing to do with any office they ran for but lost. So the fact that the Ottawa election got more nationalized coverage than Gloucester's mayoral elections ever did does not contribute any new notability points, because she didn't win the Ottawa mayoral election. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Gloucester is large enough that its mayor would have enough reliable sources to have a Wikipedia page. Of course there's not going to be that much on the web, she was mayor in the 1990s.-- Earl Andrew - talk 05:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not exempted from having to be substantial and well-sourced just because their notability claim predates the Google News era. We are allowed to cite print-only coverage, such as newspapers and books, but we judge notability based on the depth and quality of the sources that are shown to exist — merely speculating about the possibility that better sources might exist does not change the equation if you don't put in the effort to find and show them. Yes, poorly sourced articles can be kept if better sources can be shown — but we still only consider sources that people show, and not sources that people merely speculate about. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Glouchester is not a city that gives the mayor default notability. So unless actual sources are produced we delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless article sees significant improvement. The old idea that a city's population size confers an automatic "inherent" notability freebie on a mayor regardless of the article's quality and depth was deprecated nearly a decade ago, as was the idea that mayors are automatically notable just because the local media routinely reports the election results. The notability of a mayor, rather, is demonstrated by writing a substantial article about their political significance — such as actually addressing specific important projects that they championed, specific issues that they were involved in, and on and so forth. For an example of a good article about a mayor of a place much smaller than Gloucester, ponder Marie Curtis — Long Branch was far too small to confer inherent notability on its mayors just because they existed, but an editor was able to find enough sources to support a genuinely substantial and detailed article that makes a strongly credible claim that she's much more special than the norm for smalltown mayors. And for an example of a city about the same size as Gloucester where the mayor's article is still clearly superior to this, consider Nancy Diamond, where the sources were carefully selected to ensure that the article's content addressed specific things she did as mayor (which not nearly enough articles about mayors do) rather than simply to verify and reverify that she got elected and then re-elected and then re-elected again (which is what far too many articles about mayors actually do). And conversely, places much larger than Gloucester have had their mayors deleted if the article just stated that the person existed as a mayor, and couldn't be improved with substantive content about their political importance.
  The notability test for mayors is not simply the ability to write and source that they existed, it is the ability to write and source that their mayoralty was important in a substantive and informative way — but this article, as written and sourced, is doing the former, not the latter. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find enough sources to support enough substance to move it from the former to the latter, and I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if somebody can get her over the real notability bar for mayors before this discussion closes — but local reportage of local election results doesn't do that, glancing mentions of her name in coverage of other people or things besides her don't do that, and on and so forth: we need sources that analyze and contextualize the importance of her mayoralty, not just sources which verify that she existed. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you do have an imaginary population limit (or perhaps an arbitrary limit of a city's "importance"), because you have created near-stub mayor articles before for medium sized cities (larger than Gloucester, granted, but not cities of 1 million people either). Anyway, I'm fairly certain a well written article can be created on Claudette Cain, if User:Big_iron is willing to do the research in time. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I used to, just as we all did, back when a population test was the consensus. As soon as it got deprecated, I stopped, and only very rarely create articles about mayors at all anymore — I now only do it when I'm motivated to put in the kind of work that the current notability standard for mayors now demands, and there are only a very small handful of cities that I have anything approaching enough knowledge about to bother trying. I've even happily nominated some of my own past work on mayors for deletion if I couldn't get them from the old "population = automatically in" standard to the current "sourcing and substance has to be on point" standard. Under the current consensus for the notability of mayors, when I start an article about a mayor it looks like Doug Craig (politician): significant content about his mayoralty to make the article substantive and informative, and referenced to sources that support a lot more than just "he was elected and then re-elected and then re-elected again". Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Owens[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. An interim mayor of Gloucester, Ontario (pop. 133K in 2016) who lost the subsequent election to Harry Allen (Gloucester, Ontario politician) (whose article has also been nominated for deletion). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable politician, therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. LefcentrerightTalk 10:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mayor of a sizeable town. The collection of references justify its inclusion. - SimonP (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonP: I do not know how you could consider Gloucester as a "sizeable town" when it is frankly no longer one (it is now a suburb of Ottawa) and even if it was, it would be the tenth largest in the province. Just being a mayor of town, is not enough reason for a Wikipedia article to be created. Mitch Owens is not notable at all. He has received no major news coverage at all. The reference section clearly suggests it. LefcentrerightTalk 19:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Gloucester wasn't a town, it was a city, and a city of 100,000 people is very clearly large enough to warrant an article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The city, sure. The interim mayor, not so much. The 100K number does not automatically confer notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just being an local elected figure is not enough warrant for a Wikipedia article to be created. If you do not believe me, WP:POLITICIAN says so. LefcentrerightTalk 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. The idea that a city's population hands its mayors an automatic notability freebie regardless of the article's quality or sourceability was deprecated almost a decade ago now — regardless of a town's or city's size, the notability standard that a mayor has to clear to earn an article in 2019 is the ability to write and source a substantive article that contextualizes and analyzes his importance. But that's not what this article does; it literally just states that he was appointed mayor after his predecessor's death and then was defeated in the first subsequent municipal election, says nothing whatsoever about anything he did in the mayor's chair, and then goes on to list a bunch of minor awards that aren't instant WP:ANYBIO passes. And the referencing isn't solid enough to get him over the bar that mayors actually have to clear, either: five of the nine footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, two of the four that are real media just go to verifiability of election results and don't speak to the notability of the people named in the election results at all, and the two sources that are actually about Mitch Owens in any non-trivial way aren't enough since it takes a lot more than just two sources to get a mayor over WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not automatically notable just because you can verify that they existed; they are notable only when you can add enough sources to demonstrate that their mayoralty was important in some substantive way. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing is inadequate to show notability, and being interim mayor is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 29 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 Robin and Linda Williams. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar for Sugar (Robin & Linda Williams album)[edit]

Sugar for Sugar (Robin & Linda Williams album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient reliable sources after a web search to determine notability. Fails WP:NALBUM. Consider merge with Robin and Linda Williams. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Robin and Linda Williams where the album is listed in the discography - otherwise non-notable; did not chart - there is a listing on AllMusic, but no review; I couldn't find any other reviews or evidence of notability - Epinoia (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robin and Linda Williams per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robin and Linda Williams.4meter4 (talk) 02:09, 29 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) Tracy Von Doom (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bihanga (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

Unneeded per WP:Disambiguation, as there's only one Bihanga here. A {{distinguish}} or {{for}} hatnote at Bihanga and Bihangal would suffice, and we don't add terms to a disambiguation page for which a reference is needed for verification, as is the case with "bird" here. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added (and deleted) enough entries to make it a viable dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn - wow, you certainly have. Nice work Clarityfiend, thank you. Next time I'll hunt more carefully before taking a dab to AFD. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:30, 21 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) 05:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BoAt[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - would qualify for speedy deletion as a company not demonstrating any significance.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - repeat what I said when PROD this: Fails WP:ORGCRIT requirements of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article mention little about the company.Itsabouttech (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Due to routine and public relation esque sources which show it doesn't have depth to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 06:02, 23 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. Based on my assessment of this discussion, the delete argument is based on concerns that the topic violates WP:NPOV and relates to an unused term, with another argument that even if used the term does not meet WP:NEO and WP:GNG inclusion guidelines. There is also concern that a number of keep arguments are being canvassed to the discussion. The keep arguments mostly rely on the term being used by non-social media sources, that NPOV issues can be resolved by editing and a number of claims about "truth" and that using the term highlights the misdeeds of the Chinese government. There are also a few merge arguments, which have been contested on the grounds that the relation of the term to any specific merge target is not clear from the sourcing.

On balance, even ignoring the canvassing concerns this seems like a delete consensus as the concerns based on WP:NEO and WP:GNG have not been satisfied; as noted on both pages a term being in use on its own is not sufficient to establish notability and the few sources provided have been contested on the grounds that they are overly short. The deeds of the Chinese government are also not a policy/guideline-based reason for keeping this; in general most of the keep arguments here are not grounded in policy and guideline. Finally merging has not gained a consensus and there are some valid concerns against a merge. Given the massive canvassing, I'll take the advice offered in the discussion here and salt the page after deletion; if folks want to restore it they ought to go to WP:DRV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinazi[edit]

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

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

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

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

There is no mention anywhere of the actual term "Chinazi" and the only non-social media sources that I could find that even mention the term is from Russia Today and Le Figaro. Seems to be a hashtag and different from the last AfD. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not much has changed since the last AFD. Article is still a POV synthesis, and the term a WP:Neologism with little usage outside of social media. -Zanhe (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are lots of non-social media sources covering it: Book written by Yu Jie《納粹中國》^[1], Liberty Times^[2], Rai News^[3], if including "just mention the term" there are also Berliner Zeitung^[4], Oriental Daily News^[5], posttoday^[6], RFI^[7], Swissinfo^[8] and more.-AINH (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The book is not about “Chinazi”, it is about some kind of “Nazism in China” in general. The other sources just verify that the slogan exists, without any in-depth coverage. Perfect example of WP:NEOLOGISM. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MarkH21: In fact, Liberty Times has in-depth coverage of this term. And Rai News has coverage of this term meaning. --SCP-2000 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardly "in-depth" - on the topic of "Chinazi" itself, the articles just verify its existence with 2 sentences each. The Rai News article is 4 paragraphs, with 3 paragraphs about one day's protests and 2 sentences about the existence of the "#chinazi" slogan. The Liberty Times article gives 2 sentences that states that the hashtag is spreading in social media, followed by an interview of a social activist who believes that China conforms to Nazism plus another person who believes that Hong Kongers will be sent to re-education camps. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MarkH21:I agree your point and they did not have in-depth coverage. But WP:NOTNEO is written that "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction).". I think "in-depth coverage" is not the important factor of support this term. --SCP-2000 (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking along the lines of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG, but even for WP:NOTNEO, these sources still only verify its existence and don't say much about the term. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Supplement: that article mentioned "Chinazi" this term. --SCP-2000 (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That appears to be a WP:SPS - at least I don't see evidence of peer review. Furthermore the article only makes passing mention of the term as creation of a single blogger as part of an overall section about the tension between the Leninist multiculturalist framework of the Chinese legal apparatus and Han racism. So it doesn't really contribute to WP:GNG per WP:SIGCOV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - per AINH. POV problem can be solved and no need to delete this article --SCP-2000 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge(2nd decision) If the article needs to be deleted because of WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT, I think this article can merge to Fascism_in_Asia#China because Fascism_in_Asia#China and Chinazi have a similar topic, Fascism in China, so that improve and update the article. --SCP-2000 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    • Fascism in Asia is about actual Fascism in Asia. You would need way better sources for that merge, the kind of reliable sources that would be used to add Fascism to Ideology of the Communist Party of China (see WP:EXTRAORDINARY). --MarioGom (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you. Merging to Ideology of the Communist Party of China is better than Fascism in Asia. Also, there are many reliable sources in Chinazi#Background to verify. --SCP-2000 (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge to Ideology of the Communist Party of China as criticism to the ideology. The term Chinazi is actually a kind of criticism to CCP ideology, especially on its ideology on religious and human rights. Joeccho (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that both SCP-2000 and Joeccho are misunderstanding MarioGom's point that we need reliable sources on the CCP being fascist to be able to merge any of this material to either Fascism in Asia or Ideology of the Communist Party of China, but this article is missing such sources. In other words, MarioGom's point is against any kind of merge. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • MarkH21: Yes, that is right. Both articles rely on academic sources to document (actual) Fascism in Asia and the ideology of the CCP. Including this Chinazi stuff there as if it was a proper description of CCP's ideology would be WP:FRINGE. --MarioGom (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge After thinking in today, I think to merge to Ideology of the Communist Party of China and Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests is better than keep "Chinazi" that article. So I change my vote again. --SCP-2000 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM 80.111.44.144 (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC) - Striking sockpuppet--DreamLinker (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - In the real world, the term is frequently seen in the protests happened in different countries. It is a very concrete concept coined inside the mind of modern human.Flag4567 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Existence of a term does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Referenced sources do not cover the term. There seems to be no in depth coverage in reliable sources. The bulk of the article serves as a POV fork. --MarioGom (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:MarioGom's view. The article may be attack page against Chinese government. Mariogoods (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mariogoods: In fact, attacking against Chinese government is not violating the policy of Wikipedia. --SCP-2000 (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it does violate Wikipedia policies. Maybe you were thinking about WP:BLP, which does not apply here. But 1) per WP:NOTADVOCACY, Wikipedia is not a battleground for advocacy (attacking against Chinese government), 2) per WP:COATRACK, articles should not be created when they are nominally about a subject (e.g. a neologism) but serve to make a point about something else, 3) WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NPOV also apply. --MarioGom (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, I think this article has POV problem, but it can be improved, such as add the point of Chinese government, and no need to delete this article. Second, this article did not splint to multiple article and violate WP:CONTENTFORK. This article just introduce "Chinazi" this new term clearly.--SCP-2000 (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable neologism, invented purely for political ends to attack the Communist Party of China. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Neologism. The article looks like an attack page more than anything. None of the examples used in the background section actually use the term anyways. The Account 1 (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article "just" introduces "Chinazi" this new term and does not consist primarily of attacks against Communist Party of China or Chinese government. Also, there are many reliable sources to verify this term (See also AINH's comment). --SCP-2000 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so such an article about a term does not belong here. If there are reliable sources comparing the Chinese regime with the Nazis then they should be cited in the relevant encyclopedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. I wonder if it is suitable in Wikitionary. (Although this may be off-topic)Mariogoods (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]