Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 14

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) 23:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troyce Guice

Troyce Guice (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)

Does not meet WP:NPOL being only a Senate candidate. Page was created by a serial copyright violator. I do not believe any of the non-dead sources satisfy GNG. ミラP 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ミラP 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラP 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mr. Guice seems like a nice man who's tried to get involved in the political process. But I'm sorry to say that his life and political involvement doesn't live up to wikipedia's guidelines for notability. The multiple citations in this article are not specifically about the subject on the article, but instead are crammed in to give the veneer of notability, so unfortunately this article should be deleted, without prejudice. I hope at some point a reputable secondary source does a piece on Mr. Guice, but as of now it does not appear that any such source has done so. -Markeer 01:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, pretty clearly fails WP:NPOL and there isn't significant coverage to make him notable beyond that. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 11:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win; as usual, Billy Hathorn had no understanding of our actual notability standard for politicians, and thought (wrongly) that as soon as you could find a local obituary the person had automatically cleared GNG (and thus been exempted from having to pass NPOL) even if all the rest of the sources were unreliable and non-notability-supporting junk. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above, and WP:CCC. This was created 11 years ago - the wild west period of Wikipedia, when we had much more lax standards. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is insufficient weight in the form of independent, reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG and no alternative approach under WP:NPOL appears to be satisfied. Most of the sources utilized here (those that can still be accessed anyway) mention the article's subject only in passing and thus do not constitute the the substantial, in-depth coverage expected of sources for purposes of a notability analysis, and the titles of the other (now dead) links don't suggest any deeper coverage for the most part and, under the circumstances, I don't think we can presume otherwise without archived versions of those sources to establish otherwise. Furthermore, with eleven years having passed since the article's creation, I think we can presume that if there were additional interest in the subject and sources covering him since his death, they would have manifested by now. All the information taken together, deletion seems appropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Stopps

David Stopps (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)

Lots of detail, very little indication of notability for this businessman / promoter / club owner. If someone could point out to me any of the sources provided on the page that would pass as independent and in-depth coverage of the man himself, I'd be obliged. There seems to be a spirited attempt to base notability on connection to the Statue of David Bowie, but all I can here see is passing mentions. Nothing here seems add up to a BLP threshold (unless being an Honorary Freeman of Aylesbury is worth major kudos). Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. We've tended to delete producer articles. He's not gotten any major awards. His connection to the Statue of David Bowie is threadbare. He statue and the sculptor may be notable. but not this person. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This reads like a poorly written publicity piece that says and shows nothing. The sources barely mention the subject. A Google search turned up no wide coverage. Sorely fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Complete keep consensus that has a consensus to pass WP:ARTIST thanks to the work of ThatMontrealIP. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Price (sculptor)

Phil Price (sculptor) (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, very little information. Most text copied and pasted from their own website, which also now seems to have been hacked and contains spam links and content (everything below the video). Aslvrstn (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak Keep Ugh, I'm finding sources that actually use that dreaded phrase "world renowned artist". At first sight it appears that that's mostly lazy journalists repeating Price's own statements about himself, though. Modesty is not one of Price's virtues: "He is regarded as the foremost kinetic sculptor of his generation, with his work being widely acknowledged for its breath taking beauty, evocation of the natural world, and extraordinary design", he writes about himself on his website. There is no need for us to repeat that.
  There is coverage that indicates that Price has created work that is recognized as significant. See https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/103171824/christchurch-kinetic-sculpture-nucleus-returning-soon-after-nearly-a-years-absence for example. Vexations (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I started a section on his public sculpture, and through that found several decent sources. This Artnet article, for example, talks in depth about his public sculpture in Wellington that was hit by lightning (notability by lightning!). There are others. Along with other sculptures, he meets WP:ARTIST for creating a significant body of public works.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have added about 18 sources, several of which are in-depth, with the rest being confirmation of the public sculptures. He is also in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Together this makes the article a clear keep. The list of public sculptures is not complete either-- I keep finding more of them.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found another sculpture called evolution-trees, installed outside the Canberra airport. the Canberra Times (definitely RS) news article has this to say about its removal for maintenance work: "The absence of Journeys has rippled throughout the community, with many taking to the airport's Facebook page to voice their concerns and their wishes for the airport to sell a "mini souvenir version. They've even received a call from a distressed woman who said the sculpture "was the best thing in Canberra".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With the improvements to the article noted above, it easily passes WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With ThatMontrealIP's work on this, it easily passes WP:ARTIST with just the "Permanent collections" alone. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shrick

Shrick (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)

Seems to have disappeared without much trace. Rathfelder (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC) The subject is no longer active and this article may be deleted. Andakava 08:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Internet searches (as linked right on this page) find almost no coverage of this subject at all, and considering its inactive status, it is not likely to have much in the future. The two independent sources listed don't seem particularly reliable. Geolodus (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cove.Tool

Cove.Tool (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)

Promotional article. Cannot see how this company founded in 2017 can possibly pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - so promotional it isn't even an article. I've !voted on a few corp articles before but this is the first time I've seen an actual product catalog cited. Probably g11 eligible. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no kidding, blatantly promo, fails NCORP. Would agree with G11 (or A7) since it's a recently-created article with just the one major contributor. creffett (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Barca (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very poor. scope_creep^Talk 14:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 19:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame A.A Opoku

Kwame A.A Opoku (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)

Another PR piece from what appears to be a walled garden of promotion - "entrepreneurs" who found organizations and give awards to each other and then write about it on websites. (For example, this article was edited by User:Akpah Prince and User:I am Felix G. Felix G has also edited the article Prince Akpah, who founded the award that was given to Kwame A.A Opoku. The creator of the Prince Akpah article is User:MRtraore who also wrote the article Abd Traore who is yet another entrepreneur written about by Prince Akpah. And so on.)

I can't see how anything in this article meets the level of reliable source or biographical notability. ... discospinster _talk 19:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yet another run of the mill businessman. No notable awards, lacking significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Akpah

Prince Akpah (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 demonstration of notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Reference given are not significant discussions of him, but they are PR pieces about awards that his organization have given out. Google search for "Prince Akpah" does not bring up anything more than mentions of him. ... discospinster _talk 19:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Plenty of references to the awards given by his redlinked organisation, but no sources offered for biographical info. Paragraph about early life and education (curiously worded "has educational relationship with ..." could mean anything: dropped out of, sends his kid to, once went to a meeting?) is completely unsourced, suggesting WP:COI or WP:OR (or just lazy lack of referencing). No indication of notability. PamD 19:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet another run of the mill businessman. No notable awards, lacking significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Mansi

Mahmoud Mansi (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 article does not show how the individual meets criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. It's basically a resume; nearly all of the references are from his own magazine or things that he has written. I can't find any reliable sources that are about him, rather he is mentioned as an attendee or presenter at a conference for example, or quoted in some other periodical that is of unclear notability. He seems to be very prolific but that in itself does not make the subject notable for Wikipedia purposes. ... discospinster _talk 19:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Some coverage but nothing of depth. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 20:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South African A cricket team in India in 2019

South African A cricket team in India in 2019 (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:SPORTSEVENT. International tournaments from two second tier teams are not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help -At WP:SPORTSEVENT, I could see only 4 points: 1)Final series, 2)College bowl games, 3)All-star and 4)widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable. I did not find a rule specifically about "International tournaments from two second tier teams are not notable". I am not a sports fan (apart from cricket) and first 3 points mentioned in WP:SPORTSEVENT are too amercianized (or westernized) for me too understand. Could someone help me to understand them. Regarding notability, the A-team series involving India gets a considerable coverage in India. Also WP:CRIN includes first-class cricket, list-a cricket and twenty 20 cricket. If A-team tournaments are to deleted then it should be applicable to all those in Category:A team cricket. Also how does this effect FC, List-A, non-league T20 tournamnets and women's cricket. I am more interested in understanding criteria so that I could give an opinion to discussion.Shubham389 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. While the matches are FC/LA, they are by a team below the top international level. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Matches with first-class and List A status. The tour satisfies WP:GNG, with sufficient coverage and match reports in newspapers. India A matches generate more coverage and are of higher quality than domestic matches between teams like Mizoram and Sikkim. I was able to find coverage in South African sources too: [1] [2] [3]. Dee03 11:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. SNGs have been designed to screen off stuff like these so that we may not have to use GNG to make non-consistent calls. ∯WBG^converse 17:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which SNG states that A team tours are not notable? The only thing I find inconsistent here is delete votes like While the matches are FC/LA, they are by a team below the top international level. 2019–20 Duleep Trophy is also a FC status series by teams "below international level" but everyone would vote "keep" if that article was up for deletion. Dee03 16:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The top international level being the first XI with this being the second XI. HawkAussie (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then the Duleep Trophy tournament which I have linked above was contested by third XI, fourth XI and fifth XI (India Blue, India Red and India Green). I find it interesting that, according to some people, a second XI series is not notable whereas a tournament featuring those who could not make the cut into the second XI is. Dee03 17:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the grounds that a) there are enough sources to suggest some notability; b) the SNG doesn't seem to cover this type of tour at all (there are so many issues with the ways in which WP:NCRIC is written) - WP:NSPORTS isn't particularly helpful either; c) if we went back to WP:NEVENT we'd delete nearly every international tour and domestic tournament other than those with a lasting significant (bodyline, some of the tours of SA etc...). There needs to be some discussion about NCRIC and the ways in which it deals with international tours - Id be reluctant to do anything very much with articles such as these until then given that there are clearly enough sources in place to show some level of notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India A cricket team in the West Indies in 2019

India A cricket team in the West Indies in 2019 (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:SPORTSEVENT. International tournaments from two second tier teams are not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. While the matches are FC/LA, they are by a team below the top international level. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Matches with first-class and List A status. The tour satisfies WP:GNG, with sufficient coverage and match reports in newspapers. [4] [5] [6]. Dee03 11:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. SNGs have been designed to screen off stuff like these so that we may not have to use GNG to make non-consistent calls. ∯WBG^converse 17:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which SNG states that A team tours are not notable? The only thing I find inconsistent here is delete votes like While the matches are FC/LA, they are by a team below the top international level. 2019–20 Duleep Trophy is also a FC status series by teams "below international level" but everyone would vote "keep" if that article was up for deletion. Dee03 16:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the grounds that a) there are enough sources to suggest some notability; b) the SNG doesn't seem to cover this type of tour at all (there are so many issues with the ways in which WP:NCRIC is written) - WP:NSPORTS isn't particularly helpful either; c) if we went back to WP:NEVENT we'd delete nearly every international tour and domestic tournament other than those with a lasting significant (bodyline, some of the tours of SA etc...). There needs to be some discussion about NCRIC and the ways in which it deals with international tours - Id be reluctant to do anything very much with articles such as these until then given that there are clearly enough sources in place to show some level of notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Wisden. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brookfield Place (Calgary). There's pretty good consensus here that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article, but less clarity about how to do that. I'm going to redirect, as a middle-of-the-road, WP:ATD, alternative. If somebody wants to merge material, they can go ahead and do that on their own, keeping in mind that WP:V applies, and providing proper attribution.

If somebody wants to pursue WP:COI issues, there's other fora for that. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herald / Harbinger

Herald / Harbinger (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 about a public artwork, not reliably sourced to any evidence of its notability. Two of the four "sources" here are the artist's own self-published promotional video about the unveiling of his own work, a third is its directory entry on the self-published website of the property management company that commissioned it, and a fourth is just a photograph of it -- which means zero of them represent reliable source coverage about it. As always, every piece of artwork that exists in the world is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article -- it has to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG. This was also created by an editor with a probable WP:COI, as their only contributions to Wikipedia have all involved this artist and his work. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in the weak to medium range. This has not been open long, but I found three decent sources on it. I have the sense that we should keep it as it is a permanent installation and will likely generate more sources, given those already published during its short tenure. I know, not a perfect argument, but I have a sense. And the new sources I added are not terrible. Article does need cleanup, and I did notice a COI tag. Despite that, the work seems notable, in the weak to medium range. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the Tourism and Heritage Journal devotes 904 words to the piece, in the article linked here. Along with the three independent RS of middling quality that I added, I think this is a clearer keep.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with [[Ben Rubin (artist) - The scholarly journal essay mentioned above was the tipping point, as the artwork has received news and critical attention, and is also the subject of an in-depth analysis. It is true that the article was created by an SPA with a definite COI, which is problematic. However, the work has cultural merit, and is a permanent work of public art. I found another source from the Center for Data Art, but because it was written by the article creator (the SPA/COI), I did not add it to the article. It's a shaky keep, but a keep nevertheless. Netherzone (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The apparent conflict of interest by Surabhinaik07 is troubling. A clarification would be most welcome. Then again, a conflict of interest by the creator of the article is not a reason for deletion. I think it's too soon to have an article about an artwork when it is not clear that significant coverage is sustained over a longer period of time. I see no evidence that the work has had a significant impact, has been cited as particularly influential or innovative. The reporting is too much of a single event. If it had been a work by a single artist, I would have suggested to merge it into an existing article, but there is no suitable target. I see no alternatives to deletion. Vexations (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and Question I'm just popping in to this, and I'm confused as to what is the history here. Specifically, why did Surabhinaik07 create a new page, and request the deletion of the old page, rather than just rename. On some level that is not material here, as it relates to a different page, but at the same time it does, as it is part of questions about COI. I really would like to be able to see what the original Rubin page looked like prior to its deletion, and the loss of that history is exactly why it shouldn't have been deleted, but rather renamed (e.g. moved). That said, it seems like the Rubin page is pretty small, and is missing any discussion of Works which seems to me that an article of this length actually deserves to be placed there, rather than in its own page. If any of his works deserves its own page, it is Listening Post (Artwork). [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]] etc. --Theredproject (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so worried abotu the COI as they (Rubin, Thorp, the artwork, and also Listening Post) are all notable to a degree. I've created Listening Post (artwork). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly worried that the user has ignored COI queries on their usertalk page. Surely editors are expected to respond to such queries. In other news, the cut and paste move is fixed and the history merged. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Brookfield Place (Calgary). I'm not convinced that the artwork itself satisfies WP:SIGCOV, but the sources that User:ThatMontrealIP found do verify the content enough to include this content in the article on the building itself. Really this is the best place for it anyway as the art instalation is a part of this building. This should also alleviate concerns over any COI issues.4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge the verifiable contents into Brookfield Place (Calgary). Not seeing anything that establishes independent notability of this artwork. GSS ^💬 08:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most of the arguments to keep are essentially, "We always keeps schools", which, as several people pointed out, is contrary to policy and in conflict with WP:SCHOOLRFC.

And, please, folks, don't rename articles while an AfD is in progress. It just adds confusion to the closing process. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serwaa Kesse Girls' Senior High School (SEKESS)

Serwaa Kesse Girls' Senior High School (SEKESS) (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:ORG. Of the four sources, 2 cover a brief event when the school won a debate competition, one source is a phishing site, and the other is self published. A google search turned up less than 2,500 results, and nothing usable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Schools are usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There isn't anything to write an article out of unless we want to talk about the time 1.4 billion [local money unit] were embezzled by 4 administrators at the school. I may not be running google right because I only found 56 results, but they were all either primary (e.g. the school's facebook page), or about the aforementioned admins stealing 1.4 billion moneys. Rockphed (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. the article has been improved Celestinesucess (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather think it hasn't; regardless the deletion process isn't about improvement, its about notability, which this school does not seem to have. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It being a verified degree-granting high school should suffice IMO, and also there is coverage, including about the embezzlement which perhaps should be covered (i don't know if that would be wp:UNDUE or not, but it certainly further verifies existence). There should be a short article at least. --Doncram (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Rockphed. The circular argument per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was rejected from being considered as a valid argument, after a site-wide RfC. ∯WBG^converse 16:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - despite the aforementioned RfC, we still keep secondary schools that have verified existence...Always have, always will. Per WP:GEOFEAT. John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GEOFEAT does not deal with schools; the rest seems some kind of childish I-like-it argument.∯WBG^converse 15:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:GEOFEAT would kill this article even faster since we have zero reliable sources on the building itself. I will gladly change to keep if you can find reliable sources about the building itself, but my searches for such turned up blank. Rockphed (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NORG. Don't go for circular reasoning that we just keep such articles. Störm (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails Wikipedia:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above delete arguments, without significant coverage, this fails WP:GNG. The WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES argument is invalid if the sources are not there. Rollidan (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Nom. Schools are "not" usually notable per WP:NSCHOOL. Schools have to be shown by reliable independent sources to be notable so are not intrinsically or inherently notable just because they exist. As noted above, if there is evidence that supports WP:GEOFEAT I am willing to reconsider. The school is mentioned at Duayaw Nkwanta. Creating articles is fantastic but should not become more important than expanding existing stub-class articles. Otr500 (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. bd2412 T 04:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keemo Bankz

Keemo Bankz (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 proof of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Sources given are basically directory entries. Google search only comes up with places to get his songs, but no significant discussion in reliable sources. The previous article as Draft:Keemo Savage has been declined for creation several times. PROD removed by IP with no explanation. ... discospinster _talk 18:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've searched for reliable sources and significant coverage but no results. Schazjmd (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could not find any reliable sources coverage under this name, for example there is no entry at all at AllMusic. Mind he has changed his name a few times so if anyone comes up with good coverage in reliable sources please ping me, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non notable musician Ceethekreator (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable musician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very poor sourcing -- all references are blogs, Facebook, or Twitter. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Super early in his career. No fans. No sources. scope_creep^Talk 17:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, page cranked out by a now-blocked spam-only editor. – Athaenara ✉ 03:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 19:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Masko

Johanna Masko (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)

After trimming a raft of blogspot, wordpress and similar items used as sources, this artist fails GNG. I cannot find SIGCOV in article the sources, and I can't find it in a search. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable quitler. I have to admit it is staggering how many articles that do not pass notability Wikipedia has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject of this BLP does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST, nor WP:BIO. Netherzone (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with User: Netherzone. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST, nor WP:BIO.Knox490 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - the claim that she worked with the Bata museum is one action of note, but there's no significant coverage of that or any other artwork she's made. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any coverage. If the article creator, or anyone else, knows of coverage in reliable, secondary publications, or of museums which hold her work, then that might show notability, but right now it doesn't appear that she is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, possibly rename.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dilla Massacre

Dilla Massacre (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 article fails WP:N, with no reputable published sources discussing a "Dilla massacre" [11]. Almost no mention of it anywhere other than forums up until early 2019 [12]. Seems like original research and dependent on non-reliable sources (e.g. http://allssc.com, http://boramanews.com). Koodbuur (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Koodbuur (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Koodbuur (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Koodbuur (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Koodbuur (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Koodbuur (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This fails WP:GNG with no mentions of a “Dilla massacre” in published reputable sources (nothing appears for “Dilla massacre” on Google/scholar/Jstor..etc). Seems like a synthesis of mostly non reputable sources that discusses a conclusion/neologism not stated by any published reputable source, as such also fails WP:OR. --Kzl55 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Dilla Massacre page has used over 30 different published academic sources. The sources are listed here: See: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13], ^[14], ^[15], ^[16], ^[17], ^[18], ^[19], ^[20], ^[21], ^[22], ^[23], ^[24], ^[25], ^[26], ^[27], ^[28], ^[29], ^[30], ^[31], ^[32], ^[33], ^[34]. Therefore this page is absolutely legitimate and doesn't warrant deletion in anyway whatsoever. This should be discussed in the talk pages instead of nominating for deletion. There are many sources that state this massacre took place. I have given over 30 and there are many more aswell. MustafaO (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources stated discuss a "Dilla Massacre", and as such the article fails WP:N. Koodbuur (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the page 'Dilla Massacre' could easily be moved and there are protocols for changing the title, refer to the talk pages for that. However, the sources are evident in that this incident took place and there are over 30 sources for it, as I've already shown. Therefore, it's unjustified to nominate for deletion. MustafaO (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate my previous comment, none of the 30 sources listed discuss a "Dilla Massacre". Furthermore, many of these citations do not even discuss the town of Dilla. This isn't an issue of an inaccurate title, but rather an issue of an original research article failing to meet WP:N. Koodbuur (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses massacres that took place in the Awdal Region against a specific community. The title of the article is a reflection of the incidents that took place in the Region as a whole, with Dilla being the most famous. The attack on Dilla was sourced clearly in the article (See: [13], [14], [15]. This sourced ([16]) says: "The SNM had completely destroyed the town of Dilla". So the article didn't fail to meet to meet WP:N at all. The title of the article could be discussed in the talk pages. The sources are very clear to see. MustafaO (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to suspect bias is at play here, I am the starter of the page Dilla Massacre, and this user Koodbuur , the same user nominating the article for deletion , was banned for 72 hours previously by engaging in an edit war as seen here Link 1 , and failed in an unsuccessful counter claim against myself. Koodbuur, now this user is requesting the article to be deleted. I do suspect that this deletion claim, is simply a tit for tat for those previous events. Koodbuur alleges the page should be deleted, but multiple sources indicate the Dilla Massacre and the events leading up to it, were a reality. The Dilla Massacre was an event that occurred on February 4th 1991, but the events leading up to it is crucial to the growth of the page, and provides context. Also, sources listed on the Dilla Massacre page, sources seen here and quoted above, dealing with the Somali national movement, and how it had partial foreign funding and assistance was also posted on the page Somali National Movement, and also removed by Koodbuur, observe here Link 2,  Koodbuur was also reported for POV Pushing as seen here by another user during another separate incident. Link 3 . In my opinion, there is no coincidence Koodbuur wants to delete a page with cited sources he does not agree with, especially after being banned for 72 hours regarding said page. This source  'https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ad8e24.html' states, "In February 1991, "ethnic cleansing" by the SNM took place in the Boroma region"  and mentioned an ethnic cleansing against the Gadabursi in the Awdal area. This source 1, Which is from a book called "Voice and Power" written by R. J. Hayward and ‎I. M. Lewis, that "The major town of the Rer Mohamoud Nur, Dila, was thoroughly destroyed by the SNM and still lies in ruins, their rural and urban property has been almost entirely plundered by the SNM apparently to avenge the past fierce resistance put up by the Rer Nur in general." Supporting the point that the destruction of the town of Dilla was clan based. Another source indicating the existence of the Dilla Massacre here, was also removed. This source 3, which provided background to the event, was removed, it stated "The civil war raging on in the north is between the SNM Isaks against the Gadabursi in the northwest regions". That source is from 1989. This news article 4 states the existence of a massacre and destruction of the town of Dilla, in the entirety of the article. Multiple news articles mention it as well, 5, The evidence is overwhelming. The page is still under development, and more sources are continuing to be added gradually, but for Koodbuur to nominate it for deletion, after not responding to the talk page for months, as seen here Link 4, shows me there might be other motives involved.  Aqooni (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and possibly rename. There is ample evidence of a series of violent incidents in the time frame laid out that have received more than sufficient coverage to ring the WP:N bell. That said, there are issues. At times the language sounds unencyclopedic and I get a sense that this may not be NPOV. It really needs to be reviewed by one or more editors familiar with the issues and history of that part of the world who can fix any POV issues and possibly add some background for those unfamiliar. I am also concerned about motivations in the article and possibly here in the AfD. Bottom line... there are problems, but the subject looks notable to me and thus WP:NOTCLEANUP would apply. I am going to throw up some tags on the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ad Orientem, will be working on cleaning up the page in the next few days. Thanks for the tags. MustafaO (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page does touch upon with the genocidal oppression the Gadabursi community faced within a certain time frame within Somalia, it provides context to the background of the Dilla Massacre, a name change discussion is perfectly reasonable to encompass that and more events, but complete deletion I feel is out of order. Aqooni (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: the article is based on neologism that not a single published reputable source discusses, thus fails GNG. Some sources do describe a battle that took place in Dilla between pro government and anti government forces, but it was one of innumerable confrontations during the Somali civil war. If reputable published sources do not support the massacre narrative, then the article should be deleted and relevant battle information could be merged into the Somali civil war article. I do agree that it also falls short of NPOV. At best its a synthesis of mostly non reputable sources to push the massacre narrative, and at worst its original research. --Kzl55 (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seeing as citations used do not support nor even name the "Dilla massacre" event discussed by article. No credible results for this pretty much anywhere, be it [Google], Google books, news, or scholar. If scholarly published sources do not discuss it then the subject does not warrant a standalone article per guidelines. There is also a number of questionable sources used that do not fit reliable sources guidelines. Ciiseciise007 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, disputes about the title of the article can be debated. The sources are overwhelming as pointed out by @Ad Orientem. Those debates could be held in the talk pages. There is clearly no need for deletion seeing as there are over 30 published works that speak about these incidents. There are many sources that mention the massacre:

This source 'https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ad8e24.html' states, "In February 1991, "ethnic cleansing" by the SNM took place in the Boroma region"  and mentioned an ethnic cleansing against the Gadabursi in the Awdal area. This source 1, Which is from a book called "Voice and Power" written by R. J. Hayward and ‎I. M. Lewis, that "The major town of the Rer Mohamoud Nur, Dila, was thoroughly destroyed by the SNM and still lies in ruins, their rural and urban property has been almost entirely plundered by the SNM apparently to avenge the past fierce resistance put up by the Rer Nur in general." Supporting the point that the destruction of the town of Dilla was clan based. Another source indicating the existence of the Dilla Massacre here, was also removed. This source 3 also mentions this massacre aswell. There is no warrant for deletion. The details about the name of the incidents could be discussed in the talk pages. MustafaO (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject is not notable enough to warrant an article, this can easily be seen through searching scholarly sources. Not a single scholarly source discusses a Dilla massacre. Coverage of individual battles is better suited in the main civil war article.XKeyse (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly ignored over 30 different scholarly sources for these events. See: (The Dilla Massacre page has used over 30 different published academic sources.

The sources are listed here: See: ^[35], ^[36], ^[37], ^[38], ^[39], ^[40], ^[41], ^[42], ^[43], ^[44], ^[45], ^[46], ^[47], ^[48], ^[49], ^[50], ^[51], ^[52], ^[53], ^[54], ^[55], ^[56], ^[57], ^[58], ^[59], ^[60], ^[61], ^[62], ^[63], ^[64], ^[65], ^[66], ^[67], ^[68].) This source 'https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ad8e24.html' states, "In February 1991, "ethnic cleansing" by the SNM took place in the Boroma region"  and mentioned an ethnic cleansing against the Gadabursi in the Awdal area. This source 1, Which is from a book called "Voice and Power" written by R. J. Hayward and ‎I. M. Lewis, that "The major town of the Rer Mohamoud Nur, Dila, was thoroughly destroyed by the SNM and still lies in ruins, their rural and urban property has been almost entirely plundered by the SNM apparently to avenge the past fierce resistance put up by the Rer Nur in general." The evidence is overwhelming. Therefore there is no need for deletion. MustafaO (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article, quoting from this opening statement says "The Dilla Massacre, was a series of events that spanned from January 1991 to March 1991, perpetrated by members of the Somali National Movement (SNM) rebel group, against the Gadabuursi clan. The most violent episode was on February 4, 1991 in Dilla, a town in Awdal". The question opposing editors are asking is "Did a violent killing of civilians occur in Dilla?" The sources say YES here is one for example, ^[69]. Were there a series of events perpetuated by the Somali National Movement to oppress the Gadabursi tribe in Somalia? The sources say YES. Perhaps the name of the article should be changed, but none of these opposing editors utilized the talk page in order to discuss such a change, the only one who did, did not respond back to the talk page for months, the user Koodbuur , who did not reply yet to my response here on my decision to vote to keep this page. There are enough sources to prove the opening statement of this article, but I vote to keep the change and utilize the talk page to discuss a name change. The main argument against the page is the name of the article, therefore a name change discussion is what this page needs, not a deletion discussion. I will providing more sources to contribute to the growth of this page, and within this deletion discussion. As of now, no other editor apart from MustafaO (talk), utilized the talk page to discuss these matters. Aqooni (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The number of sources cited is not as important as the quality of said sources, and what they actually say about the subject (i.e. is it significant coverage or just passing mentions). This article was nominated for deletion because no published scholarly sources discuss a "Dilla massacre". With regards to the 34 sources listed above, a closer inspection reveals that they add little to the support the notability of the article. Within the 34 citations there are a number of dead 404 links, and sites that can not be considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. In order to assess the notability of the event, coverage as well as quality of sources must be considered. Going over the listed sources, I see the following:

• Citation 1 discusses the town of Dilla being destroyed, but no mention of a massacre or any civilian killings [17]
• Citation 2 indicates that it is not a UNHCR document. The citations used to claim ethnic cleansing in the document are not readily accessible online [18] [19] [20], thus failing to meet verifiability guidelines as per WP:V.
• Citation 3 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [21] or the town Dilla [22]
• Citation 4 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [23] or the town Dilla [24]
• Citation 5 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [25] or the town Dilla [26]
• Citation 6 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [27] or the town Dilla [28]
• Citation 7 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [29] or the town Dilla [30]
• Citation 8 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [31] or the town Dilla [32]
• Citation 9 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [33] or the town Dilla [34]
• Citation 10 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [35] or the town Dilla [36]
• Citation 11 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [37] or the town Dilla [38]
• Citation 12 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [39] or the town Dilla [40]
• Citation 13 does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [41] or the town Dilla [42]
• Citation 14 and 15 (same reference) does not mention “Dilla Massacre” [43] or the town Dilla [44]
• Citation 16 does not make any reference to Dilla [45]
• Citation 17 discusses armed combatants being killed in Borama [46], but no results found when searching for “Dilla Massacre” [47]
• Citation 18 describes in German battle between SNM and clan militias. Explicitly states that mass killings or assassinations did not happen. [48]
• Citation 19 does not show any results for "Dilla massacre" [49] or the town Dilla [50].
• Citation 20 does not mention "Dilla massacre" [51] or the town Dilla [52].
• Citation 21 is not a reputable source, also a dead link [53].
• Citation 22 is the same citation as Citation 1.
• Citation 23 does not mention "Dilla massacre". Instead discusses a battle between SNM and 26th Brigade of Somali army in the town of Dilla in the PDF document [54]
• Citation 24 is not a reputable source, also a dead link [55]
• Citation 25 is not a reputable source [56]
• Citation 26 does not mention "Dilla massacre" [57]. Mentions a clash between SNM and militia belonging to Gadabursi [58].
• Citation 27 is the same source as citation 19.
• Citation 28 is not a reputable source [59].
• Citation 29 is the same source as citation 19. No mention of “Dilla Massacre” [60]
• Citation 30 mentions destruction in Dila, but nothing about a massacre [61].
• Citation 31 mentions a clash between Gadabursi militia and SNM in Dilla, but nothing about a massacre [62].
• Citation 32 is the same source as citation 20.
• Citation 33 mentions fighting between Gadabursi militia and SNM in Dilla, but nothing about a massacre [63].
• Citation 34 does not mention "Dilla massacre" [64] or the town Dilla [65]

As shown in the citations above, this article warrants deletion as it fails to meet WP:N as "Dilla Massacre" is not mentioned in reputable sources. At best, a few of the sources discuss fighting between the SNM and Gadabursi militia in Dilla. These sources do not go into great detail and only discuss the fighting that occurred in Dilla in passing, thus also failing to meet WP:DEPTH. As well, many of the citations used are not reputable. Koodbuur (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources cited actually name a massacre in Dilla, but only discuss violence which was happening across Somalia at that time as covered in the Somali Civil War article. As well the citations used are not credible (e.g. http://awdalpress.com/, http://mareeg.com/). SandMan25 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Vladimirovich Dumin

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

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

Subject is not notable in any way. This reads like a CV. Kbabej (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of significant coverage. Knights are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources and nothing of notability is described. -Lopifalko (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Spencer-Thomas

Owen Spencer-Thomas (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 seeing enough in the article or through searching online to pass WP:GNG. An MBE is a fairly minor award. Edwardx (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I searched, and I did not find.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above.Dreamwoven (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sources are trivial and rarely independent. Guy (help!) 21:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. His work is laudable - although many people have now worked on autism issues. His MBE is the lowest level of the OBE. He's not, as far as I can tell, an archdeacon or bishop, which would give him automatic notability as a clergyman in the Anglican Communion - according to my searches, he's a priest and honorary canon, the latter a title given to long-serving clergy. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I searched, and I found: a profile in a local paper, the Kensington Post, from 1972, when he was appointed to his first church (some useful bio info); confirmation from TV listings that he was interviewing clerics on Southern ITV in 1977 and 1978, and from an announcement of changed positions that he was at ITV Anglia News in Bedfordshire from 1978-1985, and then moved to their news centre at Northampton. He was still with ITV Anglia in 1998, as this article [66] says "Watch an archive report from the About Anglia programme in 1998 by Owen Spencer Thomas". A History of BBC London 94.9 [67] calls him "the legendary religious broadcaster Owen Spencer-Thomas" who devised and presented the first BBC phone-in program, where listeners "suggested hymns that would be played impromptu live on-air by a Salvation Army brass band in the studio. The programme was so popular it eventually moved to Radio 2 and was presented by Gloria Hunniford." Unfortunately, as that's saying he worked for the BBC and it's the BBC writing that, it's not independent. Also, a Church Times mention of his MBE [68]. So, unless and until someone writes about his religious or other broadcasting, it appears that he does not meet any notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhaumbusun

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

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

An extremely minor D&D creature that is an non-notable variant of another, also non-notable creature. There is almost nothing regarding this monster. There are only a couple primary sources that discuss it, and no reliable secondary sources at all. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFICTION, not discussed in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The topic fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here - with different editors - matches consensus from 1st AfD which was held less than six months ago and offers no substantially different notability claim. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia Orthodox Church

Indonesia Orthodox Church (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)

Although the former AfD debate has proven this denomination to exist as a religious organisation supported by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, there is no indicator that it is anything but a ROCOR deanery in Indonesia. Not in this article's now defunct source, not in the links given in the previous debate, not in the sources backing up Fr. Daniel Bambang Dwi Byantoro's article. Although there are a couple of articles in Wikipedia for deaneries, the only ones that should clearly be kept are either truly independent (like the Deanery of Strandebarm, as opposed to the merely alleged independence of the IOC), or are historical, such as the Deanery of St Patrick. The IOC wouldn't be the only non-church in the world to use such a title: the Polish archdiocese of Rio de Janeiro and Olinda-Recife, for instance, uses the title "Brazilian Orthodox Church", mostly in secular documents, but this doesn't make it an autonomous, let alone "independent" (autocephalous?), Orthodox jurisdiction. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 10:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, sorry, but doesn't it need to meet WP:NORG/WP:GNG to warrant an article? i don't see the relevance of being a deanery or otherwise. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there aren't articles on deaneries around, even though there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of larger ones around the world across denominations, makes me think that the Wikipedia article, and perhaps its sources, misread the real situation of the deanery, to the point that the article mentions the supposed church being "recognised" rather than submitted to the diocese, and someone even added the Indonesian Orthodox Church to this list. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 01:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Eastern Orthodox churches are found throughout the world and despite this denomination being small in Indonesia, it has a notable presence there. The Russkiy Mir Foundation has an article on the Indonesian Orthodox Church. [69] Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is no such a thing as an "Indonesian Orthodox Church", there is the Orthodox Church in Indonesia. There are articles online for Orthodox presence in any country, which doesn't mean there is such a thing as a "Kenyan Orthodox Church" or a "Luxembourgish Orthodox Church". Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 01:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Comment and Cautiously Keep, as my previous reason and others who last time voting on keep this months ago, has only evidence that this "deanery" for its existence was founded as a separate predominantly accepted 'semi-canonical' Orthodox church by a semi-Autonomous Orthodox Church (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, itself), along there are few secondary articles treating it as much.

Plus, if you have a problem with this church existence as a universally de jure Independent/Non-canonical Eastern Orthodox Church, rather than demanding a already unnecessary second deletion within a year as the first deleted nomination already happened, why you can't debated about the problem at its talk page on renamed it as a Deanery for the semi-Autonomous Orthodox Church, and add sources to back up your claimed? Chad The Goatman (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will make the relevant editions, but, regarding why I suggested a deletion debate, I have already answered. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 18:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable small denomination. I find the repeated AfD nominations disruptive. Wm335td (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with and redirect to Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sydney, Australia and New Zealand since this deanery is part of this diocese since 2003. Veverve (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea, thank you. I agree. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 04:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple, Bmbaker88, Chad the Goatman, and Wm335td: Any thoughts?

• Comment: I think some of you confuse the subject of this article (a deanery of the ROCOR) with the subject of an article which does not exist (yet) on the English Wikipedia: Eastern Orthodoxy in Indonesia [ru]. Veverve (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable religious organization which passes the notability requirements as established by the first AFD. Article still needs improvement and expansion though. Although I do not support such a proposition, in the case that there is not a consensus to keep, a move to Eastern Orthodoxy in Indonesia would probably be most appropriate.  Inter&anthro (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. There's no need to move either as the title is the legal name of the diocese per the cited reliable source. The article is fine as it is. I would further note that the diocese is an actual institution and is notable on its own. "Eastern Orthodoxy in Indonesia" would be a completely separate and broader topic on the history of Eastern Orthodoxy in that country. The institution would still need it's own separate article.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Social media follower numbers are not an accepted standard of notability. RL0919 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dhar Mann

Dhar Mann (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)

Pretty low-profile figure; notable for his crime or so it seems ..... Invoking WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. ∯WBG^converse 15:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person is a run of the mill businessman who was engaged in criminal fraud. Nothing of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable per WP:ANYBIO, and appears to be another run-of-the-mill social media fraudster that gained a little attention from a video lambasting him. KidAd (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: >744000 subscribers and gaining more than 10000 subscribers in some days. 729461 followers on Instagram. Appears relevant enough to me.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 12:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Handroid7: See WP:BIGNUMBER in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that User:Handroid7 was recently banned for for abusing multiple accounts. KidAd (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdraw requested by nominator. (non-admin closure) ミラP 22:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahia Massoundi

• Article about a local person, sources are some local coverage. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG Early life and education - no references; Career: Massoundi worked as a teacher at the Mursamudu High School from 2001 until 2010. She was a delegate for human rights between 2011 and 2013. no references --"In June 2015, he was arrested for selling tests.[5]" references her husband Dreerwin (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject meets WP:NPOL as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, Transport and Tourism in the government of Comoros. -- Whpq (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline, which she doesnt --Dreerwin (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting from WP:NPOL: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office..." (emphasis added). The position she holds is not a local political office.-- Whpq (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdrawal the delete proposal as per WP:NPOL Thank you --Dreerwin (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the caveat that a recreation as a well sourced article with quality text is still possible, as many participants have indicated that the topic may be notable but its current writeup be poor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Nasedkin

Vladimir Nasedkin (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)

Prodded long ago, still reads like a resume, fails WP:NARTIST, on indication of in-depth coverage, or that any awards/etc. are major. AfD from a while back ended as keep with a single keep vote from an editor now banned as a sock. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see that the subject fails WP:NARTIST if the claims in the Collections section are true. Those are some of the most important collections in Russia, if not the world. Unfortunately, I have not been able to confirm any of them, which maybe due to my reliance on machine translations. If they can be sourced, Nasedkin meets criterion 4(d):The person's work (or works) has ... been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Vexations (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In it's present form this resumé does not make the cut as an article, however, if the several of the museum collections can be proven with verifiable RS's, the article would pass. Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As written, this is just a personal resume, and a completely unsourced one. Was he actually represented anywhere? We do not know. Russian language links on the page look like that - empty. Same with page Tatiana Badanina, created by same accounts, with obvious WP:COI problem My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Perhaps a legitimate page could be created, but that one was clearly written as an advertisement and created by an account with obvious WP:COI. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I checked several of the collections listed in this article, and they all came up unverifiable. There is no way to know whether his work is actually in the museum collections listed in this unsourced article. Netherzone (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, appears to have been copied from Russian WP (that unfortunately has the same external links), English version created 24 May 2013 while Russian version created 27 November 2012, also, both articles created by the same user, doesn't look good. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, a patient editor (alas, not i:)) may be able to find enough sources to save this article, have found some ie. has exhibited at Erarta (Geometry of Light joint exhibition 2016), Saratov Art Museum (Actual Russia: Adult Choice group exhibition 2019), Museum of Moscow (Red Wings of Constructivism group exhibition 2016), one of the founders of Moscow Museum of Modern Art's School of Contemporary Art ‘Free Workshops’, but more may be needed? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, your first link shows he had an exhibition in Erarta, so he arguably may pass WP:NARTIST - 4b. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, subject to massive TNT. This is obviously a promotional autobiography. I suggest keep, and that we delete all unsourced items. Notability is established weakly by items kindly found by Coolabahapple. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Delete. It has existed too long without inline sourcing. It does need complete TNT, which may as well be deletion in this case, as there will be nothing left after TNT. Is someone recreates it in properly sourced form at some point in the future, that would be acceptable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatiana Badanina where User:Netherzone discusses a likely COI (the two related articles might have been created by the subject of his family). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. There's just too much stuff that would have to be cut out for it to be stubified. The article makes a claim that works of his are in the Hermitage and other major art museums, but lack any wat to prove it much less good citations. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to it being recreated in future, should someone find adequate sources for the claims which on the face of it are ample enough for WP:ARTIST. It has been in the same state since it was created in 2013, so there is no indication that anyone is so far willing to do that. -Lopifalko (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete He may well be notable - his name certainly appears in Russian language publications and exhibition catalogues. It would need someone who can read Russian, and probably also has access to more than Google Books snippet views, to assess those sources. I haven't yet found his work in any museum collections. There are other Nasedkins - an artist called Nikolaj Nikolaevic Nasedkin, also born in 1954; an architect called Sergei Nasedkin; a pianist called Alexander Nasedkin - etc. This Nasedkin has certainly had exhibitions, but finding reviews of them would, again, need someone with access to Russian language sources and the ability to read them. This [70] is more promotional than a review. So, delete for now, no prejudice against recreation with sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tales From The Vault

Tales From The Vault (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:NALBUM Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NALBUM not met. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

École Franco-Polonaise

École Franco-Polonaise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A short lived private university. Kept 10 years ago when we used to think all schools are notable. Today, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is not sufficient. No evidence it was accredited. It does not have an entry on Polish Wikipedia, nor does it even seem mentioned there. There are a few mentions in passing in GBooks, but nothing substantial. Ping User:DGG who 10 years ago said 'It's enough it existed', wonder how a decade later you think about this issue? :D _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Complete lack of references. Likely lack of accreditation is also telling.--Darwinek (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to give what I think a fair summary of the present position for universities, not a statement of what I would prefer personally: We never had a practice that all schools are notable. We did have and to a considerable extent still do have a practice that we normally keep articles on secondary schools (or if not kept because of lack of information, merge them) , and normally delete ones on primary schools or merge them to the city or district. There was a much disputed RfC, that ended with the ambiguous decision that one could not just quote the SCHOOLCOMM paragraph in Common practices as an argument. It said nothing at all about what the actual practice should be in any particular case. The net effect of it is that we now do not generally keep the very scantiest articles on secondary schools but merge them instead; which ones we keep as separate article or merge/redirect is a case by case decision. In practice, very few existing articles have been nominated for deletion, but we are much less likely to accept new articles if they're minimal.

As for universities, we've almost always kept them unless the information is hopelessly minimal, or unless it's clear they are just a trivial branch of another institution, or unless the status can not actually be determined (as is frequently the case in some countries, notably India) but there was never a full general discussion about that. They were mentioned once or twice in the RfC, but the focus was on secondary schools. To the extent that there is any strength in the argument for keeping secondary schools, those arguments for keeping them generally would apply all the more to universities.

• Keep I added two good refs. I think they are quite sufficient to show notability (note that there are other schools with a very similar name, mostly primary schools, and a few institutes in other subjects, and apparently some schools founded in France in the 1920s and 30s. If kept, the full name will be necessary. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the main issue, IMHO, is that we should avoid promoting degree mills, and there is no evidence that this wasn't one. Further, the refs are super sparse, and there is little to suggest this won't be an eternal WP:YELLOWPAGES like entry for what, gain, might have been a degree mill. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the article in The Echo, it was an attempt to bring the French ecole model of premier schools to Poland, not a degree mill, I don't see the basis for thinking it otherwise. The author, Stanislas du Guerny , is a major French journalistspecialising in economics. . DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and the comments from Darwinek. KingofGangsters (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - would veer on the side of delete from a purely educational perspective (no notable graduates, limited length of existence of the école), however the closure itself might be notable. This Liberation (in French) article details how subsidies were withdrawn leading to the closure following the elimination of France Telecom from tendering for a GSM network in Poland in the mid-90s and the Polish governemnt failing to meet earlier funding commitments. Possibly then notable for failures in corporate subsidised education and economic conflict in Franco-Polish relations....also interesting to note Presidents of both countries trumpeted the school... Chirac called it a «monument de l'intégration européenne» ... cough, cough --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the sources added by DGG and the Liberation article cited above. Notable as an example of Franco-Polish co-operations, an attempt to spread the French model of schooling, and for its apparent failure. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the improved WP:RSs and the Liberation article. Wm335td (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most of the keep arguments are procedural ones - consensus can change and while being spammy often isn't a deletion reason, lack of notability certainly is - and there is no notability guideline that states that degree-awarding institutions are notable solely because of this. And WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a notability guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Business College

Canadian Business College (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 spammy low-quality article attracts about 12 page views per day,[71] but it's hung around as a blight on Wikipedia for years. It's time to put the article to rest. Here's why.

All colleges are presumed notable — including small for-profit career colleges — unless someone has investigated and found that the school fails WP:N. Well, I've investigated, and it looks like this school may indeed fail WP:N. The school definitely exists, and it definitely grants genuine diplomas, but I still don't think it's notable.

I glanced through some of the article's sources.

• Mississauga.com is a community-journalism website which devotes lots of attention to routine coverage of local businesses. It's kind of like a weekly small-town newspaper, except that it's online.
• Study Magazine and Top Choice Magazine may both be low-budget free magazines which exist mainly to sell ads.
• The various accrediting bodies confirm that the school exists, but I'm not sure that they say much more about it.
• Press-release websites, such as Newswire.ca website, are not acceptable for proving notability either.

I also did some searching. I think that significant coverage of the school may not exist in any reliable, independent sources.

Yes — all colleges are presumed notable, unless shown otherwise. However, now that I've searched and failed to find sufficient sourcing, I hope I've shown that this presumption should not apply to this particular college.

The article was created three times. The first two iterations were deleted per WP:G11.[72] After the third iteration was created, someone tried to AfD it, but they failed to explain why the school was non-notable. I hope that I have succeeded this time.

It's time to put this article out of its misery before it attracts even more spammy content. Let's delete it for the third time.

Please delete and salt. If the school becomes notable in the future, we can create a new article.

I thank Kingboyk for inspiring[73] me to create this AfD nomination. —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's this Globe and Mail article [74], this MacLean's article [75], and it's listed as a private career college at ontario.ca [76]. Clovermoss (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion. Dear @Clovermoss, and dear all: Maclean's and The Globe are both reliable sources, and these sources raise good accusations about the quality of education offered at the school. However, WP:WHYN says: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Do these sources offer enough coverage of Canadian Business College to allow us to write an entire (non-stub) article about the school? I suspect that the answer is No, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts. —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Unforgettableid: My thoughts are if that's all there is that I can find, then I agree with you. I plan to do a bit more digging, but it's possible I won't find anything else. I just thought it was worthwhile to point out independent reliable sources do mention the college. And since it has previously been deleted through G11 twice, I thought it was kind of interesting that the coverage was about formal complaints. I'm thinking that more in-depth coverage might be outside what can typically be found in a Google search. I'm a grade 12 student in Ontario, so there's other resources available to me that might prove more useful. Clovermoss (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Unforgettableid: Okay, so I've done another half hour of research and while I'll do more tomorrow, this is what I have found:

• [77] This is from the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. It's about key performance indicators, and there's there's dedicated pdfs for a report on each of the three campuses.
• [78] Another mention from the Globe and Mail, with the former CEO of the college commenting on the Ottawa Business College scandal.
• [79] Career Colleges Ontario also mentions the CEO, albeit this is also a passing mention.
• [80] This article from IT World Canada.

As I said, I plan to do more research tomorrow. Do you think any of these demonstrate general notability? I'm genuinely interested in your input, as I don't really have much experience with AfD.

—Clovermoss (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Clovermoss: The KPI data at [81] might be useful data for anyone considering going to the school. It might be too difficult to weave the data into the article, but we could link to it in a "Further reading" section. Newer KPI data is available in HTML format at [82]. Your links [8] and [9] are passing mentions, definitely not useful for proving notability. Your IT World Canada link [10] might be mildly useful because it hints at just how tiny the school is; for comparison, George Brown College has about 30,000 full-time students. Note that IT World Canada is a trade publication, and I suspect that coverage may not be useful for proving notability.

In general, if Canadian Business College has any notability, I think it might be borderline at best. It may be true that, in general, the coverage in independent reliable sources fails to discuss the college in sufficient detail. Feel free to spend as many hours as you like searching for more sources. But, if I may offer a suggestion: As User:Hemanshu once wrote, "Every hour you spend at Wikipedia is an hour from your life. Do you have something more important to do? Consider doing it first." And, even if you choose to spend that time on Wikipedia, I might suggest that you might like to spend some of that time on some other tasks, such as dealing with some of Wikipedia's numerous task backlogs.

Regarding articles (created by professional spammers and/or their throwaway accounts) about private corporations (like this business college) and about living people, I'm a deletionist. Such articles tend to attract spam edits by users with conflicts of interest. There generally aren't enough watchers to catch all of these spam edits. Some of these edits remain live for years. It's easier just to delete the articles, and to salt their titles if necessary. That way, Wikipedians can focus their limited time on more-important things.

I still think it'd be best to delete our article, thereby prioritizing the overall quality of Wikipedia over our exact quantity of articles. If anyone ever expands our Proprietary colleges article to be less US-centric, and if they also add a list of the main Canadian private colleges to that article, then we could recreate Canadian Business College as a redirect to Proprietary colleges.

Have I yet convinced you to change or retract your original non-vote? :)

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettableid: Yes. Since deletion on notability is suppossed to discuss whether or not a topic is actually notable and the limited coverage I've found is mostly passing mentions/routine coverage, I do change my mind on the keep, because you're right, this college is not notable. I'm going to have to look up how to strike through my text to change the vote. I appreciate the link to the notvote thing, as this is more of a discussion on my part than a vote anyways. As for the time I spend on Wikipedia - I respectfully disagree that it's a waste of my time to do stuff like this, or else I wouldn't have done it. I don't spend much time at AfD, and I've already taken a look at the backlogs that exist. I have every intention to help there where I can. 21:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Clovermoss: It's good that you were willing to change your mind; good openmindedness! I didn't mean to imply that working on Wikipedia itself was a waste of time. I meant to imply that, after you've spent a reasonable amount of time looking for sources to show that a certain subject is notable, spending more time looking for additional sources might _then_ be a waste of time. :) —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I'd say. While it's received some press coverage, much of it is related to routine coverage. As well, the other sources are predominantly the subject's website (that is, the college) or reports from regulators. A question: as a matter of practice, do we list all for-profit, privately accredited career colleges? Doug Mehus (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Dmehus: WP:NSCHOOL seems to imply that, if _any_ school fails both WP:ORG and WP:GNG, it should be deleted, whether it's a for-profit school or a non-profit school. —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettableid, Ah, thanks for pointing out the policies to me. So, it's not really the fact that they're a private college. That's actually good to hear. I will leave my Delete vote up then, since it seems to be the only vote in favour besides the proponent.

• Strong Keep The first argument that the nominator makes is that it is "spammy" - but WP:NOTCLEANUP and next the nominator tries to use low page views as a reason for delete. Please see WP:POPULARPAGE for exactly why the nominator's argument is wrong. The third argument the nominator advances is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. the nominator says "...it's hung around as a blight on Wikipedia for years. It's time to put the article to rest." "...It's time to put this article out of its misery before it attracts even more spammy content. Note: The first AfD was nearly a WP:SNOW keep. the college is notable and the article is referenced. The nominator makes all the wrong arguments. Deleting the article does not serve our readers WP:ATD WP:PRESERVE Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Note, passes WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES #2. Most independently accredited degree-awarding[1] institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note2, except it explicitly states at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. - so not a reason to Keep. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, non-noteble, spammy written like a promotional brochure with program details. salt it since it is 3rd creation. (Iamchinahand (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  Note that the first two versions which were speedied in 2008 looked nothing like the current article, they were just pure spam. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally spammy. Arguments such as "the article is referenced" demonstrates some editors haven't a clue how GNG and WP:NCORP work since not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. We're after quality references, not quantity. Die to a lack of quality references (with "Independent Content"), topic totally fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. If we remove WP:PRIMARY sources, there is little to say outside a WP:YELLOWPAGES entry and maybe a short section on scandal. Schools should meet WP:NORG and I think such organizations like this are little better than degree mills, and we should not promote them. Now I have second thoughts on whether I should've withdrawn this nom a week weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable college: article that is much improved as filelakeshoe has stated. Colleges which bestow degrees are notable. Wm335td (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Nope, Colleges bestowing degrees are not automatically notable. As per this February 2017 RFC. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean the RfC that was not in any way about tertiary institutions but only about secondary schools?! However, having said that (and agreeing that degree-awarding institutions are notable), I can't see any evidence that it does bestow degrees. Only diplomas. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourcing does not seem adequate to meet notability requirements -- seems to be either not independent of the subject, simple listings in databases or registrations, or promotional press release language.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The deletion discussion was filed on behalf of the article subject and appears to be grounded mainly on the page having attracted negative commentary and on concerns about the notability. Normally concerns about article quality are not a deletion reason - page protection could be used to lock bad edits out under circumstances, for example - as noted by WP:ATD but it does happen at time, and it's not clear whether the sources proffered here would satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. In cases of borderline notability and other concerns that are widely shared in this discussion WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE can justify a deletion, even if we exclude a bunch of delete arguments on WP:SPA grounds. Thus on balance this is a consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Hamad

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Ruby Hamad (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 page was nominated at the subject's request. Ruby Hamad is a "not particularly well-known" journalist in Australia. She expressed to me (via Facebook) that she believes the page was created purely as a form of trolling, and the history of the page does indicate a lot of unsourced negative commentary (since removed). My own research does tend to support the idea that she is not sufficiently notable to have her own page. Most of the references are to the journalist's own work and not to any 3rd party source. Manning (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on the included references this page doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria set out in Wikipedia:BASIC or Wikipedia:AUTHOR, almost all of the references that are not dead links being links to non-Wikipedia articles by Ruby Hamad herself. Daneark (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC) — Daneark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable journalist. We really need to pub more stringent rules on article creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Daneark this page doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria set out in Wikipedia:BASIC or Wikipedia:AUTHOR - but would also add Wikipedia:NACADEMIC. Tastyworm (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC) — Tastyworm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. WP:AUTHOR. Her book White Tears/Brown Scars has been widely reviewed. egs. [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the criteria in Wikipedia:AUTHOR do you feel she meets? I can't see any mention of that book at all on her wikipedia page which seems like a strange omission given how much reading must have been done for the personal life section, now heavily cut down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daneark (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about the authors work getting critical attention. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article, as an articulate and forthright woman of Syrian origins, has been subjected to a series of relentless on line attacks of which this article was one. It is not research, it is a form of cyberstalking that does nothing for wikipedias reputation. She wants it gone. PierreABCD (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PierreABCD (talk • contribs) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — PierreABCD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. I'd never heard of Ruby (and I'm Australian). Nothing in the page, or in a thorough ProQuest News search, indicates she meets WP:NOTE. Cabrils (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK user:Cabrils, so you've commented purely on what's currently in the article. How about now consider what is not currently there. Such as her book and the coverage that has generated such as the above provided links. I suggest that as we should be looking at the notability of the subject and not just the current state of the article which can be changed. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: Duff, I respect your voluminous and significant contributions here. I accept that there has been coverage of her book. I conducted a search via ProQuest for news articles in Australia and New Zealand which returned 79 results, many of which were short articles she had authored or were extremely short, insignificant passing mentions, IMHO failing WP:RS. I have often tried to save pages from deletion by way of WP:HEY but in this case I admit to being less inclined to do so because of Manning's explanation, which is convincing. In any event, as I said, a ProQuest search did not return any results I felt comfotable adding as relevant citations. Cabrils (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This page does not meet the notability criteria set out in Wikipedia:BASIC or Wikipedia:AUTHOR nor has her book has not been reviewed by any serious publication aside indie-blogs. Furthermore, links on this page lead to non-Wikipedia articles written by Ruby Hamad herself. However, her requests that she 'wants this page gone' should not influence this discussion as Ruby has attracted criticism through her own actions by making inflammatory claims with articles such as 'white women use strategic tears to silence women of colour'. Like any other individual online, she should not be free from being criticised for her words or actions, especially if they are intended to cause controversy. User:PierreABCD's comment that she is 'an articulate and forthright woman of Syrian origins' shows clear favoritism bias and holds no relevance to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEarlGray (talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC) — MrEarlGray (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete on the sole grounds that she's requested it on the grounds of ongoing BLP issues. She's a prominent columnist and successful published author and most of the arguments being given about objective notability above are nonsense (as Duffbeerforme illustrates with sources above), but since I suppose it's like, 1% arguable I'd agree with deferring to her wishes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with duffbeerforme that her book, her other writing, her panel appearances etc, have received a lot of attention. I believe that she meets WP:AUTHOR / WP:GNG, and it's disappointing that some editors are !voting based on what's on the page and have not considered the sources which have been provided here. I also agree with The Drover's Wife - if the subject has made a genuine request for deletion on the grounds of the article being used to attack her, either the article needs protection, or it should be deleted. Some of the polarisation of debate seems to appear in this AfD discussion too, unfortunately. (Who are the anonymous editors who manage to avoid sinebot?) RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the subject of this article (I had nothing to do with its creation). I want to point out that it has now been nine days of discussion when the process is only meant to take seven. In that time the section on 'criticism' which is clearly defamatory, unsourced (other than to mostly anonymous comments on Twitter which are not verifiable), is ideologically rather than factually driven, is not neutral in tone, and is not in any way objective or informative, has been deleted and reinserted at least twice. This page and entire discussion is in violation of Wikipedia's own rules and standards. Please make a decision on this and act accordingly as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHWriter (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources seem to primarily be by Ruby Hamad rather than about her. Notability does not seem to me to be met. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The trend was delete, then it swung back to keep on the last relist, but with all the same basic disagreements in play. RL0919 (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters (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)

Same thing as Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Fails WP:GNG, no sources seem to discuss the second edition monsters as a group. Not a very active user (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is not an indiscriminate list but a list defined by monsters that have been published in official D&D books. It is a drop-down list as a list for monsters of all editions would be too big. It was a compromise as some monsters had some independent notability. Monsters of D&D have been discussed in independent commentaries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cas Liber. BOZ (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is complete WP:GAMEGUIDE material. TTN (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only source worth mentioning in this article is

• Wienecke-Janz, Detlef, ed. (2002). Lexikon der Zauberwelten – Gandalf & Co. Wissen Media Verlag. p. 12. ISBN 3-577-13505-0.

which is the same source listed in the 1st edition version of this article. I suspect that the entry refers to monsters as an important part of D&D and has just been used to add a source to the edition specific pages. Per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this article is untenable. We do not need tables of contents for every book ever published about monsters by TSR. An article that lists D&D monsters that are either unique to D&D or are uniquely interpreted by D&D might be tenable. Rockphed (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rockphed, who knows what's in that book? Serious question, serious answer: not many people, apparently--there are no reviews that I can find, the publisher seems to be an unknown entity, and the author is who? Thank you for pointing out how this citation occurs in every article--without a page number, and without anything to suggest what we are supposed to find in there. The citation really means nothing--look at the hollow edit summary here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies, It does say page 12, right before the ISBN, so we know that whatever is said is on page 12. No, I don't think we can hang an entire list around that single reference, no matter how much good faith we assume. Rockphed (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Like the other specific D&D edition monster lists currently on AFD, this list is really nothing more than an attempt to transcribe the table of contents of a bunch of official books, making this little more than a game guide. There is no sources showing the notability of this specific grouping of D&D monsters, making it fail the notability requirements for a stand alone list, and its not even particularly useful as a navigation tool, as many of the entries just link back to other D&D lists. As mentioned here and elsewhere, a singular "List of Dungeons and Dragons" creatures, including the handful of actual notable creatures, would be appropriate and easy to source. These massive lists of cruft, however, are not appropriate to be kept. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GAMEGUIDE, etc. There should not be indiscriminate lists of monsters for this franchise, only a single list of the notable monsters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A lot of blue links there leading to the articles of these monsters of this type from this series. Thus is a valid list article. Dream Focus 21:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One could expect most of those monster articles to be eventually AfD'd for non-notability. So far, none of them have stood up at AfD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, quite a number of these blue links just lead to other "List of D&D X Edition Monsters", or to articles that are unrelated to D&D at all, such as all the entries that are just regular animals. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NFICTION. Through I wonder if a list of D&D monsters from all editions would pass notability? Probably not, like a list of all elves or placenames in Tolkien works, etc. Not everything is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cas Liber. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Anon IP users seem to be restoring articles which have previously been redirect to this page, e.g. Abrian, Bariaur, Debbi (Dungeons & Dragons). So I think this is something to be considered in whatever action is taken as a result of this AfD, if this list page is deleted then users will surely continue in their attempt to restore the content in standalone articles.Polyamorph (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally support a pre-emptive WP:SALT on any redirects as well as the list articles themselves._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GAMEGUIDE.4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as with the others. A few blue links don't make this a notable list, let alone one of notable items. The sourcing is highly questionable (starting with the Lexikon der Zauberwelten, a totally non-noteworthy fan book, it appears; other sourcing is incidental and might help editors write a paragraph on some thing in a main article. No, this is, I'm sorry to say, way too crufty. Drmies (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not just a list of monsters from Dungeons & Dragons, but specifically from a single edition of the game. This might be tenable if there were substantial sources discussing how 2nd Edition AD&D monsters differed from other D&D monsters in terms of design philosophy, quality, etc. but I'm not aware of any such discussion. The only time they are discussed as a set is in the context of actually playing the game as a directory or game guide. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT, but leave behind a redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This information is notable and valuable to the player base of the game. D&D is a major cultural touchstone for tabletop RPGs, and most of the books/sources that the monsters on this list come from are long out of print. This list and the other D&D monster lists for older editions are pretty much the only way a large percentage of players are able to access these monsters at all. Especially the monsters that aren't included in the newer editions of D&D. It provides a centralized starting point for research. 12.106.168.131 (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The whole purpose of list articles like this was to reduce the presence of the individual articles about creatures from D&D which on their own were inherently unsupportable. WP:GAMEGUIDE does not apply here; this is not a guide to the game, or a set of instructions. (I'll add that had I known about the AFD for the 1st edition list I would've voted keep on that as well, for the same reasons.) The IP above also raises a valid point regarding the usefulness and importance of this as a research tool for out-of-print materials.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with all the above Keep votes, but failing that I suggest a merge/redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons which is where the 1st edition monster list was redirected. BOZ (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vulcan's Forge: See WP:RAWDATA for why that argument doesn't hold weight. Wikipedia cannot simply have pure data for research purposes, it must be placed in context. Merely being verifiable does not mean something requires an article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mainly because of WP:GAMEGUIDE, and the concerns raised by others.KingofGangsters (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a valid list of monsters. The list is notable. It is useful and it provides a centralized starting point for research. Wm335td (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSNOTABLE... -_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree completely with what User Vulcan's Forge said. Lexikon der Zauberwelten is no fan-book, but an encyclopedia of fantasy in general. It may not be as prestigious and common as The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, but has the same intent and simply was what I had access to. Daranios (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An excellent example of a list article that serves an encyclopedic function for a notable gaming systems, 2nd edition D&D. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added another source, and provided at least a little context for 2nd edition, as was requested here. Additionally, as BOZ requested: In case the end result of this discussion should be deletion, please keep the redirect to help those who have used this page as a resource. Daranios (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Star Wars characters#C. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Connix

Lieutenant Connix (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)

Minor Star Wars character. Article content related to list of appearances in few media and a rather short fictional character biography. No evidence of in-depth coverage outside the usual business as usual notes that 'actress x got role y'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge I've been meaning to nominate this myself for awhile. Minor character who likely only got any interest at all because of the actress playing her. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Minor character without sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Star Wars characters#C. ミラP 17:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Star Wars characters#C.4meter4 (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serhiy Shestakov

Serhiy Shestakov (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)

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Даниил Клейн (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC) cat=B Creating deletion discussion for Serhiy Shestakov Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serhiy Shestakov[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - multiple appearances in WP:FPL per Soccerway. GiantSnowman 09:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NFOOTY passed, career ongoing with almost, if not more than, 200apps in WP:FPL-listed competitions. A (very) quick Google search suggests GNG is likely met, e.g. [88], [89], [90], [91]. Those were four I picked at random, likely more/better out there for those competent in searching in Ukrainian. R96Skinner (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – more than 100 appearances in fully professional leagues spanning nearly a decade comfortably meets WP:NFOOTY and shows this is not a borderline case. Kosack (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above passes WP:NFOOTY .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SNOW also above passes WP:NFOOTY. Wm335td (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clear failure of WP:BEFORE, a quick check, would have found Wikipedia articles in 5 other languages. Not surprisingly the Ukranian one (uk:Сергі́й Сергі́йович Шестако́в) has the reliable sources that were apparently unfindable. And even a simple Google search finds recent news sources. Nfitz (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But tag as cleanup needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DivX

DivX (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)