Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 26

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. – Joe (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamilia Abdelfattah

Kamilia Abdelfattah (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)

per WP:SCHOLAR, no notability and just a normal professor without awards or accolades, many information in the article aren't cited, also it contain unreliable sources like Arwiki article and (kenanaonline.com) edited by users, google results also confirm she isn't a high profile person. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She appears to have established a lot of university child psychology programs at major universities in Egypt. If that can be verified, I do think she might meet criteria #4 of WP:NACADEMIC for her services in bringing child psychology training/studies to her nation. That's a pretty big deal.4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this information isn't cited and all information in the article too, I searched in google (Arabic and English) and no reliable sources, her efforts are too normal for any academic psychologist, if she a pioneer in child psychology why there is no awards, honours, famous books, researches or citations? this is why we delete the Arabic article, and I think admins keep this article for long time because they think she is a notable person in Egypt and she has a article in Arwiki, but the situation has changed --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with great reluctance. It would be laudable to include another non-Western woman of science in the project but every person has to be notable on their own merits and that notability needs to be verifiable. In this case, the article is a copy of their CV posted at one of the cited sources (Arab PsyNet) and the other sources offered are an empty page, a link to arwiki, not actually about the article subject, and another blank page. The list of external links at first appears impressive but each link is repeated and none are WP:RS. No visible sources available in separate searched. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I agree that the sources currently in the article are not independent, are circular, etc. Searching on her name in Arabic, there are many results in Google Books. Not being able to read Arabic, all I can do is copy the snippet of text in the preview into Google Translate. Many of the results seem to be citations of her works. So, I wonder, is she heavily cited (whatever that means for child psychology studies in Arabic, and how many sources which might cite her are digitised)? Google Scholar gives about 38 results, many of which are citations. That doesn't seem a lot, but again, it's hard to follow without being able to read Arabic. Searching on the title of one of her books finds no results in Google Scholar, which doesn't match with the Google Books results where that book is cited in many publications .... So I'm not at all satisfied that I have a clear picture of what sources exist. But, at present, in the absence of reliable sources to verify the statements in the article, I would say delete unless/until they can be provided. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nappy (singer)

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

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him only brings up interview sources. None of the sources online and in the article show independent coverage. As a matter of fact, the subject has only released three songs and does not have a career to speak of.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject of the article meets the number one criteria for musicians notability WP:MUSICBIO. The second, sixth and seventh reference is an independent, reliable and not self-published source. And as a matter of fact Vanguard and Leadership is a big newspaper company in the subject country.(Juanafavour (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

How does he meet criteria 2 of MUSICBIO? HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says if they meet at least one of the criteria. So that's why I'm convinced he is notable. (Juanafavour (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I misread your comment yesterday. Still not notable though. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• dELETE: mUSICIANS HARDLY BECOME NOTABLE THE SAME YEAR THEY START THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAREER, i CAN'T SEE ANYTHING SUGGESTING THAT nAPPY WILL BE DIFFERENT. pERHAPS WE SHOULD WAIT TILL HIS MUSIC GETS MORE CRITICAL REVIEWS AND ASSESSMENTS IN RELIABLE SOURCE.HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 (UTC)

Delete: or find more notable references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halkett99 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Striking vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The current sources comprise interviews; "account suspended" pages; vanguardngr is routine coverage of single releases; and leadership.ng is very short, hardly a thorough assesment. A Web search found more interviews. The subject has only released 3 singles. Thus everything the nom said plus WP:TOOSOON. Delete without prejudice to someone recreating if the subject becomes more notable. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salvagnini

Salvagnini (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)

I'm not seeing much (or any) evidence of reliable secondary, non-specialist coverage about this Italian sheet metal company. Many people would also interpret this article as promotional - I can see it has needed regular efforts to remove blatant promotion. Time for the article to go, fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article started by a WP:SPA several months after the first AfD deletion, subsequently developed by further WP:SPAs and IPs. The Italian Wikipedia article is even poorer in terms of referencing. My searches are not finding better than routine announcements and purchase mentions. Clearly a company going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - there's less than meets the eye. No sources in the company's home language nor in English. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silver nursing cup

Silver nursing cup (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)

Honestly not sure what notability guideline this falls under, but I'm pretty sure it fails WP:GNG anyway. The only sources I could find were blogs for new mothers, which seemed to be full of a lot of WP:PSCI. This article needs several WP:MEDRS, but GoogleScholar turned up nothing. I could maybe understand an article on just Nursing cup, but even that article doesn't exist. Having an article specifically for silver nursing cups seems just way too narrow a topic to create a meaningful article out of. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Not notable yet, with minimal attention from medical sources. I could find one primary medical source about "silver-impregnated medical cap for topical treatment of nipple fissure of breastfeeding mothers". The term "Silver nursing cup" is only used by one brand name, "Silverette®".
  "Nursing cup" is also very uncommon, one mom blog mentions it's a synonym for breast shell which we do have an article on. But we can't merge this article there since we don't have good medical sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:MEDRS. There are hardly any mentions of "silver nursing cup", "silver breast shell", "silver cap", "silverette" etc. outside of product reviews and mommy blogs. One primary study is not enough. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Nipple shield (breastfeeding). Bearian (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Concept

Hero Concept (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:GNG. All references provided in the article cover the games (Doughlings:Arcade and Doughlings:Invasion) of the company and are either blog posts or brief announcements of the game. The creator, I suspect, has a COI and the article contains plenty of WP:OR. Although this isn't a reason to delete, I thought it might be useful for others to know.

Could we also discuss the games developed by this company and their notability? Thanks. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to Doughlings: Arcade, its notable game. I see lots of press releases and brief mentions but no in-depth coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: thanks for the comment. I don't believe the game has notability - the references on the page are barely reliable and barely cover the topic, thus, I would discourage a merge. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Two minor games, but the company isn't notable on its own. The page as it stands is a stretch and mostly about the two games. I would say redirect, but is isnt clear which game to direct to.

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment

Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment (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:NORG. Has failed to receive any significant coverage in independent reliable references even after having page here for more than a decade. Bharatiya29 20:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could only find some passing mentions in reliable sources, but they are too trivial for any consideration. Subject thus fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. --RaviC (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable organization. Sounding off on controversial subjects does not make your organization for sure notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tour Million

The Tour Million (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 be defunct. No working references, and doesnt seem very notable. Rathfelder (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The sourcing in the article currently has 3 references of which 2 do not contribute to notability. The first reference is an entry on Alexa which is dead, and in any case, would just be a directory entry with stats. The third reference is a press release. The second is dead but is available via the Wayback machine. It is an actual article from when this web site started, but I am unable to find any more coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Tudor (writer)

Elizabeth Tudor (writer) (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 well-known. The article was created a long time ago. She's not popular in Azerbaijan. Her FB page was most probably verified due to her articles on Wikipedia. The page has less than thousand likes, it shows the notability of person. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of the facts stated by the nominator are reasons for deletion. What we need is either significant coverage of the person, or multiple reviews of her books in independent, reliable sources. I don't know how to search for reviews in Russian or Azerbaijani media or journals, unless they are accessible through a google search, so it is much more difficult to assess than for an English-language author. I did find a couple more sources, but they are also interviews, and one is with her university ("Voyage into the Unknown with Science Fiction Author and FIU Alumna, Lala Hassenberg ’13" [1]). Two others are from the Russian news agency Sputnik [2] and [3] - the latter is about one of her books being included in a Russian literary festival in Stuttgart, which does indicate perhaps some recognition. One thing I did note is variations of her name: in Russian, Элизабет Тюдор (pen name), Лала Элизабет Тюдор Гассенберг (full name), and Лала Гасанова - the latter in English is Lala Hasanova, and she appears to use that in her legal career. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I must admit that is the worst Afd rationale I have read in a long time. It is fundamentally invalid. Next time @Toghrul Rahimli: base the rationale on Wikipedia policy and nothing else. However since we are here:[4]. scope_creep^Talk 21:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have now made my way to her official website, and I see that there is a section for Press (articles separate from interviews), which includes reviews published in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007. I will include some of them in the article. A first look suggests there are enough for her to meet WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added some sources and information to the article. I think there is sufficient evidence that she meets WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Schecter

Cliff Schecter (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 was created in 2010 with no sources[5] and remains basically unchanged today, although sources have been added for part of the article. While the subject may be notable, it is better to Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over and allow someone to re-write it based on reliable sources. In the meantime, we cannot allow a BLP that is unsourced. Note that while there are lots of google hits, they go to articles by this journalist, rather than about him. TFD (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I gave the article a trim. As the nom says, it is hard to find articles about him. But I do wonder if they are out there. Not everyone gets to write an op-ed for the NY times.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to say Keep, since when I Googled phrases similar to "according to Cliff Schecter" I got many results in multiple sources (example, example2). Here's a book review in the Guardian, another in the New York Review of Books and another in Vanity Fair. There may not be much about him per se, but there is lots of coverage of his work (the book, mainly), and he is widely cited. He therefore meets WP:JOURNALIST (1a: widely cited by peers).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move the article to The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't? TFD (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might be OK. WHy did you nominate him then? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He is notable. The book is notable and there is no separate book article. Whatever we call this, there is notable content here sufficient for a stand-alone article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - virtually all of the sources are by him! Bearian (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looking at the sources in the article, he wrote most of them. Looking at the book reviews, there's only one specifically on his book (Vanity Fair.) Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 01:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to JetBrains. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoLand

GoLand (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)

Only primary sources in article and my Google search found no WP:RSes discussing the subject either. WP:TOOSOON? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we consider merging GoLand into the main JetBrains article? As an alternative to deletion. Artem Pronichev (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, but what's to merge that isn't available on the product website? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent article JetBrains. No independent notability apparent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to JetBrains.4meter4 (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sh2-9

Sh2-9 (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:NASTRO and WP:GNG Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Perhaps you could also have a look here. Cheers, UnaToFiAN-1 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the itwiki page linked above says that it's visible to the naked eye, which satisfies criterion 1 of WP:NASTCRIT. Article needs significant expansion, but the subject does appear sufficiently notable. creffett (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - looks like it can be expanded easily. Fotaun (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This object is visible to the naked eye. It can be expanded, though. Let me do a bit of expansion for it. SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the nebula is very visible and surrounds Sigma Scorpii system. SIMBAD has the same designation of this nebula and Sigma Sco. Maybe I suggest we must merge it with that star article with a separate section? SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its a lot easier to categorize if we leave it as a nebula article. Fotaun (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Won Institute of Graduate Studies

Won Institute of Graduate Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable private educational institute. PepperBeast (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is an in-depth coverage report by Epoch Times here and mentions in several news sources on Google News. Probably, notability should also be checked on Chinese-language search engines. Furthermore, there is research about the organization here, here and here, here. Seems notable enough to me, though the writing could be a little less peacocky.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does a single article in the Epoch Times and a couple of mentions in research papers amount to "[being] the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject?" Seems like a tiny bit of a stretch to me. PepperBeast (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's more than a mention. The school itself- it's policies and approach to education- is actually the primary subject of two of the linked articles. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don´t think Epoch Times is an independent mainstream newspaper. JimRenge (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a couple of mentions in research papers pepperbeast, have you looked at the studies yet? They cover much more detail than just mentioning the subject.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried your links, and got one error, two paywalls, and a page snippet in Google Books, so I wasn't really able to assess. PepperBeast (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a page snippet, they are accessible pages on Google Books. And I don't see why you got an error, I can load the file without any problems. As for the paywalls, you can request the sources through WP:RX. Or if you want me to send them to your Wikimail, that's also possible.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm able to verify all but one of the source Farang Rak Tham posted, confirming independent coverage of the school in multiple sources. It's also an accredited school of higher education in the US, which means that the accrediting body counts as another source in terms of verification of basic facts. It does need some of the semi-promotional language removed, but that's a separate issue. Won is modern Korean tradition, so there would likely be additional coverage in Korean language sources or maybe the Korean wiki would be helpful- don't know how active that project is. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Spasemunki.4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Ríos

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

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are very lightweight and appear to be based on press releases (identical images in more than one source). No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I already edited with some comprehensive details about him.Telex80 (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Puff piece masquerading as a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Borderline case with thin references, however, after two re-lists there is no clear consensus in either direction, and established editors have provided some evidence for either side of the case. No prejudice therefore to re-listing this AfD again at a future date. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Myntti

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

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

WP:ARTIST fail. Marginal notability, likely an autobio; the article was also created by a paid editor back in 2012. Verification failed on the claim of being in the LACMA and Huntington Museum collections. News coverage is consistently small local papers. See also the talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:GNG, multiple examples of significant reliable coverage in multiple reliable sources over a long period. There's no requirment for them to be major, or national. Though I agree, it would help her case to have better proof of the claims of her works being in major public collections. Sionk (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The museum collections are flat out lies, to put it plainly. They were originaly sourced by generic URLs to the museums, which I removed. I have now removed the collections from the article, as there is not a shred of evidence that they are factual. I think it much more likely that she sold something in their gift shop(s). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? Myntti lists those collections on her CV. But I do think it's very strange that LACMA would collect the work of an artist who only two years ago was an MFA student at Claremont. https://www.cgu.edu/students/laura-myntti/ And yes, LACMA doesn't list it in their collection. Perhaps there is another explanation. Sometimes a museum library has a copy of publication by the artist. Could it be that the Balch Art Research Library holds a copy of her Self-Help Graphics for example? Vexations (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is harsh, as there is zero evidence of the claims being true (total lack of art world reviews and a lack of entries in claimed collections). They might indeed have her book in their library, but that is not the same as a curator having selected her work for the permanent art collection. The statement "her work is in the collection of X museum" clearly implies artwork, not a book in a library. It is classic exaggeration/puffery. Happy to be proven wrong, but I sense the claims here are largely empty, and the accomplishments very run of the mill.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Worldcat does not show her book as being held in the Balch Library at LACMA.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not be true that Myntti's work is in the LACMA collection, it's only a lie if the editor who inserted the claim knew it was false and inserted it anyway in an attempt to deceive out readers. They did cite the claim, to https://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/1-18-2011/River-Forest-artist-co_chairs-UNICEF's-upcoming-gala-benefit/, which does indeed say her work is in LACMA's collection as well as https://web.archive.org/web/20150927080501/http://www.oakparkjournal.com/2008/2008-Laura-Myntti-show-oakpark-feb-29th-end.html. Now, we need to be cautious when repeating such claims. Articles like the two above are usually not rigorously fact-checked and the biographical information is often copied straight from a press release that the gallery provides for the exhibition and that bio is almost always provided by the artist. In this case, I'd say that if we have two sources who make vague claims that the work is in the LACMA collection, and LACMA does not list her work at https://collections.lacma.org/, together with the sheer unlikelihood of a work of such an artist's work in that collection we ought to assume that the claim is false; Myntti's work is not in the collection. We should also now consider the other claims about collections in doubt. Unless supported by solid evidence from the collecting institution itself, those should be removed as unverifiable. In other words: I don't trust the artist, and any newspaper that repeats what she says about herself. If all those claims fail to verify, I'd consider this artist not notable, unless more evidence of notablity emerges. Delete for now. Vexations (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my use of the word lie, I'll go with Merriam-Webster's second definition of the word as a noun: something that misleads or deceives. In this case the museum collection claims all lead back to the artist, with no evidence (so far) of them leading to independent sources that prove the claims.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to verify the museum collection claims. For LACMA, and Huntington I failed to verify. For the others, her work didn't show up in their "selections from the collection" but they don't have their full collections online, so the search results were inconclusive. --Theredproject (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also note the claims about the SoCalMFA show are disengenuous, though maybe not technically incorrect. These shows are juried by a major figure like Amanda Ross Ho or Helen Molesworth. For the most recent version, the three CGU MFA students are listed as "organized by MFA students" [6] though the year that Myntti was involved it says "This year's coordinators and curators are Laura Myntti, Dakota Noot, and Chelsea Boxwell." [7] --Theredproject (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject of this article does not meet notability criteria. Does not pass GNG or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep at this point. She does have work in the Anchorage Museum [8], which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. Her exhibitions have been reviewed in the Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), the Spokesman-Review (Washington), the Courier News (New Jersey), and the Chicago Sun-Times. It would be good to know if other galleries and museums do have her work in their permanent collections, but as other editors have noted, the ones listed on her CV don't all have their full collections searchable online. This might be a case of needing to check with the museums. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good find on the anchorage museum. However for the rest, there is zero published evidence anywhere other than her claims of being in LACMA etc. Not sure why we would take those claims seriously when there is demonstrated evidence of inflation in so many other claims she makes. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the articles I saw have quite vague statements like "many foreign museums". The LACMA claim may have been false, but museums and galleries do also de-accession works, so perhaps they had some of her work at one time but no longer do. Either way, it shouldn't be in the article, and doesn't contribute to notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a museum decommissions a work, that does not affect notability negatively. As I found out during one of my first AfD nominations: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Therese_Steinhardt_Rosenblatt notability is not temporary. If we can find a source that shows that Myntti's work was at some point in a collection, that would help to establish notability. Vexations (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find a source that shows that Myntti's work was at some point in a collection, that would help to establish notability. Exactly. But in the absence of sources, it is pretty clear here that she was never in those museums. It is entirely unblievable that she would be in LACMA, for example. So giving points for possible museum collections without sourcing makes no sense. I'm a little disappointed that we are not seeing through the fabrications here, but I have said that enough and will make this my last comment.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with ThatMontrealIP, there are credibility issues. The collections cannot be verified; the article puffs up juried shows, and we all know that juried shows are not invitational or curated shows, they are shows for which an artist pays a fee to have their work considered. Many of the references are dead links; unverifiable; primary sources; a self-published essay; or about her graduate show. The main contributor to the article is a SPA with an obvious COI. None of the background info is cited. Why on earth is the fact that she's on the board of her local planetarium or that she "curated" an MFA show in the article? Once you strip away all this nonsense, there is nothing close to notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per RebeccaGreen. Just passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional article by promotional editor. Borderline presence in museums, borderline references. Many museums --even very good ones-- include local artists whom they would otherwise not include, as a sign of their willingness to help and promote the local artistic community. The attempt to get an article here is with the clear intent of helping her work be better known, and is thus inherently promotional in nature. On balance, the combination of dubious notability and promotionalism would be a reason for deletion. The attempt to include an probably false claim and inflate the few technically correct ones does not indicate good faith, and gives final proof to the promotional purposes. The failure of good faith is a reason for deletion--I'd say even speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have just replaced the dead urls with archived urls, or updated the ones to press clippings on Myntti's own website. I would happily change my vote if I see sufficient evidence to do so. Actually, what I see is that the article needs work - I have no idea why the lede would mention exhibitions in 1988 and 1989, and that she has appeared in articles in local newspapers, when it doesn't mention a 2009 solo exhibition in Oak Park, California [9], and in Paris, France [10]. I haven't yet found any reviews of the Paris exhibition, but will see what else I find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, just because an artist has a show and gets a review does not indicate notability. Artists have shows, they just do, and shows sometimes get reviewed. Neither of these shows are important nor indicate that she has contributed something of distinction to her field. The one in Paris is a ten-day long show in the workshop of two people who run a print shop out of their studio.[11] One imagines the shows are of artists who have made prints at their workshop, so there are commercial (promotional) aspects to consider. The other show is also in a print workshop that has shows for its members, it is not a notable gallery or museum. I understand that WP needs to increase its coverage of women, and I am 100% behind this effort, but it does not serve the project if artist who has ever exhibited gets an article. WP is not a web host. Netherzone (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen:: the Oak Park review is of some value, in that is is printed in a newspaper. At the same time, when I checked the venue it is a printmaking co-op, where artists pay to be members and the promo text says "Our studio offers printmakers a unique opportunity to show print works exclusively! All members may participate in group shows and boutiques; contract members may have a private show!" So it (the show, not the review) is yet another case of very plain activities that imply recognition being put forth as professional recognition. In reality it's just a show she paid for. That is not necessarily a bad thing; many early-stage artists do that. But a self-propelled members show does not contribute to notability. The common thread here is that there is very little in terms of independent professional recognition of her work by curators. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thank you for reopening the AfD. I was wondering about this case, as one of the (delete) !votes is located at the end of a block of text, and was unclear to me if it was caught by the closing editor. I know !votes aren't counted as votes, but a good argument was made that the subject of the article is not notable. Netherzone (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notability can often be a matter of degree, and whether it meets the guidelines a matter of interpretation. But WP:Verifiability is an essential policy. If the most important statements in the article that might imply notability can not be verified, there is no way there should be an article. Verifiability is something we do not and should not compromise about -- most especially about statements in biographies of living people. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RG she has her work exhibited in the Anchorage Museum [12], She has also been reviewed in publications from Alaska to Chicago. Wm335td (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadat Model Public School

Sadat Model Public School (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 independent source found for this for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MILL. Ordinary, small, rural high school. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article has a total lack of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Grammar School

San Jose Grammar School (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 independent source found for this for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MILL - small (350 students) primary school. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

School for Contemporary and Islamic Learning

School for Contemporary and Islamic Learning (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 independent source found for this for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - total lack of independent sources. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah Foundation High School

Jinnah Foundation High School (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 independent source found for this for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the articles lacks any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chiniot Islamia School

Chiniot Islamia School (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 independent source found for this for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. Much of the page is pure nonsense. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article lacks any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The City Grammar School

The City Grammar School (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 independent source found for this for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - there are sources for this school (unlike some other AfDs) but I'm not sure they reach WP:SIGCOV. I'm open to anyone who wants to fix this one. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Charter School

Grand Charter School (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 independent source found for this for-profit school, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage School System

Heritage School System (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 independent source found for this for-profit school chain, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't have an article on every school as this will make us a listing website, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthraxus

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

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

Non-notable D&D topic. TTN (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG, non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am not finding any reliable secondary sources regarding this fictional character. Pretty much all search results from scholarly sources are just articles using an alternative spelling of Bacillus anthracis. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hajvairy Airlines

Hajvairy Airlines (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:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination; airline was a flash in the pan venture that lacks notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – no sources indicate notability; even trivial mentions are sparse. No sourced content is present that would be worth merging into List of defunct airlines of Pakistan, but any trivial references that are found may be used there. ComplexRational (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 685

Interstate 685 (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 highway doesn't appear to be likely in the near future. The Interstate 85 in Alabama article says that this event was proposed in 2011, but it's now 8 years later and it still hasn't been done, which means it must be cancelled. If you can prove me wrong, them please update this article, as well as all related articles, to include recent news. Georgia guy (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A section of the Outer Loop (which would trigger the eventual designation of I-685) did open in 2016. According to this news article from a few days ago, there is an announcement about the project expected in November. SounderBruce 02:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SounderBruce - my question was whether this proposal, if failed, would still nevertheless be notable as roads tend to have a lot written about them, but my concerns have been remedied by the above link. SportingFlyer T·C 02:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Coldplay discography#Live albums. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love in Tokyo (album)

Love in Tokyo (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Coldplay discography#Live albums. Nothing found that would indicate that the article can be expanded beyond a tracklisting and an infobox. Note that Love in Tokyo (Coldplay album) is already a redirect. --Michig (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Agree with Michig. Ss112 19:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meher Baba. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meher Mount

Meher Mount (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)

Some commercial entity whose sole mentions in independent reliable sources are over a county daily concerning an old burnt tree springing back to life and a couple of scatter hits over a local radio. ∯WBG^converse 13:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While looking over the article, I thought that GEOLAND would apply as a reason to keep. However, this is a commercial entity as WBG describes, and it does not meet the required sources needed for WP:NORG. Utopes (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Precisely; I initially thought of GEOLAND but this is purely a commercial entity .... ∯WBG^converse 05:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/ Merge and Redirect to Meher Baba. Fails WP:SIGCOV on its own, but the content would be valuable on the article on Meher Baba.4meter4 (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, probably to Meher Baba, which mentions the place twice already. And the place is all about him. Since there exists an appropriate merge/redirect target, this is what should be done if the place seems non-notable on its own, which seems to be the case. --Doncram (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meher Baba. Preferably to the Teachings Section. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Life (Meher Baba)

New Life (Meher Baba) (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)

Redirect to Meher Baba (preferably to the Teachings section). Not seeing any significant coverage of the concept apart from trivial mentions in independent sources. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All these Mehar Baba’s stuffs are not important and has separate articles on trivial topics which fails GNG. Delete this. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom.4meter4 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton F.C. 0–9 Leicester City F.C.

Southampton F.C. 0–9 Leicester City F.C. (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 isn't a cup final and other than a high scoring game we don't have articles for single game events like this. This previous AfD was deleted because of such issues. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this Man City 8-0 Watford AfD. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact is this is the biggest ever premier league away win, Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C. the previous record away win has a wiki page and so does the record ever premier league win Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C., and also in your argument this is just a high scoring game you fail to realise that the highest scoring premier league game Portsmouth F.C. 7–4 Reading F.C. also has a wikipedia page Vaacif (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh hard to get excited about either keeping or deleting this one, but the fact the Nottingham-Man U game has an article probably means this one will be notable enough in time. SportingFlyer T·C 12:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, especially as it is recorded by a team which not usually inside the top four/six. Flix11 (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - equalled or broke multiple records in English football, clearly a notable game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Definitely a notable record-breaking game and as stated before other similar games have pages. Aelimian21 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Chris. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's Liverpool 9–0 Crystal Palace (1989) on here, too. Scherben808 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the above reasons Italia2006 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NSPORTSEVENT suggests the sort of individual game that might be independently notable: "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)". Coverage of this match appears to be WP:ROUTINE in nature, with no evidence yet of any WP:LASTING significance, and is certainly far below the amount of coverage received by the example notable games. Lowercaserho (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that I have more time, I'd like to dive a bit deeper into what constitutes routine coverage of a Premier League game. I'll be analysing coverage on Sky Sports and BBC Sport, since they are the two best sources currently on the article (ie, not local and not primary). For this match, I was able to find three article on the Sky Sports website ([13][14][15]) and four on the BBC Sport website ([16][17][18][19]). For comparison, I considered this weekend's Chelsea vs Burnley game (chosen since it was the same weekend as Southampton vs Leicester and Chelsea were level on points with Leicester in the current table) and last weekend's Manchester Utd vs Liverpool game (chosen specifically as a game that would draw more media attention). For Chelsea vs Burnley, I found two articles on the BBC ([20][21] and two on Sky ([22][23]). For Manchester Utd. vs Liverpool, I found six articles on the BBC ([24][25][26][27][28][29]) and four on Sky ([30][31][32][33]). In short, the amount of routine coverage that a single match receives does vary, but the coverage given to Southampton vs Leicester was well within the range of what is routine. I find the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments put forward in favour of keeping this article to be deeply unconvincing. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the difference is this game generated heaps coverage elsewhere - while BBC may not have spent more time on it than you might expect, the game itself is going to show up in articles like these for a long time. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That article has exactly one sentence that's actually about this game, which I would hardly count as the significant coverage required for notability. It demonstrates that high scoring premier league games are collectively notable (which we already have that covered at list of Premier League highest scoring games) but not the individual notability of this one specific game. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not using that as a source to show this match is credible, but rather to demonstrate how it will be discussed/referenced in the future. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's my problem with these articles, it's one game, the coverage is generally WP:ROUTINE then at the moment, it's very weak on WP:GNG. They should be combined into an article that covers a few events of this nature, not one! Govvy (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Considering that the match is a record in English football, and that there are other far less notable matches that exist. I honestly would've kept the "Man City 8-0 Watford" match if Man City scored 9 or 10 goals rather than 8, automatically making that article fail WP:GNG as there have been many other EPL matches were a team won by 8 goals or more. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This game is notable for being the biggest away win in English top-flight history, as well as the fact that other similar games have pages here on Wikipedia as well. UltraBlazer 04:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the comments made above. Ben5218 (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we delete this article, by the same standard we'll have to delete this, this, and this too; or even Barcelona 6–1 Paris Saint-Germain. --Portalian (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the match broke many long-standing records. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given that this match broke a PL record for an away win this is surely notable and worth keeping? As others have mentioned, there are existing articles for record-breaking PL games as well. Joelson98 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it is just a Premier League record I don't think it is worthy to create a new article but, it is the record of English football of all-time when the record is create, so just keep. KyleRGiggs (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Obviously notable, record-breaking match that has generated and will continue to generate significant coverage. I suggest a WP:SNOW closure at this point so we don't waste any more time. Smartyllama (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Lowercaserho's argument does hold some weight, but because of the records this match broke and the coverage it received for me propels it past what is considered routine coverage of Premier League games. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - This is notable in a way that it broke records for English football but like Lowercaserho has said, most of the sources so far has been routine and none that is outside of the norm for this match. For it to last, it's needs to last the test of the time for this match to be notable which I reckon might be the case. HawkAussie (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mami Matsui

Mami Matsui (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)

Basically a filmography dump pretending to be an article. No indication of notability at all. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:WHYN, WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV. Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just another Gundam seiyuu stub. WP:BEFORE gave me nothing of sufficient substance. While jawiki gave me two major roles unrelated to Gundam, one does not have a WP article and the other doesn't even list any characters, so that is weak. ミラP 16:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Dr. Slump films where she voices a major character, or to List of Dr. Slump characters where there is a mention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no strong notability tied to the Dr. Slump role where it needs a redirect. Would need news articles to show otherwise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad MacDonald

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

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:WHYN, WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC. Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Let this page stay. If we can improve on the page with notability links, it can be worthy of remaining. Plus, the actor has had some main and supporting roles in his projects. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What are the subject's "main" roles? All I see are minor roles and no assertions of notability. No interviews, no featured articles, nothing. Obviously fails WP:GNG, and I am doubtful that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, either. If you have any evidence and sources that prove otherwise, let's see them. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  His roles of Kazu from Digimon Tamers and Gasser from Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo have been part of the main characters for what I can tell you at this moment. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll give you Gasser, but Kazu isn't a main character. The main human characters of Tamers are Takato, Jeri, Rika and Henry. Which means the subject doesn't meet WP:ENT. And even if Kazu were a main character, that still doesn't mean very much when there's nothing more to write about per WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. 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. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Outer Plane#Arborea. Tone 12:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arborea (Dungeons & Dragons)

Arborea (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable D&D topic TTN (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Outer Plane#Arborea. It doesn't seem like that article's notable either, but it's the obvious place to target it, as this article fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Outer Plane#Arborea as Zxcvbnm observed. Ultimately, the best solution is probably some sort of Cosmology of Dungeons & Dragons top-level article. That topic has unquestionably received independent attention (for example, Perlini-Pfister, Fabian (2012). "Philosophers wtih Clubs: Negotiating Cosmology and Worldviews in Dungeons & Dragons". In Bornet, Philippe; Burger, Maya (eds.). Religions in Play: Games, Rituals, and Virtual Worlds. Pano Verlag. pp. 275–294. ISBN 978-3-290-22010-5.) but exactly how to organize our coverage in the topic space will require some editorial decisions with regard to depth-of-coverage and the degree to which spinout articles are acceptable. Regardless, per-plane articles? Not part of the plan. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Plane (Dungeons & Dragons) is the closest we have to a D & D cosmology article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge as outlined above. BOZ (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons)#Demodands. Tone 12:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demodand

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

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

Non-notable D&D topic TTN (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nonnotable minor creature, fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fiend_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Demodands, where the race is mentioned in context. There are about 10 page views a day and 8 redirects to the page, which makes a modest case for the topic as a plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as per Mark viking. BOZ (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Glasya-Labola. Tone 12:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glasya

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

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

Non-notable D&D character TTN (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as failing GNG. Redirect to Glasya-Labolas, the mythical creature, as a plausible target._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rose May Alaba

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

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. She has released only seven songs since she started her music career and none of them have been discussed in significant detail. She is the sister of David Alaba, but notability cannot be inherited. Per the article, she has been making music since 2015. An artist who has been making music for 4 years with no album and only seven singles to her name cannot be notable.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The artiste has achieved appreciable notability in Austria and as per the article wrote and performed the Theme Song for the Special Olympics. She also represented Austria at the Europa Music Competition. Notability may not always be linked to the number of singles or albums. Her songs have also been featured on notable Nigerian media.Philphleg (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philphleg (talk • contribs) 09:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philphleg: What "appreciable notability" did she achieved in Austria? None of her songs charted on Austria's official music chart. The theme song she wrote and performed did not chart and was not critically reviewed. Again, participating in a music competition is not grounds for stand-alone inclusion.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - she may be ab "artiste" but charting in a single small country does not make her pass WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NMUSICBIO criteria 2: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Which of her songs charted on an official music chart?  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 with charting releases on a national chart shown here and also has coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article, such as Guardian Nigeria and Vanguard, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: The Guardian and Vanguard sources cited do not qualify as secondary sources in this instance since they are interviews. Secondary sourcing is needed to establish notability.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • The confirmation of the charting is a determinant of notability and being interviewed in national newspapers is also notable if not passing WP:V Atlantic306 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to satisfy #10 and #11 of WP:NMUSICBIO. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A clear consensus, even after a re-list, that GNG is met (which is a stronger bar than SNG). (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Harvey

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

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

The article was previosuly nominated for deletion, the outcome of which was "no consensus". Nine years later, the subject is no longer playing professional baseball and fails to meet WP:NBASE. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - doesn't meet WP:NBASE, but the sources that were uncovered in the prior AfD are enough to establish that he meets GNG. Even if not, this should be merged to his father's article where he is mentioned, possibly with partial merge, rather than deleted. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Clearly fails WP:NBASEBALL. I also don't think that the usual reporting of transactions for minor league players shows the GNG is met. While I see nothing to convince me he should have his own article. However, a redirect to his father's article would be OK with me.Sandals1 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not reporting of a minor league transaction. While this and this are mostly behind a paywall, they do not appear to be mere reporting of a minor league transaction. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG as per the first AFD. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's true that GNG trumps SNG, but it's not clear to me that GNG is met. Rlendog's articles are local coverage. For example, the first one mentioned is on the first day of the ACC tournament and is right next to a similar article on the starting pitcher for South Carolina. Not a minor league transaction but typical coverage for local sports teams. The second article mentioned is coverage about him having a choice now that he's graduating from high school (college or pro ball) and that he has the guidance of his father, a former major leaguer. The third article is another North Carolina paper article about him being part of the family business of playing pro ball. I don't think this coverage is enough to meet GNG. Much of it projects him on the same career track as his father and thus is WP:CRYSTALBALL. The fact that he never went higher than AA in 8 season is why we actually need accomplishments not local paper routine coverage, puffery, and expectations. I'd be inclined to redirect this article to the one on his father since I think the GNG argument is weak and much of the coverage is linked to his father. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Rlendog's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and therefore WP:SNG is an unnecessary argument. Wm335td (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After two re-lists, the strongest arguments are by the Keeps, and they have not been fundamentally refuted by the Deletes. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sciences Po Law School

Sciences Po Law School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The "school" seems to be more a program inside Sciences Po than an actual school. It has no undergraduate degree nor a JD, only some masters specialized in law.

Sorbonne Law School is ranked 25th in the world by QS, has its whole buildings, many degrees, many more students, but has been merged with the university page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sorbonne_Law_School_(Ecole_de_Droit_de_la_Sorbonne)

It has been merged in the French Wikipedia for the same reason: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:%C3%89cole_de_droit_de_Sciences_Po/Suppression (link from the previous request, which resulted in speedy keep).

No actual merging is necessary since irrelevant information has been deleted or are already in the main article. Lots of information are from Sciences Po as a whole: budget, mascot, etc. Most of the article (now removed of all the promotional, unrelated and inaccurate content by @scope_creep and me) and independent sources dealt with the controversy of the bar exam entrance in Sciences Po, which predates the creation of the school in 2009 and is related to the institution as a whole and its students from all "schools". That can be added to the main article, but this article should be deleted anyway.

Delfield (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC) (modified following discussion about confusion with merging --Delfield (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

• Delete or merge. Such programs or whatever almost never have separate notability, and I don't see much going for this one, neither. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Delfield: You have posted this as an Afd when you were looking a merge. Generally you stick on Template:Merge to propose a merge on your article and the subsequent Template:Merge to to the article you want to merge into and a discussion takes place, consensus is sought to merge or no merge. You now have a real chance of getting it deleted as you have posted onto Afd queue, which is entirely the wrong place. I would suggest we close this, follow the normal process. I don't mind doing it. @Piotrus: Would you agree to that. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is more deletion actually. I agree with @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus on the notability, that should cause deletion (or merge, but it looks more like a deletion whether can add something in the main article afterwards, but I think this article should be deleted we decide to do it or not). I removed the mention to merge, sorry! (editing conflict) --Delfield (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is deletion, the whole article will be deleted, so no merge will occur and no content will remain. Merge discussion take on the talk page of articles your planning to merge, not on the Afd queue, where your article stands a chance of being deleted. scope_creep^Talk 12:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted from the article the unrelated part, and now only remains relevant information, but inside an article that should be deleted. I also edited my request accordingly. Hope this is good for you and sorry for the confusion. --Delfield (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll see what Prokonsul Piotrus says first. scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I just say I changed my request to a deletion request. It is not a merging request, at least not any more. --Delfield (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (or Merge as appropriate) to Sciences Po, as is pretty standard for this kind of article. Not seeing enough stand-alone coverage to justify spinning it off. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To reiterate what I said last time: We are not bound by decisions made in other Wikipedias that may have different standards of notability. Appears to be a very notable law school in France. It's true that we don't keep articles on schools, faculties and departments of larger institutions unless they're very notable in their own right, but it would appear that this one is. "It has no undergraduate degree nor a JD, only some masters specialized in law." That's a bit disingenuous. According to the article it has 42 doctoral students and 342 masters' students, plus many others. I do hope the nominator is not assuming all legal education is like American legal education. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is Sciences Po which is notable, not that "school" created in 2009.

It is not a school according to any legal education, US, French, or else. There is no bachelor (undergraduate, European system) nor any JD degree (American system) offered.

Even Sorbonne Law School was not considered notable enough to have its own page (only the university is notable): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sorbonne_Law_School_(Ecole_de_Droit_de_la_Sorbonne) --Delfield (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masters and doctorates are offered. Other AfDs are irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge: Nothing shows a separate notability. --194.199.3.13 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps the contributors of the discussion on Sorbonne Law School could tell us if their opinion is the same here? Xuo Tran MapcheckerParis Jack N. Stock Meatsgains AngusWOOF --Delfield (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is that articles should not be brought to AfD if merge is a likely outcome Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jack N. Stock: Isn't deletion the most adequate solution here, since there is nothing to merge really? Besides, is merging a likely outcome here? --Delfield (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The rationale at the first AFD was that the topic had enough references to pass WP:GNG. We do in fact keep articles on notable departments within colleges that can pass WP:SIGCOV (particularly when WP:CONTENTFORK applies.) The nominator's rationale is not based on policy but on extrapolating a truth off of one example which is a logical fallacy.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is an article on a notable subject with reliable sources. Just the sort of article we keep in the encyclopedia. WP:NOTPAPER Wm335td (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel Weinberg

Hillel Weinberg (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)

Apparently the subject was never the rosh yeshiva of Aish HaTorah, as verified by articles stating that Rabbi Yitzchak Berkovits, appointed rosh yeshiva in 2019, is the first rosh yeshiva since the death of Noah Weinberg.^[1][2] The rosh yeshiva fact was put forth by one source, now a dead link; the rest of this page is non-notable biography. Recommend delete. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't my area, but here is a record from the United States House of Representatives detailing information about him while he was serving in a chaplain's capacity to that governing body. Not sure if any of it lends towards notability.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @4meter4: what does the source say? It's behind a paywall. Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Maybe there's another place to access public record documents online. It's included in Legislative History of public law PL103-204 if that helps. It gives a summary of his life and career before he opens the session with prayer.4meter4 (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how that makes him notable. He was an interim rosh yeshiva at Aish HaTorah for a very short time. Yoninah (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yoninah, I am not versed enough in Jewish tradition/studies to even know what rosh yeshiva is. lol I was merely bringing forward a source that came from an interesting place that might have been useful. I wasn't making an argument for or against deletion. I trust your assessment.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable individual. None of the present references mention the subject at all. There is a Hebrew article [he], but it has no references. I found this, which only reports that he got remarried. Havradim (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the Hebrew source, Havradim. Looks like he isn't a rosh yeshiva at all, but a mashgiach ruchani. Fails PROF #6. Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fernand Bachmann

Fernand Bachmann (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 any notability, not even sure who the single source is actually about, as wit seems to be about at least two people. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the necessary sources and correct the text to clarify the biography of only one person, Fernand Bachmann and not his brother Raoul. Y.Leclercq (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is rather poorly written compared to the French wikipedia article which makes it more clear that he was the main face/spokesman for the cars manufactured by Lucien Chenard whose cars he raced as part of that role. He's also the namesake of a contemporary clothing fashion line in France. It's very difficult to judge the sources on this one because I am not completely fluent in French. Some French speaking wikipedians would be helpful in evaluating this article.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The subject clearly passes WP:NMOTORSPORT #3 as having competed and finishing 7th in the first edition of the 24 Hours of Le Mans. The subject probably falls just short of WP:GNG (it's likely that there are older sources from the time period... which is not a real argument, I know): besides several blog posts, passing mentions, and the brand's own website, the articles in Le Fashion Post and Men Are Delicious are the only two I could find that resemble significant coverage; both sources self-describe as professional magazines but are dubious as potential reliable sources. The participation in the first Le Mans should be enough though. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]