Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 6

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. Outside of confirmed sockpuppets, nobody wanted to keep the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Ferregui

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

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no coverage available in reliable sources, pretty clearly an autobiography to boot. Insufficient significant roles in notable works to meet WP:NACTOR. Recreation of an article repeatedly declined at AfC. Originally PRODed by me, dePROD by an IP editor who proceeded to refbomb the article with citations to sources that do not mention the subject, with the exception of this mere mention that quotes the subject [1]. As this article has been repeatedly recreated and deleted twice by A7 already, I believe that if we have a consensus to delete we should also salt the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources found; only independent source is an IMDb page. Luke (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We can be charitable and say it's too soon for an article on this actor's budding career, but the nominator found evidence of a dogged promotional effort. The article is currently ref-bombed with either retail listings, industry directory entries, or articles about things he was in that merely list him as being present, if that much. All I can find (in any language) is more of the same. Perhaps he will become notable in time, but now is not the time to force a WP article into existence. Salt if admins consider it necessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notorious artist in Latin culture. The article has several Brazilian newspapers as sources. Montila (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The artist has years of career, accumulated work, was part of the cast of one of the largest franchises of Disney. Besides actor has a career in the music industry. It is part of popular culture. ana da hora (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although not as influential in the United States, he is influential in his native country. It is noted in other wikipedia languages, all Latin. pottermoreusa (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note: Sock puppet votes struck. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The pervasive sockpuppetting is further evidence that we need to salt this article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Não Faça Isso Comigo and add WP:SALT. He is the main character for this film which may or may not be notable, as long as there is a major mention his name will be looked up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've nominated that article for PROD as well, 2 out of 3 of the sources are outright fakes (and the 3rd is a database). The account that created that article and this one as well is pretty clearly NOTHERE and was using Wikipedia as a means for self-promotion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT this page then per the arguments given. That PROD isn't going to last though if what you say is true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well, we'll always have AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outhouse tipping

Outhouse tipping (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)

All four references currently 404, and based on what I can see, none of them were particularly good sources anyway. My own searching finds a few mentions of the term, but mostly in sources I wouldn't consider WP:RS and/or are passing mentions. Tagged for notability for six years. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as written. Below the threshold of topics meriting coverage in an encyclopedia. bd2412 T 23:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet basic Wikipedia editorial standards. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. I think a decent article could be created by using book sources alone, but this isn't it. I note the core of the phenomenon is as an urban legend. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable source. Barca (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. [User:Dreerwin|DR]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreerwin (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CKBJ-FM

CKBJ-FM (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)

Unreferenced article about an unlicensed low-power radio station. One of the core criteria that a radio station has to pass to be considered "inherently" notable per WP:BCAST is that it has a license from the appropriate regulatory authority -- which this does not have, as it operates under the Canadian equivalent of Part 15 rules. The CRTC's website, which is searchable contrary to the claims of some people, records no licensing decisions pertaining to this station at all, and even Industry Canada's current list of available, which is to say unassigned, call signs, lists "CKBJ" on it (which means that by definition, no licensed radio station in Canada has that call sign at all.) So the only other way it can be notable enough for a Wikipedia article is if it can show a volume of reliable source coverage that would be sufficient to get it over WP:GNG — but this has literally no reliable source coverage that I can find, and radio stations are not exempted from having to have sources just because they have self-published websites. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep: Looks licensed to me per the standard REC link on each Canadian page (since CRTC doesn't have a searchable site like the FCC). REC doesn't have unlicensed stations on there. Sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:49 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as per Bearcat. In any case, even if this station proves to be licensed, it has zero indications of actual notability. i have never liked the "automatic notability" for radio stations with no actual coverage to meet the WP:GNG, and this seems to me a case where the GNG should take precedence. It is surely not met here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC) @Bearcat: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BCAST. It's not a truly licensed broadcast station and has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bearcat's well-cited nomination. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's no presumption of notability for unlicensed stations (and Industry Canada certificates don't qualify as a "license" for our purposes — and nothing indicates the CRTC has ever issued a license, or anything else, to this station), and there just isn't much in the way of sources to meet the general notability guideline. Even its History of Canadian Broadcasting entry admits that CKBJ-FM has only ever operated under "Industry Canada special event certificates" — and I'm to understand that's a type of temporary authorization (which, based on the earlier comments, seems to have been allowed to eventually lapse without renewal, replacement, or sufficiently-verifiable evidence of any such decision) that, to put it simply, falls far closer to Part 15 than a bona fide license. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 12 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) 01:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 African Weightlifting Championships

2018 African Weightlifting Championships (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)

Wikipedia is not a stat book. Even notable articles about sports topics (per WP:SPORTSEVENT) should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. This has no prose and is counter to the purpose of Wikipedia. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you merely complaining that there is not yet any prose, or are you claiming that no prose could be written? postdlf (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: Given what the 2017 African Weightlifting Championships and the 2016 African Weightlifting Championships look like, I do not think much, if any, prose could or would be written. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the wording of my initial complaint may have made it seem like lack of prose was my only concern, my main concern is still notability per WP:SPORTSEVENT, which was evidenced by bad sourcing, and no prose -- which is why I then googled it and found not much in the way of sources beyond just results. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're concerned that what exactly isn't notable? African Weightlifting Championships, or this particular year of it? postdlf (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The individual year. The event itself seems notable, although I'm not sure if each individual year needs it's own page, which is why we're here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:ILIKEIT WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The coverage that I was able to find is borderline. There's this (which was added to the article after it was listed for deletion), and also articles like this which are only a little bit more than just a listing of results. Far from clear-cut establishment of notability, but somewhere close. Given that systemic bias is a thing, that many of the countries involved are not primarily anglophone, and that we have articles on many comparable tournaments, I'm going to err on the side of presuming notability. Lowercaserho (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Montell 74 (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No ILIKEIT/PRESERVE necessary. Having just a bunch of stats is pretty sad, but there's enough coverage I see when searching for variations of "africa[n] weightlifting championship[s] [2018/mauritius]" to convince me we should retain the article. This seems to be a quite legitimate international competition and an Olympics qualifying event to boot, so there's some national coverage like the Cameroon Tribune (via AllAfrica) and Seychelles Nation as well as local stories like news24 in South Africa. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:02, 13 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) 01:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kjartan Poskitt

Kjartan Poskitt (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 finding anything that meets WP:NAUTHOR, also finding nothing in terms of SIGCOV from reliable sources. I do not believe coverage about his books constitutes coverage about himself. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, point no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR requires the author's work(s) to be significant or well known and to have been reviewed multiple times, it does not require coverage of the author themselves. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have started adding sources, and information from those sources. He has a long career as a performer, writer and director of pantomimes etc, author of several notable series, composer of theme tunes, etc. There's plenty of coverage in newspapers, etc, of the time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of his books (more to be added, sorry, I was busy with other things in the last week), as well as reviews of his performances and stage works. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A search for sources turns up plenty of material to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Grey

Claire Grey (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)

Nomination on behalf of 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: Insufficiently sourced vanity article for a non notable model and television presenter. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To elaborate on the rationale, I can't find anything other than a Facebook account about this person. No WP:RELIABLE sources to confirm the article's claims, nor do the beauty titles appear notable. Thank you, JJMC89. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't find any independent sources about her; doesn't comply with WP:N Hei314 (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete winning multiple titles in non-notable beauty contests does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Technopreneurship Institute

The Technopreneurship Institute (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 references or indication of notability Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent sources. Doesn't comply with notability guidelines, as it hasn't received significant coverage from any reliable, secondary sources that are independent from the subject of the article. Hei314 (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A propositional article making claims sourced only to their own Wordpress site. My searches are not finding evidence of attained notability. (There is also an article by the same WP:SPA at Global Technopreneurship Challenge, but that has similar problems of referencing claims.) AllyD (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect also agreeing that there are no independent sources to make use of here. I would say redirect to the challenge, but I am at this point assuming that is also not notable (but haven't checked). Might be best to redirect both this and the awards to Mushtak Al-Atabi. 198.255.228.27 (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom. Proportional article without independent sources Alex-h (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Singh Randhawa

Karan Singh Randhawa (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)

Nothing to indicate notability. Ravensfire (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete because the only source available is from a youtube aggregator page of a news portal. There are in-depth coverages on Karan Singh Grover and Guru Randhawa but nothing on Karan Singh Randhawa. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only sources available are unreliable and/or closely connected to the article's subject. Luke ^Talk 00:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and close as per nom. Meeanaya (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Not independent reliable sources , Alex-h (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not see any claims of notability that would legitimize keeping this article. KingofGangsters (talk) 17:41, 13 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hogben

Michael Hogben (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:BIO Launchballer 17:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator. Nothing signifiant found about this person. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis the article has already been kept at a previous AfD. He certainly meets WP:GNG, although much of the available online news is about his 2006 court case. Though he is no longer a 'current' face on TV, he was much better known 15 years ago where, like the article says, he was often on antiques shows (and even had his own show). The article coud definitely do with a lot of cleaning up though. Sionk (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Michael Hogben is a well known and popular figure and is currently appearing on TV in an antiques program (that's why I looked him up). Stollyman (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's not a good reason. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--there's already some coverage in the article (which is very poorly written), and there's more to be found with a Google News search. He passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG article should be reworked. WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Some parts of the article need work but passes notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seeing enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:17, 13 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Pass

Aidan Pass (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:BIO Launchballer 17:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because nothing significant found about this person. The sources provided are just passing mentions. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant or independent sources about him; only passing mentions are provided. Subject doesn't seem to be notable enough to have an article about him. Hei314 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources of high-enough quality for a BLP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Chapman

Alison Chapman (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:BIO Launchballer 17:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edel Creely

Edel Creely (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)

Looks like yet another one of those self-promotional PR spam posts of non-encyclopedic interest. Trilogy Technologies also does not have its own article yet. A Google search turns up non-primary corporate puff pieces about how this person has been climbing the corporate ladder. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Author seems to be writing corporate puff pieces - see Draft:Elizabeth Donnelly. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Creely is the president of Ibec and is on the board of the Marie Keating Foundation. Notable or not? — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 18:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, not one of the other 16 Ibec board members (many working as CEOs of much larger businesses than her own) merits an article, and no board members are mentioned by name on the Marie Keating Foundation article at all, so... not? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Appears to be a puff piece. Spleodrach (talk) 12:23, 11 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 as a borderline WP:CSD#G11. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolina

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

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

Promotional piece for artist of doubtful Wikipedia: Notability. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC) GRuban (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent sources, and the only sources I can find about her are closely connected [to her]. Hei314 (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GRuban (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GRuban (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GRuban (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GRuban (talk) 15:25, 6 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kanika Mann

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

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

Appears to be an unencyclopedic vanity page that is a complete mess, but she might be notable as the lead actress of a show with its own article (Guddan Tumse Na Ho Payega). Requesting input from the community. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 15:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 15:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article needs cleanup and copyediting. However it doesn't seems to be much notable and only acted in few films. Abishe (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR note has not done significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions just one lead role in Guddan Tumse Na Ho Payega.Upcoming may notable in future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:17, 11 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taecanet

Taecanet (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 working references. May no longer exist Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there are enough sources in offline media. The site has been down since 2012! KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharam Vir Mangla

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

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

Biography of writer on spiritual topics, sourced only to his own blog site. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under CSD G11. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:31, 6 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 Super Dimension Fortress Macross. czar 15:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SDF-1 Macross

SDF-1 Macross (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)

What makes this fictional spaceship notable? Nothing in the old AfD's argument, that's for one. As written, fails WP:NFICTION and I don't see any sources discussing the spaceship in detail. Yes, there were some model kits, toys, etc. but I don't think that's sufficient. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to The Super Dimension Fortress Macross as not individually notable. (Which should really be at Super Dimension Fortress Macross, which is where it is even on the Macross Wiki)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - None of the sources from the previous AfD seem to have been able to be used to improve the article, so that likely means they were worthless. TTN (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Super Dimension Fortress Macross. Should not be deleted outright as this is the key fictional element in the series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Super Dimension Fortress Macross. At the very least there is a mention in the article about this fictional element, I believe this can be salvaged in the future as a separate article if editors are willing to work on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrIdiot (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Rich

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

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

Subject is non-notable. A Google search turns up: his Twitter, his YouTube channel, a Reddit discussion thread, his books on Amazon. He has never been the primary subject of coverage in any reliable source (e.g. he is not the main subject in the Rolling Stones article). He appears to mostly be known for his appearance in various anti-Scientology documentaries and for his YouTube videos, but in the former case he doesn't play a central role and in the latter case, 300K subscribers is not that notable. To address specifically some of the notability claims above: (1) Ginjanglez claims Nathan is notable for his "research" on China issues, but this is patently false. He has a YouTube video where he talks about China. This is not notability. I want to emphasize that he is never cited by any serious China scholar. (2) Other users comment that he is notable for his appearance in Scientology-related media. Again, in the Rolling Stones article he takes up a paragraph or two and in the Hollywood Reporter article it is even less. (3) The links to his "coverage" in CNN, HuffPost, etc. do not actually mention him at all, but merely link one of his YouTube videos which is touches upon the subject of the article. He is never actually mentioned by name in any of those articles. These justifications are really really stretching it: passing mention in a two publications over the years and does not mean notability. DrIdiot (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To further clarify, his most notable appearance was in a single episode of the TV documentary Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath. Everything else currently on his Wikipedia page is stuff he has self-published or details about his personal life. I propose that (1) appearing in a single episode of a documentary is not enough to be notable and (2) while there's nothing wrong with self-publishing, his self-published works have not received any coverage in reputable sources. The section that discusses (1) in his Wikipedia article contains three sources. One is a Hollywood Reporter article which is primary about the episode, and the other two are from a mostly unknown pro-Scientology website and from a mostly unknown anti-Scientology website. DrIdiot (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For example, his last AfD - only 3 months ago - has a large Rolling Stone article in which he features prominently. Your 2nd nomination above doesn't bring anything new to this recent AfD, and seems to ignore most of the WP:RS that was used at that AfD to reach a Keep decision? I don't think this is a good way to operate. Britishfinance (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete This Nathan Rich guy is probably more known now for his pro-China views than his background in Scientology. As pointed out by DrIdiot, his appearance in Scientology articles is not enough. Now, I vote "weak" because he does have some coverage from strange media about his China views. However, the media in question are all not independent sources (WP:IIS). A search on him gave these articles from Global Times 1 2, another one from China Daily 3 and an article from the think tank antiwar.com 4. In the first 3 articles, it is clear that the sources are not neutral and are drawing attention to him because they share the same political point of view, while the last article only quotes one sentence from one of his videos. I would wait for more neutral and reliable sources to cover him properly before giving him an article, or this Wikipedia article seems to fulfill the same goal as the Chinese tabloid. Sociable Song (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. But that is not true. Even a casual read of his AfD from 3 months ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich, shows that his China work was not relevant to his article being Kept. You seem to ignore any of his actual WP:RS that was quoted. Britishfinance (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nathan Rich appears to be a thinker and a political commentatorCGTN, comparing china and US cancer treatments with a high density of facts backing up his statements. Huwaei 5G facts as well as the tradewar facts in videos filled with facts. Nathan Rich viewpoints from both US and China gives a rich width seldom represented in the debate otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A-Bee-Honey (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the links you provided are reputable sources. They are either his own videos, Chinese state media (CGTN) on topics where they have a clear conflict of interest (Hong Kong protests), or blogs. DrIdiot (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok so CGTN one of the largest TV networks is not a reputable source? That sounds more like a political opinion than a factbased expression. In Nathan Rich examinations of NYTimes statements about Chineese healthcare he rather proves that the wellknown and reputable source to be wrong, and that is to me pretty strong. That is the foundation of reputability to me. Have we ever seemeed anything like it with that quality recently? Nathan Rich appears to be more pro-china in his views than other westerner vloggers ìn China represented in Wikipedia, but does that make him less reputable? A-Bee-Honey (talk)
    • First, state owned media has a conflict of interest when discussing protests which are aimed against the state. See WP:IIS. State owned media in China neither have editorial independence, nor do they lack a confict of interest in coverage on Hong Kong protests. You'll note that even YouTube (in the link you provided) felt the need to note the organization which owns CGTN. Second, the blog you linked is not even close to being reputable, and it doesn't matter whether you or I think it is incorrect or correct. DrIdiot (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep America’s greatest core value is freedom of speech. Nathan Rich’s views may deviate from what mainstream media in America would like US to know, but they are always fact-based arguments. He has never promoted racism and bigotry against any group in his arguments. He does however have strong opinions about certain subjects related to China that is different than the views shared by the anti-China groups. For this reason, his contents and stories are constantly subjected to suppression. This is highly un-American. We are nothing if we allow our core constitutional rights robbed by those who chose to suppress dissenting views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstwok (talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, no reputable sources, and Wikipedia is not a messaging board. I want to point out this is their first edit by the above user to Wikipedia. DrIdiot (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Articles for deletion are not violations of free speech. Wikipedians are not acting on behalf of the government, which includes the US government. The free speech argument can be made to keep literally anyone on the site, yet Wikipedia's mission is not to have an article for every single person. Sociable Song (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Britishfinance's argument in the first AFD nomination. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the RS-based arguments that I (and @SJFriedl:) made just 3 months ago at the last AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich. I don't think this should have been re-nominated so soon from its last AfD (which was closed as a Keep), the nom seems to ignore all the RS from the last AfD and they reasons why it was Kept? Britishfinance (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The Rolling Stone interview is very recent (June 2019), and even though he is not the sole subject (which would have made it a stronger case), it is a large article and he features in a major section of it. He also appears as more than just a passing mention in other pieces from the Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath series (e.g. Inquisitr [2] Hollywood Reporter [3]). Even from these sources, a larger BLP article could be written about Rich's experiences in Scientology. I would think that a casual reader interested in Scientology would expect to find something about this character and his bio details. I see that he also appears in various Chinese news sites, like this: [4]. His three references to Tony Ortega's website are better quality than I had assumed. Ortega seems a notable journalist and author on Scientology, and in this context would probably be considered decent RS. Britishfinance (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Have fixed up AfD header which was absent; clarified the nominator (whose vote is assumed at a Delete; no need to re-vote). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am the nominator. There are some points brought up here that were not included in the previous discussion, in particular regarding his content on China, which some seemed hesitant to touch on in detail, but as a person interested in Chinese issues I can say that none of the Chinese news sites that refer to him are both notable and independent (see comments above, e.g. by User:Sociable Song). He is mostly known for taking a pro-CCP stance on issues, but this isn't the problem. The problem is that all of his coverage comes from pro-CCP sources, and he just simply isn't notable enough to have received coverage from sources with different viewpoints. I submit that his only claim to notability is his appearance in the anti-Scientology TV episode. Since then all his appearances are self-published or from non-reputable fringe-interest sources. If you strip away all of these fringe-interest sources (and we should) you're not left with much, and there's a further problem: the subject isn't notable enough to get coverage from reputable media on his own. Finally, let me say explicitly what I mean by these fringe sources: (1) there's a lot of detail about his family, which appears to be the result of original research by contributors (i.e. it is not reported in any reputable sources), (2) the criminal convictions section is based entirely on a non-reputable source, (3) none of the sources regarding his China content are reputable and independent and (4) the entire section "YouTube" just cites his own self-published videos. DrIdiot (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. At the very least, I think the page should be trimmed down significantly. But at that point, one wonders if it's just better to give Nathan a dedicated section in the various articles on the Scientology-related subjects where he appears prominently (e.g. Mace-Kingsley Ranch School). DrIdiot (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You are not making arguments regarding the RS on this BLP subject. His most recent AfD was not passed based on his Chinese RS (far from it). Writing a lot of words about this Chinese material and then ignoring the rest of his RS (despite the link to his AfD of 3 months ago listing out all of this RS), is not helpful, or efficient, to those who took the time to participate on that AfD. I can't see the WP:PAG argument from you as to why the RS listed at most recent AfD was wrong. Britishfinance (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't dispute the Rolling Stones, Inquisitr or Ortega sources. Maybe listing as AfD wasn't the right approach, but I think a lot of the content on his current page should not be there. In particular, sources [5], [8], [9], [10], [12], [16] are non-reputable. Removing them would amount to removing: the part identifying his mother (never verified by name in any source), the criminal convictions section, the youtube section, and the personal life section. DrIdiot (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Most of these issues could be addressed by reverting to the July 31 version of the article. DrIdiot (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Happy to withdraw nomination and revert to July 31 version, in addition replacing Followcn source with the Stones article (which already says he lives in China), if that sounds like an agreeable solution. I also think the aunts aren't particularly relevant, so I would also propose deleting the "personal life" section (there is plenty on his personal life in other sections) DrIdiot (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree @DrIdiot: that this BLP has gone in crazy directions since the 31 July (last AfD) - there are many edits now that are not appropriate on a WP:BLP in both directions. If you are going to withdraw the nomination, I would support restoring the 31 July version (I would do it myself now but if would be a major change to make during an AfD). I am fine with the Personal Details section - it is important in BLPs to chronicle core biographical facts, and one of his aunts Sharon Rich, has her own WP page (which makes the connection notable). I think this BLP needs more serious protection and perhaps long-term ECP, as it is getting abused/vandalized in both directions (same happened in run-up to 1st AfD); he is clearly a controversial figure on several counts. Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Britishfinance: I will withdraw the AfD, revert to the July 31 version, refer to this discussion in the Talk page. Regarding ECP, I'll leave it to you to propose it if you feel it's necessary. DrIdiot (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Actually, Nathan Rich's entire & only noteworthy content should be merged into a subsection on a Scientology article. There shouldn't be an article on Rich, unless he gets more coverage from reputable and independent sources. I know comparisons on people's notability usually don't work. But I'd compare Rich to the occasional expert/prof/activist that the news talks to for one specific topic/event. And these occasional interviewees are not notable enough to stand out with a Wikipedia article. I would say that the interviewee crosses the threshold when they are consulted on many topics by the news, hence becoming a pundit. And/or when they are consulted on the same topic by many outlets for a significant period of time, at the point where the topic cannot be properly covered without them. Rich's presence in Scientology are not crucial to covering Scientology in some unique way. Rich's pundit status is only viable among the pro-CCP media and hasn't been identified by any media outside of that political leaning. Sociable Song (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Your !vote above shows that you are either unwilling to read about this subject or worse, are willing to misrepresent the RS on him (As a new editor, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here). There is nothing in the above Comment that relates to WP:PAG re AfD. I would advise that you take more time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia since you joined before making such contributions at AfD; which is a forum that requires familiarity with PAG to contribute effectively. Britishfinance (talk) 10:21, 7 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 return to draftspace. Please consult with the participating editors before considering this draft's return to mainspace. czar 14:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sedimentary isostasy

Sedimentary isostasy (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 is almost entirely original research, see also this discussion Mikenorton (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The citation state of the article leaves much to be desired. However, the topic of Isostasy is certainly notable, and one option would be to merge this with that article, making use of the 31 citations provided in Sedimentary isostasy. It is unclear to me whether the uncited material is like that out of laziness (citations being available) or whether it is genuine editorial opinion (WP:OR). If the latter, a merge would be the likely outcome; if the former, keeping the article and citing or trimming the uncited paragraphs would be better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is some material in this article that might usefully find a home in the Isostasy article. Mikenorton (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the outcomes are Merge or Keep, and we need to decide which based on evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion at the NOR noticeboard that I linked to above (linked again here), I've suggested that a small part of the article should be merged into an article (as yet unwritten) on lower crustal flow, which would be a better choice. I will endeavour to make a start on it before the end of this AfD. Mikenorton (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, giving nom time to rescue the "small part" for lower crustal flow. I've never seen anything like this in all the AfDs I've ever visited. Given the linked discussion between Awickert and nom (Mikenorton) it appears there is definite opinion among geologists that the article is WP:OR and that the article's author Geologician has stated in a Delphic utterance that "I shall consider the points raised carefully and revert later with constructive responses." -- leaving it quite unclear whether any sort of cooperation is available. But it seems to me that the expert discussion is the best guidance we can hope for. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with regret, from the mainspace at least. I've come across this draft several times in the context of reviewing AFC submissions. Here is a record of the communication I've had with the draft creator regarding the draft:

• User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 4#Declined draft: Sedimentary Isostasy
• User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 4#Declined draft: Sedimentary Isostasy 2
• User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 5#Draft:Sedimentary Isostasy
• User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 6#Sedimentary isostasy draft still awaiting review after 12 weeks

I see from Draft:Sedimentary Isostasy that Graeme Bartlett subsequently accepted the draft, but in my opinion it needs to go back to the draftspace per Wikipedia:No original research. It is unfortunate because Geologician is clearly someone passionate about their field of study but from an encyclopedic standpoint this policy must be adhered to. I would urge the creator to request a copy from an administrator, should the article be deleted, and continue working on it in the draftspace. SITH (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• draftify I should not have made this an article due to lack of referencing. Some may be referencable, but it will take quite a while for anyone that did not write this to figure out what is OR and what was written before. So back in draft space it can be slowly trimmed down to appropriate content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold back on deletion. I shall try to improve the text to take account of comments and suggestions by Mike Norton and others. Some comments about lateral flow were more relevant to the related Migmatite article, which also may require adjustment. Both articles are intended to be read together and are fully referenced reviews of previous work that omit every shred of originality, but unless editors accept my integrity in this there is no point in further discussion.Geologician (talk) 18:28, 11 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. Sandstein 09:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Groaning spirit

Groaning spirit (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)

Fictional monster with no real-world notability. Not a very active user (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non notable topic. TTN (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Another non-notable D&D variant of a creature from folklore. As nothing in the article is sourced to any secondary sources, there is nothing to merge or redirect anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 04:57, 11 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. Sandstein 09:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juju zombie

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

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

Non-notable fictional monster. Fails WP:GNG, not mentioned in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable fictional creature with nothing but a scant few primary sources discussing it. There is nothing demonstrating any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 19:34, 7 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. Sandstein 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tatanka Means

Tatanka Means (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:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've been in stuff -- even just to pass NACTOR #1, he has to have media coverage about his performances in stuff, but the referencing here is almost entirely to IMDB, social media, YouTube, blogs and his own self-published website, which are not notability-supporting sources. There are two footnotes ("Russell Means Farewell: Son Cradles His Father on Final Journey" and "THE WEST' SHOWS WILD SIDE OF CIVILIZATION") which give a title, but fail to provide any indication of where they came from -- and while I was able to find the "Farewell" one on a Google search, it's just a short blurb about his father's funeral rather than notability-supporting coverage about Tatanka. And I can't find hide nor hair of the "Civilization" piece at all, but it's not likely to be substantive support for Tatanka's notability either: it's being used here solely to support that he once appeared in a photo with his father when he was still a baby. So even if it does actually come from a reliable source, which has not been confirmed, it would not magically get him over GNG all by itself as the best source in play if it's not substantively about him. So none of these sources get him over GNG, and nothing stated in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG on the sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He meets WP:NACTOR#1, with major roles in Saints & Strangers, Tiger Eyes, Into the West, More Than Frybread, Neither Wolf Nor Dog and The Son. I have edited the article, removing most of the promotional language and non-encyclopaedic content, and adding sources. There are still some facts (including awards) that are unreferenced - I will search more for sources for them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All of the film awards mentioned now have reliable sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He meets WP:NACTOR#1, with major roles. I appreciate the dilligence of RebeccaG. It serves our readers to WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as said above he clearly meets WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 10 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. Sandstein 09:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Khatiwada

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

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

Non notable person, does not seem to meet WP:NMUSIC and GNG. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has substantial coverage in Nepali reliable sources and a major claim of significance as one of the pioneers of hip-hop in that country as confirmed in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The claim of being the "pioneer"/"godfather" of Nepali hiphop seems legit. I am not sure if the sources were added after this nom, but the sources as of now even meet GNG SIGCOV. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable Nepali rap artist. Owlf 21:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Remarkable person. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:18, 10 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 Meridian Credit Union. Sandstein 09:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motusbank

Motusbank (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 what makes it pass WP:NORG. Let me stress that not all banks are notable, they have to meet the same criteria as other businesses, and small, new bank start ups don't get any preferential treatment. Recently User:Dmehus tried to merge this to Meridian_Credit_Union but was reverted. I think that was a good decision, because this doesn't meet a standalone notability criteria, IMHO. So, delete (or merge, perhaps)? Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article does not meet notability criteria. It hasn't received significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. In order to be considered notable, an article has to be covered by a source that matches all five criteria. One source only gives a passing mention, and another is connected to the article's subject. Hei314 (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Canadian Schedule I bank. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Me-123567-Me: Schedule I Canadian bank or not does not necessarily mean it is deserving of a standalone article. Many Schedule I and II banks do not yet have Wikipedia pages, or have had their pages deleted or merged due to their being permastubs. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Meridian Credit Union, on the basis that it's an MCU subsidiary for online banking. The Schedule I argument is weak, as the difference between Schedule I and II is whether or not the company has foreign ownership, and is not indicative of notability. PKT(alk) 00:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @PKT:, thank you for your thoughtful commentary. This was largely my basis for merging this article into Meridian Credit Union since that article is already a stub-class article and adding a brief paragraph or two to that article in a section on its banking subsidiary would greatly improve that article. It doesn't make sense for me to have two stub-class articles. Interestingly, @Mrschimpf: recommended merging CTBC Bank (Canada) with the parent company article CTBC Bank when I proposed the subsidiary's article for deletion. Seeing no objection, he performed a non-admin closure. A similar scenario is at play here. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. Unlike most financial institutions, it was difficult to find financial data, but I found it , and added it. The bank despite its claims, operates only in Alberta, and has only about $54 million capital. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG: Astute observation. I noticed that as well (their only real estate lending is in the province of Alberta, and it's modest, at best). There's also continued speculation in myriad Internet forums that Motus Bank may end up ultimately dissolving and merging into a virtual branch of Meridian Credit Union if its growth trajectory doesn't meet management's expectations vis-a-vis profitability or unprofitability (as is currently the case). Doug Mehus (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I hadn't noticed that it was mostly operating in Alberta. Thank you for bring that to our attention. Kind of odd behaviour for a bank owned by an Ontario credit union, but this is about deleting not the bank itself. Thank you for bringing it up. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge with Meridian Credit Union. Thank you, @Piotrus:, for proposing this merger or deletion, either of which I'd favour. In fact, per WP:BRD, I merged this page into Meridian Credit Union as it seemed to be becoming a permastub. Meridian Credit Union, in fact, is a stub-class article in itself, so merging the two pages made sense. However, @Me-123567-Me:, as the Motusbank page creator is arguably conflicted as he wrote on my User talk space in a derogatory manner, suggesting I merged the article in bad faith and that he was reverting the merger in accordance with WP:BRD. In actuality, he should've proposed a discussion to see whether an un-merging was desirable. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: - You never proposed a discussion over merging it, so why would I propose a discusison over unmerging it? If you go to WP:MERGE the policy is to discuss mergers not unmergers. So you did violate policy. I looked for the start of a merge thread on the talk pages of both articles and found none. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Me-123567-Me: - Per WP:BRD, I made a bold move to merge the permastub article Motus Bank as I didn't think it would be potentially controversial as an article that essentially consisted of 2-5 sentences, much of it duplicated already in Meridian Credit Union. It is okay that you contested my merger, but where you erred was after undoing the merger, you should've proposed this discussion. I thank @Piotrus: for proposing this discussion nonetheless as it's an important one to have. Fundamentally, the problem I had, though, is you broke one of the cardinal rules on Wikipedia where you assumed I merged the page in bad faith. Always assume good faith, no? ;) Doug Mehus (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: IF you were a newer user I would have given you a pass, but you've been here as long as I have so you certainly know the rules or know where to find them if you forget. Howver, in the spirit of good faith, I apologize. I should have presumed good faith. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Me-123567-Me: Indeed, I have been a Wikipedia user for about 17 years or so (my userID is five digits, I think), but in fairness, I do go in and out of Wikipedia editing binges and may not be familiar with all the rules. I've skimmed through some of the key ones now, namely around page moves, NPOV, and Notability, but will try and read through them more thoroughly. As far as good faith, I always try and assume good faith regardless of the user's length of service, so long as they don't repeatedly undo my edits. I appreciate, and accept, your apology. Glad that we made nice. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Meridian Credit Union as per the arguments above. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Rafael dos Santos

Andre Rafael dos Santos (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)

Extensive references, all of which are pr based or direct PR, most copiedfrom each other. Even if the Guardian paragraph is indistinguishable from a PR blurb. He has enough promotional references without WP becoming aother one of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There were previous rejected AfC submissions [5], [6] in 2013, before this current instance was uploaded to mainspace last month. AllyD (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article on a rental and PR start-up entrepreneur. The uploaded article text seems to have promotional intent (presenting the subject as author rather than co-author; listing awards for firms with which he has been associated as well as personal awards/listings, listing an award nomination by one of these firms). Such concerns might be addressed by normal editing but I am not seeing strong evidence of attained WP:BASIC / WP:ANYBIO encyclopaedic biographical notability, nor are the firms with which he has been associated themselves substantial enough for articles which would permit a WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE merge outcome. AllyD (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Typical PR puffery of a non-notable startup person as usual. A Google search shows little evidence of notability. Likely non-useful enecyclopedic content pasted here to boost search results and promote the subject. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:05, 6 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. Not listed in List of mergers and acquisitions by Alphabet, which includes companies without their own articles, so no prejudice against a redirect there. czar 14:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Performics

Performics (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)

All this is trivial, except that Google first bought then sold them- DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft delete. Fails WP:NORG. Not sure if anything is mergable to the list of acquisitions by Google, but I guess we can redirect it there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Sources seem weak and fails WP:NORG, but is still covered by several, independent sources. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete The Search Engine Journal article sort of has content, but it is lean. Nothing else seems to be about this subject.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge per the above-cited rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:02, 10 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) 13:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Conaghan

Mark Conaghan (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)

Seeing a small amount of local news mentions but nothing that would indicate this actor is notable. Sam Walton (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they list roles — the notability test is not "he has been in stuff", but "he has received reliable source coverage in real media about his performances in stuff". But the external links being linkfarmed here aren't doing that: one is just a Google search for photos of him, which has nothing to do with notability at all; one is from a WordPress blog, which is not a reliable source; one is a theatre's self-published press release about its own production, which is not an independent source; and the only one that is a real media source just mentions his name in an overview of all the casting announcements for a stage production, and is not about Mark Conaghan in any non-trivial way, so it is not enough all by itself. These sources don't make him permanently notable by themselves, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actor. Maybe we are starting to turn the tide against all the articles we have on such, but we have a long way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe keep. His performances in works are reviewed in the press ([7]), [8]) and even in this journal article: "Adapting Australian novels for the stage: La Boite Theatre's versions of Last Drinks, Perfect Skin, and Johnno.", Joanne Tompkins, Australian Literary Studies, April, 2008, Vol.23(3), p.305(13). He was the main subject of this article in The Queensland Times and this article in The Daily Examiner. From the resume it looks like he was a resident artist at the Queensland Theatre Company which is a professional Australian theatre. There productions are regularly reviewed in the press, so there is bound to be more coverage behind the paywalls of newspaper websites in Queensland. It's a borderline call. I could see people making arguments either way.4meter4 (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whilst work he has appeared in maybe notable, I can find no good sources about him.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inadequate sources for notability of subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Probably Delete. I added a number of citations to the article so please check if that is sufficient to save the page, but even with them I'm not sure this actor satisfies notability. Cabrils (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep have corrected the filmography, updated theatre work and included details of, and references for, two award nominations. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia (Zumpino) Roberts

Alicia (Zumpino) Roberts (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:BIO and WP:BLP1E, sourcing is almost all primary sourcing. Waggie (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Waggie (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Waggie (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If kept, needs to be moved - no explanation of "Zumpino" in text. PamD 08:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even state pageeant winner are not default notable. The same applies to local news anchors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 11 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. Sandstein 09:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley of Europe

Silicon Valley of Europe (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)

Neologism or not actually officially defined. Might want to redirect to List of technology centers. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is no agreement in the media and in society about what the "Silicon Valley of Europe" is, I see no need for the article. In addition, the List of technology centers is arranged according to continent and country. ZaaraTE (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Neology/catch-phrase so falls under WP:NOT (as in, Wikipedia is not a dictionary). There is no agreed "Silicon valley of Europe" and thus no subject for an encyclopedic article. Moreover many of the possible candidates aren't even called the "Silicon valley of Europe" but are instead better known by another moniker (e.g., Silicon Fen). Finally, as pointed out above, this duplicates content from List of technology centers. FOARP (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - also nominate the following for deletion for the same/similar reasons:

• Silicon Valley of Turkey - actual article is about a non-notable development that appears to have never happened.
• Silicon Valley of China - same as Silicon Valley of Europe.
• German Silicon Valley - same as Silicon Valley of Europe. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 6 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. czar 00:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoo

Mangoo (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)

Created by a now globally locked sock - Since the last AFD Mangoo has featured on a 2019 song (which is notable) however Mangoo himself isn't, One-bit mentions for "DJ Mangoo"[9] and random results for "Mangoo", Fails MUSIC & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 00:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not every artist who appears or features on a song is notable themselves, nor do they need an article made for them. There's really not a lot here or to be found on this DJ. Ss112 00:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - insufficient reliable sources of the depth required to begin allowing for the creation of an appropriate and neutral WP:BLP.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not that notable. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 08:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just to note, his songs {mainly Eurodancer) were extremely popular in Geometry Dash. (doesn't really matter but I just thought I'd mention it). Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, The last AFD was nominated purely based on him being known for one song (Eurodancer) so good to see he's now known for 2 but I'm still not seeing the notability unfortunately. –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Now, I'm not exactly sure about any of this, I'm not really into music or anything but...

Reading WP:NMUSIC..

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

The ones that I think he could possibly pass are:

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style

Would he pass this? Eurodancer was one of the most popular songs of its genre...

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Well, looking at WP:CHART, looking at recommended charts for Sweden I found "Sverigetopplistan", which shows 1 result for Mangoo: https://www.sverigetopplistan.se/search?query=mangoo (Direct linking to Sverigetopplistan charts is not possible because of Javascript. Instead, one has to insert the artist's or song's name into the search box and click "Sök", this shows all of the artist's albums and singles with their chart positions.) <-- taken directly from WP:CHART and seems to be true. The result shown is "Fanta & Rose", of which it says the following: "3

VECKOR PÅ LISTAN 55 FÖRSTA PLACERING 55 HÖGSTA PLACERING" which translates to 3 weeks on the list, first location 55, highest location 55.

I may be completely wrong about all of the above, I really am not sure at all so any help or advice is greatly appreciated. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 00:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have added a bunch more sources including non-English ones. Some of them I have doubts of reliability but others seem to be fine (including charts) but unfortunately almost all are about Play. I did find a few sources for Fanta & Rose though. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 22:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit: Reading WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV ;

WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability

Look at most of the sources. The coverage is mainly about Play, but in most of them Mangoo is given slightly more than a passing/trivial mention due to the fact that Play is a remix of Eurodancer, and many of the articles comment on the wishes of Alan Walker and Mangoo, Due to the many sources mentioning this, he may barely just pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. That's just my understanding and thinking, I may be completely wrong, please explain to me any mistakes I made. I have not !voted for anything because I would like someone to comment on the research I did. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 23:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another edit: I added primary sources (youtube videos (for play)) (not original research) per WP:BASIC ("Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. ") + genius lyrics for play. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosaicberry: Please stop stuffing the article with unnecessary references, especially WP:PRIMARY ones, which you even acknowledge don't contribute anything to the article. So why do it? You added them to the ends of sentences that were already cited. We do not need 10 references at the end of a sentence. That is overkill and I think you're trying to prove some kind of point here. Anyone could've found 10 more unreliable EDM blogs to stuff the article with, including myself. It's not meaningful coverage. Mangoo is not notable as an individual and not really at all outside of two songs, one of which is literally a reimagining of the other. I am going through the article again and removing citations that are redundant and any unreliable ones I find. Ss112 21:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the excessive links to unreliable blogs, primary sources and mere mentions of "Play" from the article. I don't see much that alters what was there before, namely any substantial coverage of Mangoo as an individual; most centre around either "Eurodancer" or "Play" (which is a reimagining of "Play"). Ss112 22:09, 10 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. czar 00:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radiance Realty

Radiance Realty (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 real estate firm; sourcing consists of two re-worked press releases and a passing mention. Nothing more readily discoverable by me. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources are not indepedent (all interviews/press releases). No notable firm and fails WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur with the nominator.--Pontificalibus 11:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 11 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.