Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 15

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 22 (Sun) September 21 (Sat) September 20 (Fri) More...

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

< 14 June	16 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan Airways

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

Short-lived non-notable airline. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. lavender||lambast 02:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender||lambast 02:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. The only source being used in the article is defunct, and does not appear to have been a reliable source. While the term "Pakistan Airways" does come up with results in searches, these appear to be referring to other entities with the name, as the dates of those sources do not line up with the dates that this company was active. I have found no reliable sources discussing this particular "Pakistan Airways" in any depth. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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 result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Rayyan Air

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

No sourcing from WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CThomas (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CThomas (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CThomas (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep An airline that has managed to operate an aircraft as large as a Boeing 747 is noteworthy, the fact that sourcing is crap is a flag to improve not to delete. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep This airline has notability as it operated a 747. Bad sourcing does not mean deletion. Also, there is plenty to expand this article on. I found numerous sources. The airline is also talking about making a comeback. , , , and . AmericanAir88 21:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Pearl Air

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

WP article about planned airline which fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CThomas (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CThomas (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete no evidence that it actually flew commercial services. MilborneOne (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahmad Raza Khan Kasuri

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

Never elected to any legislature, lacks sourcing. Fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)~~

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG per sources. Being elected to legislature is not the only criteria for notability. Mar4d (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep I guess none of us noticed the Category:Pakistani MNAs 1972-77 that was there all along. He was an elected member of National Assembly of Pakistan from 1972 to 1977. That's where he used to criticize the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto regime so harshly and tension among them rose to the point where Bhutto allegedly tried to eliminate him altogether. Instead, his father, Nawab Mohammad Ahmad Kasuri, who was also in the car with him, got hit in the car ambush and died. Ahmad Raza Khan Kasuri escaped unhurt according to The New York Times published article on 18 March 1978. NYT and a second reference from Dawn (newspaper) were also already there describing the circumstances. I have added nothing to the article since my last edit on 9 June 2019. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:NPOL was a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy Keep member of national legislature, according to the New York Times article on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep. To be fair to the nominator, this article is confusingly written, and basically jumps straight from "is a politician" to the assassination attempt without ever actually mentioning what political office he held at all until you scan the category declarations — but one of the sources present in the article plainly verifies that he actually was a member of the legislature. So this could do with a bit of effort to rewrite it and improve the sourcing, but he definitely held an NPOL-passing role — and the fact that the assassination attempt was the very thing that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was executed for means that much better sourcing is very definitely out there somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Aidan Dodson. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 00:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The Hieroglyphs of Ancient Egypt

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

I found no reviews or anything else to show notability per WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't had a chance to look into this one yet, but I just wanted to mention that if it does turn out that there are not enough sources to support an article, it might be prudent to Redirect this to the author's page at Aidan Dodson. Rorshacma (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Redirect - (to Aidan Dodson) I couldn't find any independent reviews,, both in web and JSTOR searches. Unless someone can show its instructional usage, then it seems non-notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Redirect or just delete -- The book might usefully be added to the list of "Further Reading" in Egyptian hieroglyphs, as it is not listed there. We cannot have a WP article on every book that is or has recently been in print. Essentially it is an ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Aidan Dodson. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Aidan Dodson. --MA Javadi (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Aidan Dodson, and add to further reading of Egyptian hieroglyphs, curious that there are aren't any reviews available with around 250 libraries holding it. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Toner bomb

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

Unsourced ‘how to’ article. PROD contested by another editor unclear why this is unsourced and unencyclopaedic. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Outside of mirrors of this article, I'm not finding a single source that discusses this term in the manner that its described here. This may have simply been an attempt at a WP:NEO that never obtained widespread use. The only real hits I'm even coming up with are in regards to a literal explosive that was attempted to be smuggled in a toner cartridge, and even then, there are only a couple of sources that use the term "toner bomb" to describe that item as well. Rorshacma (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. This might be an effect that is genuinely used in the film industry, and the WP:HOWTO nature of the page can be edited out to make a decent article, but without sourcing it is not verifiable and fails general notability. I could be persuaded to change my opinion if reliable sources come to light. SpinningSpark 00:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I could find documentation on this effect being done with CGI, but no documentation on this. Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete No sources; appears to be WP:Original research. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Gino O'Boyle

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gino O'Boyle

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

Non notable local politician. Articles are for TDs. Doesn't make criteria IMO CivisHibernius (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge to his father's article Seamie O'Boyle which is more notable even though it is also at AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep Let's look at the bolded parts of WP:NPOL -- Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This person is a politician who is a member of a legislative body at sub-national level - in this case of a first-level administrative division. Ireland's appearance in List of administrative divisions by country has counties as a first-level administrative division. Therefore, the subject should meet WP:NPOL as a subnational legislator. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

O'Boyle may pass the WP:general notability guideline, but not WP:NPOL. Irish county councils are not legislative bodies. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Counties are not states or provinces. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat: The wording contains the phrase "e.g." which implies the inclusion of anything other than states and provinces. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not all countries call their state/province-level divisions "states" or "provinces" — for example, Poland's are called voivodeships and Japan's are called prefectures and Russia's are called federal subjects, but they're still functionally equivalent to states or provinces. It says "e.g." to establish that the rule is not limited to places that use the terms state or province, but includes the equivalent level of government in places that call them "voivodeships" or "prefectures" or "federal subjects" instead of states or provinces, and is not intended to uplift mere counties. The rule is not that countries like Ireland, where the provinces are purely ceremonial and aren't used as an actual unit of government, get to upsell their county councils into the state/provincial level of government just because there isn't another state/province level between them and the Oireachtas: the counties are a unit of local government run by a council to manage and run "planning, transport infrastructure, sanitary services, public safety (notably fire services) and the provision of public libraries", not a state or province equivalent run by a legislature with the power to pass its own laws. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete - not notable local politician. Fails WP:Politician. Spleodrach (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Local councillors in Ireland do not meet WP:NPOL. This particular local councillor also doesn't meet WP:GNG. Guliolopez (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete Member of the Sligo County Council. Does not pass WP:NPOL as it is expected that members of a county council are expected to receive national or international coverage of the subject with sufficient content. --Enos733 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. NPOL #1 covers state or provincial legislators, and does not extend down to the county council level: county councillors are local politicians covered under NPOL #2, and do not reify into state legislators just because the country doesn't have states. But for the purposes of establishing that a county councillor passes NPOL #2 it's not enough to just show that some local press coverage exists, because some local press coverage of all county councillors always exists — to get him in the door, what the coverage would need to show is a convincing reason why he could credibly claim to be significantly more notable than most other county councillors, such as nationalizing coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see the above comment I made to your first comment. 12:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Lung On Street

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

A street that has only one landmark (which has its own article) and basically no other search results on Google. Don't think the street passes WP:N, other than existing. Recommend deletion or redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete per norm. Using the Chinese name (隆安街) to search , returns routine mention. Knowledge (XXG) is not meant to populate the articles with all the known street, but may be all the WP:GNG notable road and street, that people can actually wrote a mini-article with citation and free of original research. Matthew hk (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete No assertion of notability whatsoever. Reywas92 21:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete:WP:IINFO. Viztor (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Per above, no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Global Access Point

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

It's a brief company history and list of locations. Nothing about the company seems especially notable, and I couldn't find any additional coverage that would indicate notability. creffett (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete - coverage is either in non-independent sources or doesn't satisfy Sig Cov. As well as the name being used as a phrase in different ways, the photo also gets used so watch in your BEFORE checks. There are some proper articles about (usually outgoing) company officers, but not enough side coverage of company. Their parent company doesn't have an article, so no obvious redirect. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
delete - I listed it for speedy, obviously I agree with nomination now. Good BEFORE analysis by Nosebagbear too. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - no indication of notability, completely promo article with not enough RS coverage. ɱ (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - no RS coverage, fails WP:NCORP. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Saudi Real Estate Companion

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Prod was contested in 2017 and another editor attempted to PROD the article after for which it was not eligible. Raymie (t • c) 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Fails NBOOK and GNG. SpinningSpark 23:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Outside of the sites selling them, I couldn't find anything on the book. Definite failure of WP:NBOOK Nosebagbear (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Only sources are primary. Not much else out there. Dgpop (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, no reviews available, according to article book published by Booktango, a defunct epublisher (see here), unable to tell their editorial/publishing policy. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Robbin Harms

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

Does not meet WP:BLPPROD requirement of articles containing "no sources in any form". However, it does not meet the requirement of "All BLPs must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article". Snowycats (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep As far as I can see, he meets WP:NMOTORSPORT #3 "Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest", and perhaps also #1 (though I don't know what counts as "a fully professional series"). This guy has raced in Grand Prix races in many countries (definitely of national interest in those countries, and some also definitely of international interest). Not having sources is not a reason to delete an article, per WP:NEXIST , so why bring it to AfD? Why not just find and add "at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article"???? I have added one source, so it's no longer unsourced, but I am really not interested in motorsports. Did the nominator do WP:BEFORE, especially "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search"? and note "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources". RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Added a reference, and based on a review of the available sources, site:.dk searches in particular, the article can easily be referenced to meet WP:BASIC, apart from it already meeting WP:NMOTORSPORT #3. This nomination with a spurious boilerplate rationale was filed only 24 seconds after nominator's previous edit. Would nominator please explain which P&Gs they took into consideration before filing here? Should they wish to withdraw the nomination, they may chose to follow WP:WDAFD and add * {{Withdraw}} <Brief explanation.> ~~~~ immediately below the nomination statement. Sam Sailor 08:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. There is clear consensus through AfD that where players technically meet WP:NFOOTY, through a handful of appearances but are no longer playing or are playing, but cannot be shown conclusively to meet GNG, articles should not exist. Fenix down (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Aleksandr Ivanov (footballer, born 1988)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete the article is my vote because the article don't have any citation and its subject is not notable.Forest90 (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 18:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - in the absence of any reliable sources (and I could no find any) fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Football goalkeeper who made 3 appearances (no full matches) in the arguably "fully" professional Russian 3rd level during 2010. He's been playing amateur football ever since, and I can't find any Russian-language coverage of him beyond entries in statistics databases like championat.com. Jogurney (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep - per NFOOTY, needs improving. Here's the source: source. He has more than just three appereances. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that he made 8 other appearances in the Russian Second Division (for Rubin-2 during 2007 and 2008) for a grand total of 11. I still can't find online coverage that comes anywhere close to satisfying the GNG, and I'm not convinced that the Russian Second was "fully-pro" at that time. Are you able to find sources that cover this footballer other than statistics database entries and transfer announcements? Jogurney (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Khaled Aghbariyya

AfDs for this article:

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

Aghbariyya as a mayor of a local place does not default pass politician notability. The one source source only mentions him in passing. There are almost certainly more sources, but there are multiple sources on every politician, we need actual significant coverage to show notability and that is lacking here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete the article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete small town mayor; no claim of notability. Fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Umm al-Fahm is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist — but the only reference here is a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about an event that happened in Umm al-Fahm, not coverage that is substantively about him for the purposes of establishing that he would pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Freddie Gershon

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy keep. At a glance, meets WP:AUTHOR - multiple independent periodical reviews of the novel (Washington Post, LA Times). These simply need to be added to the article. See WP:BEFORE. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep - I've actually added the sources, so now clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep added more book reviews in major newspapers, passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep - I also added some content and sources. Subject is clearly widely covered in the media and well established with reliable sources. Easily passes WP:LAWYER and WP:AUTHOR, and meets notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sean Karani

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Current footballer who passes WP:NFOOTY. Plays for Swope Park Rangers in the USL Championship, which is listed at Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. No doubt the article needs improving, though. R96Skinner (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep the article, the Article really need improving. Also merging the article could be a good option.Forest90 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 18:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Merging inappropriate - at which article and where? Giant Snowman 13:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - although the nominator is incorrect in claiming that there are no sources which verify the information in the article, it is about a soccer player who has only played a few matches in the USL Championship, and with a club that is an outlier in terms of lack of attendance and is simply a "B" team for its MLS affiliate (e.g., and ). There is no significant coverage of this soccer player in online sources (everything is routine match reports or signing announcements). While the article may appear to narrowly pass WP:NFOOTBALL, it comprehensively fails WP:GNG so it fails the spirit of NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That argument is usually reserved for players whose professional careers are or have ended, not an 18 year old at the beginning. Giant Snowman 08:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep per GiantSnowman and passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is a 18 year old and is currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY. As multiple other !voters have stated the subject is relativly young and still playing. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete "young and still playing" is not a reason to keep an article about an individual. Any "news" article I can find online seems to be either transactional data or put out by the club itself and therefore not being a third party article. I see a failure of the general notability guideline. As a 15-year resident of the Kansas City area, I'm shocked to learn that there is something called the "Swope Park Rangers" who are a soccer team. After a little research, I learned that the Kansas City Star calls the team a "development team for Sporting Kansas City." They aren't even notable in their own market.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep The subject meets WP:NFOOTBALL, as others have said. The nominator does not seem aware of the requirements to perform all steps of WP:BEFORE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

J. T. Lindroos

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable WP:PROMO article created by an SPA. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. I can see things here that might be valid notability claims if the article were properly referenced to reliable sources, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him the right to keep an unsourced article. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

R. Fred Lewis

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - @Snowycats: - I'm concerned with several of your AfDs - you submitted 5 within 10 minutes, and multiple issues with a lack of a WP:BEFORE sweep have shown up. A failure of the in-article sourcing doesn't mean an automatic delete at the AfD level. Nosebagbear (talk)
Keep - Firstly, judges at state supreme court level are assumed notable as per WP:JUDGE. There's also some coverage in source 1 and source 2 to indicate that WP:BASIC is also satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy keep per WP:JUDGE. He is a former State Supreme Court judge....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

List of plain English words and phrases

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

This is a dumpster fire of a list. At best, it's an unmaintainable mess that can be expanded whenever someone finds that someone (or some guide, somewhere) has decided that certain words should be ~~eschewed~~ avoided. After all, Knowledge (XXG) is not a ~~thesaurus~~ book with ~~synonyms~~ similar words (okay, so that one doesn't exist, but the point is that it's not that sort of WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information anyway).

Virtually nothing in here has any context to ~~indicate~~ show when such substitutions are appropriate, and when they're not. And while I realize that AfD is not cleanup, this list isn't fixable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete Out of the project's scope. Nardog (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete It's not what the title says; it's actually a list of supposedly problematic words and, as these are often reasonably plain words like "aircraft" and "beg", it comes across as half-baked or a hoax. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing encyclopedic about this list. Completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete per all above, particularly Andrew D. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep; Plain English is a well defined dialect. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, and? We don't have a list of every word in the dictionary. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You should do some actual research. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete fails all sort of Knowledge (XXG) policy like WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:DIC --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: This might be useful to transwiki to simple-WP for editors there and/or Wiktionary. Regards So Why 10:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary and slap the original enwiki article with the {{wtr}}. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Tra Boger

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

Can't find significant coverage outside of professional sports team transactions and articles about his being the son of an NFL official. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and I can't find any articles specifically about him. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable football player that lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Doesn't make it through WP:GRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH either. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. The notability test for football players, as with any other sport, is not the act of signing to a team (whether through the draft or as a free agent) in and of itself — it is the act of actually playing in at least one actual regular season game. This guy never had that at all, either in the NFL or the CFL — he merely signed and then got cut in the pre-season without ever accomplishing what's actually required. And at the college level we have to see distinctions, not just the fact of having been there, to make a college football player notable. All of which means that nothing here cuts it at all, and the references are not building a strong case that he would get over WP:GNG in lieu of failing NGRIDIRON either. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Article even shows while he was at training camp in the NFL a couple of times, he never made it past final roster cut downs.--Rockchalk7 17 05:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
delete Some routine local sports reporting, but nothing to show WP:NGRIDIRON or the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The only significant coverage I can find is a single article (
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete the only coverage I can really see is basic transactional documentation that does not pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

YubNub

AfDs for this article:

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

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals. Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines. Clnreee (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete I can't find any notability here --SebastianQuilo (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Luigi Gubitosi

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

The only reference is a dead link. Snowycats (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Per fas et nefas

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

WP:V and WP:NOT I haven't been in Afd more than twice in 11 years or so. I have no idea how to do this and won't join the debate for that reason. But here's the deal: this page is listed as a logical fallacy, but it doesn't seem to actually be a logical fallacy, and it doesn't seem to actually mean what WP says it means. It is a real Latin phrase, but it means something like "willing to use any means to win an argument". The rest of the stub says something like "denying or refuting only one possible cause of a phenomenon". Yes, that would be one example of Per fas et nefas, but that's not the full meaning of the term. I can't find WP:RS that closely links the term and the "logical fallacy" our article describes... I did find that example used here, but again it is just discussing an example of this behavior... so if it is not a logical fallacy and only a phrase that means "by any means", then if we remove the bit about logical fallacies and "denying only one argument", then all we have left is a bare definition. That leads me to WP:NOT because WP is not a dictionary. You folks go ahead and do what's best; I think it should be outright deleted. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 15. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. All I can find (besides WP mirrors) are a few specialty dictionary entries. This certainly doesn't seem to be notable as any kind of fallacy. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This is encyclopaedia article writing by Chinese whispers and back-translation. This article is a translation of the Polish Knowledge (XXG) article pl:per fas et nefas, which in turn comes from a misunderstanding of Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right, which does not (if one actually reads it) define this as a concept, but rather defines "Controversial Dialectic"/"Eristical Dialectic", which Schopenhauer says to be the same thing as Eristic but with a less harsh name. This misunderstanding is actually explicit on the Portugeuse Knowledge (XXG) at pt:per fas et nefas. The sentence where this misunderstanding comes from quite clearly begins with the words "Controversial Dialectic is" and proceeds to tell the reader what Schopenhauer's Controversial Dialectic is. Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. All hail Uncle G. Mccapra (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. And how do you get to know this stuff? SpinningSpark 23:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- There's no magic involved. I started with the edit summary that said that this was a translation. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment, so a redirect to Knowledge (XXG) editor stuffups? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and Uncle G.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mamta Saikia

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Citations provided include PR, mere mentions in RS, articles by the subject, an article that lists its "source" as "Internet", source #3 gave my browser a security warning, and I couldn't find anything better searching online. As for the awards won, well... _signed,Rosguill 04:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill 04:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill 04:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill 04:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill 04:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein 06:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Electronic Document Professional

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

No demonstration of notability, no independent sources. Icodense (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 03:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 03:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 03:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete No demonstration of notability. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Easyway Logistics

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete - article has unreliable sources when googling the aticle there are aren't anything on the news section and anything else.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. There is no significant independent coverage - everything appears to be merely routine coverage, database listings, etc.. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Choke Creek

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews, a gsearch doesn't bring up anything, not even "trade" reviews, no they ie. kirkus, publisher's weekly don't review everything:)) (probably reflects the small number of library holdings - 5), book was published by Bridle Path Press, an indie press of which the author is on the editorial board, see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG per nomination. Geoffroi (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Battle bag

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

The page has been left without any citations for over 2 years and does not discuss anything that isn't better explained in another article. Lotusbloom (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete Merge. While the new sources make for some reference of the term none of them seem to describe the bag beyond being slang for any other common bag so I would still lean towards deleting this page and adding that the slang term added to another page so as not to add clutter. Lotusbloom (talk • contribs) 14:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Striking the merger idea as the description of the bag has grown increasingly vague. --Lotusbloom (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  - Lotusbloom should please strike their !vote per WP:DISCUSSAFD, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Striked redundant vote as per rules --Lotusbloom (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep. A widely available product from numerous manufacturers. Clearly, its use has gone way beyond the military. Of course we should have an article. SpinningSpark 18:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Striking that comment. On reflection, I am nowhere near as certain that this is any more than a "sum of parts" phrase. SpinningSpark 09:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Can someone please cite an example of what it looks like in it's military application since that is what the bulk of the article discusses? When searching for "battle bag" the only results I get is for the brand of civilian pocketed satchel bags by Blackhawk and the original article. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the term so maybe I am missing something but as far as I can tell it is just a brand of satchels that has apparently become an generic name for a specific style of satchel bags. If that is the case it seems like it should be merged with the satchel article rather than having it's own page.Lotusbloom (talk • contribs) 23:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is that I can find nothing at all that confirms the existence of any such military equipment. (It is noteworthy in that regard to observe that the article's claim about PECOC is rather undermined by the fact that PECOC was replaced several years ago. Its successor, Project VIRTUS, has no such item documented in anything that I can find published.) Moreover, none of the sources cited by Eastmain actually document a thing by this name. They are all passing mentions of people referring to, and not even documenting, other things (a duffel bag in one case, for example, and a backpack and a purse in two others) using a slang term, in a couple of the cases a nonce slang term. Even the one military source is a fictionalized account, using slang to describe a corpsman's medical kit. That's a desperate reach to prove that such a subject exists. My research indicates that it simply does not exist, and is unverifiable. I think that we should draw the line at not keeping stuff that isn't true and is not an actual concept. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep There's a picture of the item in question here. I'm not sure it warrants a page all for itself but as we don't seem to have a more generic page such as ammo pouch yet, it would be reasonable to expand on this start per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: are you seriously going to base your "keep" entirely on an advert on ebay? Even if we accept the information there as valid, the term battle bag appears nowhere on the page except in the keywords in the header. Keywords on ebay are frequently only tangentially related to the product in order to maximise user search hits. They are essentially meaningless for factual information. SpinningSpark 19:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

My !vote is based on the policy WP:IMPERFECT which states, "Perfection is not required: Knowledge (XXG) is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts." What we have here is obviously a weak start point – just a few facts – but it appears to be a promising seed for a substantial article. The point of the eBay item is that it demonstrates that the item in question is not a hoax; it's a real thing. eBay is a reasonably reliable source for this because its posters are quite zealous in establishing and protecting their reputation. The seller in this case has a rating of 99.9% and that's based on 17K ratings. I'd bet my life on such a score and the purchasers of military gear might actually have to do so. Other sources which we might use such as newspapers or academic journals are comparatively unreliable. For example, see Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability.

Now, my vision is of an article which covers a variety of such pouches and grab bags in a general way, because it seems that we don't have such such a thing yet – the closest I've found is bug-out bag, which is not quite the same thing. If it turns out that we have a better page already then the page in question can be merged into it because it seems that "battle bag" is a common term for such a thing. So, "Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag, and Smile, Smile, Smile"...Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Spinningspark that the listing of the word "Battle Bag" in the ebay listing was done merely for search optimization given the popularity of the brand "Battle Bag" produced by the company Blackhawk which is what the ebay item looks like it is an alternative to. The whole concept of a "battle bag" seems very vague and non-descript beyond the general idea that is just a pocketed bag (which is what the branded item is) that contains a variety of non-specific items in and that really doesn't seem like it warrants its own article.. --Lotusbloom (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The eBay item is just a start. Here's a article which explains the concept: Why A ‘Battle Bag’ Should Be Part Of Your Survival Stash. The name seems to be a generic one, not a particular brand. And there are synonyms such as "boom bag". But the concept seems clear. It's a bag of essentials, like a bug-out bag, but the mix is focussed on combat rather than evacuation – a bag for winners rather than losers. Looking for sources about Blackhawk, I find Battle Rattle in which the founder talks of their history. That article talks of "load-out bags" which have a mix of equipment tailored for specific missions or environments. Then this review of a particular bag says, "when I served in the Marines we carried one ‘boom’ bag per squad. The boom bag contained extra batteries, ammo, grenades, a water purifier, zip cuffs, a kit to detect explosive residue, and other mission-specific gear." Again, this confirms the concept. So, rather than hastily deleting this, we should follow our editing policy to collaborate in fitting this into our imperfect coverage of military accessories and logistics. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't verify your book link since it is blocked where I live but I'm not sure I would consider blog posts to fall under "high-quality sources" as cited by Editing_policy#Problems_that_may_justify_removal --Lotusbloom (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, the picture that Andrew supplied is for a genuine British Army issue bag developed under the PECOC program. According to our article, the PECOC bag is the British Army's version of the battle bag. It is therefore not some random fashion item and shows that the term refers to a specific form. SpinningSpark 11:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Bug-out bag is sometimes called a battle bag or battle box. That's for carrying survival supplies though, not things to take into battle. There is ample mention in places of a "battle bag" for carrying ammunition, so that is a real thing. Haversack, tactical backpack, or perhaps just any military backpack is what its referred to. An article about what the major militaries of the world keep in their military backpacks might be an interesting thing to have. Dream Focus 19:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There is actually already a couple dozen pages listing the contents of military backpacks https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Personal_military_carrying_equipment --Lotusbloom (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep This is a real thing, just need to rename it. Add in a list of things found at Category:Personal military carrying equipment Dream Focus 21:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Thought I had voted on this before but apparently not: my WP:BEFORE did not turn up any specific definition of this, much less any consistent usage or real examples. At best this is a WP:DICDEF and as such fails WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete Generic term for a bag that carries military supplies. Reviewing the sources there does not appear to be a standardized type of bag under this name. This reads as a dictionary definition for a phrase that does not have notability itself, and Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for anything that has a name, even if the British military or whoever has a version of this. Reywas92 05:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - As stated already, this term seems to just be a generic slang phrase that is sometimes used to refer to a military bag, and is not a standardized, regularly used term. If an actual well-sourced article on the standardized piece of military equipment this seems to be referring to is created, then this name space can be recreated as a redirect. However, the article itself is not worth keeping, as it consists of exactly one sentence of sourced information, a lot of WP:OR, and then a multitude of "references" that are just a bunch of times the two words happened to be used together to describe a variety of objects that have nothing to do with the topic or each other. Nothing actually worth keeping. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep per Andrew D WP:IMPERFECT promising seed for a substantial article. It is a real thing Lubbad85 (☎) 02:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete after considerable thought. As mentioned above, the problem is that there seems to be no consistency as to either the terms used or even what they refer to. A bit of variation is fine and can be disambiguated within the article, but in this case I don't have any certainty that the various sources using the term are actually talking about the same thing, or that what they are talking about is the thing that the article is talking about, or even that any one source has a consistent meaning in their own mind other than 'a bag you use in battle'. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

To those who are saying that this article should be kept, could you please describe the item as anything beyond a generic bag that is taken onto battle because that alone really doesn't warrant an article of its own... --Lotusbloom (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The article has enough valid information and references to exist on its own, unless a better place can be found to merge it to. There are different standards different militaries have used at different times in history. A list of such items and information about them could be added. Dream Focus 09:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked the references? They are all very contradictory and generic. They are referencing a "battle bag" as another term for medical bag, a hockey supply bag and bag to carry microphone supplies. What does any of that have to do with what the rest of the article is talking about? Reading the article all you can learn is that it is a generic bag that can carries a variety of things, why does that need its own article? --Lotusbloom (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

You haven't made many edits Special:Contributions/Lotusbloom from this account. Do you have others? Your eight years of editing history fit on one page since its hardly anything. 16 related to deleting this and 30 for other things. If you really have edited so little on Knowledge (XXG) then perhaps you don't notice how many of articles exist that aren't needed, but "need" was never a reason to have them. It meets the requirements for an article so it deserves a chance to live. Dream Focus 21:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Please stay focused. We are discussing the merits of this article and its contents, not my edit history --Lotusbloom (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Some editors prefer editing anonymously while some prefer lurking. Also edit count doesn't show an editor's experience. Masum Reza 23:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - a possible merge target is Bug-out bag. 'Battle bag' is given as one of the alternative names and two of the references here refer to survival or emergency use. Bug-out bag is hardly a a stellar article but put together with a narrower scope and we have the makings of a workmanlike page. Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - That seems reasonable. --Lotusbloom (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of wikis#WikiIndex. Consensus is to delete or redirect, including among votes which were submitted after some additional citations were added early in this debate. Among such comments, the consensus leans towards a redirect or merge rather than a deletion. ST47 (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiIndex

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

Fails WP:N, with virtually no coverage in pertinent sources. Largoplazo (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 94rain 09:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete/redirect. No in-depth, independent, reliable coverage. Fails WP:NORG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC) PS. I like the idea of soft delete to list of wikis as proposed below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 10:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The only 2 relevant sources in terms of "notability" (as Knowledge (XXG) uses the term) are ref #3 and ref #11. The rest are simple listings or self-published. But ref #3 is also just a passing mention. And ref #11 uses the index briefly as a primary source in 2 short sentences, but has no in-depth coverage about the topic itself (and the article misquotes the dissertation with snippets instead of using a full quotation in context). GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Do not delete At the very least redirect--this doesn't demand deletion: it's a plausible search term as it's an important wiki in the WikiSphere and there is nothing compelling for deletion about a WP:COPYVIO or WP:OFFICE issue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC) I say keep now. Seems substantially referenced. What do others think? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Redirect per WOOD I am here actually because I just uploaded File:Internal Error 630f6222.png and wanted to make sure my attribution link was directing to the right page. List of wikis#WikiIndex would be a good link to. I do worry about a lot of outside links because of the importance this page has on a technical level for outside wikis. Just my two-cents. Redirects are cheap afterall. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 19:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Updated below. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 00:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: Not sure that I understand the problem of attribution: if you have ] and it's deleted on en.wp how is that different than having (e.g.) http://wikiindex.org/MainPage and that URI goes down at some point in the future? I mean, this is just something that happens with URIs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  - @Koavf: I probably worded that weird. I don't mean it's required for attribution, but I meant to say like non-WMF wikis might have incoming links and such. My main point is that redirects are cheap, and this one might be worth it. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 23:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Redirect Might help in future Stalin Sunny 09:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment - if the topic gets deleted as non-notable it will probably also be deleted from related lists (per WP:CSC). Just mentioning it for clarity: non-notable topics are usually not included in large lists without some clear evidence of likely notability - the very point this discussion has failed to provide yet. The topic's alleged "importance" has not been verified (see also WP:ILIKEIT). GermanJoe (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Do not delete I have added, since the beginning of this deletion discussion, three academic references to the topic (WikiIndex#Advancement and scope of the project). I would also like to note that I (article creator) have no connection to WikiIndex. If a decision is made to redirect, I would think it wise to redirect to Ray King (entrepreneur) (one of the founders, the only one with a dedicated wikipedia article) rather than List of wikis, so as to include more of the content, and keep WikiIndex as an entry in List of wikis, just like other wikis in the list such as Scratch Wiki which don't have a dedicated article but redirect. In any case I'll try to add a paragraph on WikiIndex to Ray King (entrepreneur) in the coming days. Fa suisse (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Largoplazo, 94rain, Piotrus, CAPTAIN RAJU, GermanJoe, MJL, Stalinsunnykvj, and Piotrus: Not sure if this will change anyone's !vote but take a look at it now: Fa suisse has some decent citations. More of an edge case now in my estimation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment (pinged) - even after all the good-faith improvements the article has only 1 good source, Klobas' short description of the Wiki in ref #11. Everything else are passing mentions or other thin - only loosely-related - sources. Being academic is not enough, sources to establish notability need to be reliable and in-depth covering the topic itself. The suggested redirect to a short mention in King's bio might be a better solution. The topic is certainly noteworthy enough for a mention in a related article, even if it's not fully notable for a stand-alone article (per Wiki's definition). GermanJoe (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I was pinged as well but wanted to wait for someone else more insightful to comment before I did. I agree King's bio is a good choice for this to redirect to per the reasons outlined above. I was not too impressed with the new sources in all honesty, but since I had no access I had to only go based off the abstracts (which don't mention WikiIndex). (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐ 00:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment - replying to the two above comments : in my opinion, the best source is A.G.West's PhD thesis (2013, vs Klobas' 2006 book; freely accessible at https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1974&context=edissertations), which uses WikiIndex as a resource to provide statistics on and demonstrate diversity of wikis. Fa suisse (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I'm tempted by MJL's suggestion of a redirect to List of wikis#WikiIndex, but that is a list of notable wikis. Closing as redirect is tantamount to declaring it non-notable and will result in the list entry being removed. That will just leave a worthless redirect that will likely be eventually deleted. SpinningSpark 18:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete because of lack of significant references in 3rd party sources. Clnreee (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Merge with List of wikis. No need to this non-notable article as it lacks third party, reliable sources. Masum Reza 23:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sarileru Neekevvaru

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

Per WP:NFILM. Unreleased movie still in production. Insignificant coverage of the film and production of the film in reliable third party sources. Comatmebro (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Question. Has principal photography begun? finished? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete This fails WP:NFILM. Geoffroi (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet WP:NFILM, not enough available to ascertain notability, way WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Most editors argue that Gargiulo meets WP:PERP due to widespread national coverage of the alleged crimes. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 11:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Michael Gargiulo

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

Per WP:PERP - "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". Subject of the article is not otherwise notable, the article is borderline prejudicial . Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete - but keep the article handy in the background; he's likely going to be convicted of multiple murders, so we can undelete it later on. Or just hide the article from public view for now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep per WP:PERP: "the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." When a crime becomes sufficiently notorious, we keep it. Today's headline in Rolling Stone: Ashton Kutcher Testifies in Trial of Alleged Serial Killer Michael Gargiulo. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Note': 100,000 pageviews yesterday.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete quickly. Just one more crime. WP:Notnews. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, muliple crimes. An accused serial killer. who has been in the news for a decade, drawn national attention, and whose trial is being discusses as having political impact in the debate over rescinding the death penalty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A sample of the coverage, and note that this page was created in 2011, when Gargiulo first drew wide attention:

Keep - the article is based on allegations as clearly stated and, thus, still achieves the minimum standard for the presumption of innocence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Five10mommy (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep or Merge - This guy was relevant in the news not that long ago, he's definitely a high profile case as with other serial killers. I also remember Ashton Kutcher being involved in his case, I can't remember the reason why. However because this person has not been convicted yet, this article could be merged to have the title Hollywood Ripper, but I do believe this individual will have signficane later on. There is already plenty of articles on him like the ones that user:E.M.Gregory listed. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)YatesTucker00090

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

2012 CBS News [Michael Gargiulo: The serial killer next door? "48 Hours Mystery" report helps Chicago detectives charge suspect in an 18-year-old cold case after new witnesses come forward
June 2019 'Hollywood Ripper' Suspect Allegedly Waited for 'Perfect Opportunity' to Kill Women
there has been a decade of INDEPTH , national news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep, meets WP:GNG with sustained coverage from reliable sources, WP:PERP is covered as discussed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Good sourcing, indepth coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Seeing as the keep arguments have gone uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandeep Ranade

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been repeatedly re-created and deleted. Please let me know if you want the details.
Technically to meet the WP:G4 speedy deletion criterion, an article must

be a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, and
is substantially identical to the deleted version, and
any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted

This page meets criteria #1 and #3, but not #2. Its text and references are substantively different to the article deleted as a result of the 2011 deletion discussion. Perhaps things may have changed since then? It would appear to me that this is not the case. The references are still overwhelmingly from user-generated sources; as the default AFD text will show, there are no online sources (caveat: in English) that would indicate the subject of the article meets any of the usual notability tests. In my opinion, the question to be answered here is: should this article be WP:SALT-ed as repeatedly created WP:BLP of a non-notable person?
Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As an editor who has contributed substantially to content about Indian Classical music history (particularly the topic of gharanas, I created the Sandeep Ranade page twice over the last several years for two reasons. First, the subject is regarded as a luminary of one of the well-known musical pedagogies in India. Second, the subject has gained attention in the past year because of a music app for iOS that he authored and developed. Given the subject's cultural-historical and contemporary significance, the page should not be deleted or nominated for WP:SALT-ed given that recent attention and importance of the subject which challenges the premise of his being a "non-notable person." User-generated sources can be removed from the current version of the article in order to retain quality, neutrality, and objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanderao (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep The articles in the Deccan Chronicle, Gadgets 360 look ok. Andrew D. (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep. This is more a case of a need for better editing than a lack of notability. In addition to the refs mentioned by Andrew D, the one in AsianAge is also fine. The refs to the press page of Ranade’s website contain cuttings from the press in Indian languages which demonstrate wide and sustained coverage. Mccapra (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Art Musings

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

To establish the notability of an art gallery, we probably need more than one mention in the Hindustani Times. Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Added one more article of Hindustan Times in the content.--Mayabhai7868 (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete there is some coverage, but it is not enough. Notability of the artists is not inherited by the gallery.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that GNG is not met as the only independent source mentioned is considered to be a spam piece. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

K. N. Rao

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG 18:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 18:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: not comfortable deleting this as an expired prod without any discussion, since it has survived AfD once before. Additional input required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Some of the references are not independent,. This one appears to be independent and from a reliable source. I don't think his audit work makes him notable, but his work as an astrologer and author and related litigation makes him notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That's not a RS. Blatant spam-piece, esp. in light of these notes. ∯WBG 08:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Other people with the same or similar names who might be notable include K. N. Rao (author and literary translator), born circa 1924, according to this article, academics shown at DBLP and Google Scholar. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, except we are not talking about them. ∯WBG 08:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete: I see no reason why the website India Legal should be seen as reliable, as Eastmain claims above. According to the article, Rao also had an interview with The Times of India, which I can't seem to find. None of the other sources I can find are reliable, especially the astrology websites that spread pseudoscientific nonsense. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete: Fails GNG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. OK, then delete it is. If discussion on the talk page of Talk:List of fictional angels comes to the conclusion that half angels are eligible, the content could be requested through WP:REFUND I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

List of fictional half-angels

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

There are enough entries for a category, but the article does not cite sources that prove WP:LISTN. Also, as a related page List of fictional half-demons was deleted in December 2012, I doubt that this subject meets notability requirements either. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain 03:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete- horrendous fail of WP:LISTN. This is very badly sourced, pointless fancruft. Reyk _YO! 13:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete Holy mother of cruft. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Poorly sourced, and fails WP:LISTN. While searching for sources does bring up a few hits of the term "half-angel" used in the same context, none of them discuss the concept as a group. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Merge with List of fictional angels. There aren't enough entries to justify this list article. Just make a section for half angels over there. Dream Focus 16:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Merge to List of fictional angels per Dream Focus. bd2412 T 17:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Merge to List of fictional angels per Dream Focus. A separate section in that list makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete, merge to list of fictional angles would be erroneous. Viztor (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Geoffroi (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete, as others. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete per others. Half-angels are not the same as angels. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment (completely offtopic ... "why than coola, why?":)), is it just me or does this title and List of fictional angels possibly imply that wikipedia is suggesting that there are "non-fiction" or real angels? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Until the sourcing question is resolved, that is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Macau order of precedence

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

This article does not cite any source. I cannot find any official order of precedence of the Macau SAR. The current list is just an imitation of Hong Kong order of precedence. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CThomas (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment According to A.55 of the Macau SAR Basic Law the order of precedence is to be fixed by statute. Was such a statute ever actually issued? If so I'd lean keep based on WP:NEXIST. Macau almost certainly does have an order of precedence fixed in law which is notable for the same reason that the HK order of precedence is notable (sure, WP:WAX, but in this case I'd say it's pretty well established that orders of precedence are notable). FOARP (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep per FOARP. SpinningSpark 22:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Unsourced. DrKay (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. There is a likelihood a system of similar sort exist, however, there is no source indicating the truthfulness of the article. Viztor (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete: WP:NORESCUE; even the intro sentence is unverifed vagueness with no source and should have died through WP:PROVEIT years ago. WP:NPOSSIBLE only bends so far before it becomes "The Emperor's New Clothes". The Macau SAR started in 1993: It's not ancient history; it's an existing entity with modern online coverage. Yet the whole article has been sitting there since 2007 without any evidence, and I still can't find proof of the article subject existing in a brief Google search. There's not even a source for the intro sentence to show that the subject "is" at all, let alone that it's what the sentence says it is. Article 55 of the Basic Law of Macau seems to be translated in some sources as "If the Chief Executive of the Macao Special Administrative Region is not able to discharge his or her duties for a short period, such duties shall temporarily be assumed by the secretaries of the departments in the order of precedence, which shall be stipulated by law." That sounds more like an order of succession to me than an honorary order of precedence. WP:CRYSTAL prohibits "unverifiable speculation or presumptions" and reminds us that "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." If sources are still not forthcoming after 11+ years to even prove that the subject came into existence, let alone its basic attributes, that's far below the threshold needed for WP:GNG. --Closeapple (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete as per Closeapple. Can be recreated if sourcing ever turns up. Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be complete original research on hypothetical 'hierarchy.' Zero sources and no evidence they can be found for this exact alleged order. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Nonso Amadi

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

the topic of this article fails WP:NMUSIC , it fails wikipedia notability guildlines, it is WP:TOOSOON , another upcoming musician without any relevant to speak about Samat lib (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.Samat lib (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't looked into the whole article, but the entirety of the 'Career' section is plagiarized directly from the two sources listed in the article. I have no opinion on notability yet, but the article could probably also use one or two more good sources if they're out there; it's personal preference, but I think 3–5 good sources is an ideal amount for short bios like this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep. The subject appears to be notable. He received three nominations at the 2018 edition of The Headies, the biggest music awards show in Nigeria. A Google search of him shows some of his releases being discussed in reliable sources. Here are a few reliable sources I found: Okay Africa and Complex. Versace1608 14:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: the upcoming musician was not nominated at the 2018 edition please verify your statement here <ref>https://dailypost.ng/2018/05/03/headies-withdraws-nonso-amadi-2018-nomination-list/ dailypost.ng </ref Samat lib (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: the few sources provided on this page fail WP:NMUSIC Samat lib (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Great find Samat. I'll update the Headies 2018 page as soon as I'm chanced. But it seem like the best alternative song nomination still remained. HandsomeBoy (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: the upcoming musician has been withdraws from the Nomination list . <ref>https://www.flvibe.com/headies-withdraws-nonso-amadi-from-2018-nomination-list/ </ref Samat lib (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

According to the references you've provided, the disqualified song "Tonight" only affected two categories (Best Vocal Performance and Best RnB single). I can't seem to find any source that his other nominated song, "Radio" (Best Alternative Song category) didn't meet the period in review requirement. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep as per Versace as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Guardian (Nigerian), Okay Africa, Complex and others so passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ian Bruce-Gardyne

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA 10:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA 10:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA 10:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nominator that he fails WP:SOLDIER. Much of the other material in article seems to focus on notable relatives, but this does not confer notability on the subject. Dunarc (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America 15:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Dance Band (band)

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

Band with only local notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Fuse (Oddbods)

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

Article is not notable. No reliable sources apart from sources about Oddbods in general. MrClog (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA 10:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA 10:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Geoffroi (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Oddbods#Cast and Characters. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete Obviously fails WP:GNG. Knowledge (XXG) is not a fanwiki. Masum Reza 03:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

PrismaStar

AfDs for this article:

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

This company managed to generate a burst of PR content around the time it moved to the UK but lacks sustained coverage by reliable independent sources. Survived AfD in 2009. I can’t find any sources other than those provided, which are:

Refs 1 and 2 are to primary sources, establishing that the company has patents, not that it is notable.
Ref 3 is apparently a blog (dead link to Facebook)
Ref 4 is a brief blog entry that just links back to the company’s own ‘About Us’ web page.
Ref 5, 6 and 7 are interviews with the founder
Ref 8 is a blog
Refs 9 and 10 are the same piece, published first in a blog and then republished by the Washington Post
Ref 11 blog
Ref 12 reliable source
Ref 13 awards website.

Therefore despite limited coverage in a couple of reliable sources I don’t think this meets our notability threshold. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Not enough sources out there to write a non-promotional article. This article is a promotional piece. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. While it seems to be agreed that the subject doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, the question of whether the subject meets WP:GNG is still unclear. As more sources have come up during the AfD, the article should be expanded now - or merged, as one participant suggested - to prevent a future AFD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter Keely

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances for national team or in fully-pro league. Insufficient media coverage for GNG. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 94rain 09:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 94rain 09:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. 94rain 09:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 10:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep I can't find anything on the internet that's not already in the article apart from verifying he played (aside: look at the nickname for his teammate in the 1950-51 season!) and noting his death among the important Irish sportspersons who died in 2004. I do note that gives two different dates for the year of death, and (a potentially unreliable blog) gives Peter Keely at over 300 appearances for Shelbourne. That being said, a search into Irish newspapers at the time, which I'm unfortunately locked out of, gives some hits, not surprising considering Keely won two titles, played on the losing side in two cup finals, and, at worst, played over 100 games in a league which was well covered by the media at the time he played, at a time when football in Germany wasn't even fully professional. That being said I don't have time to research and expand this article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep - I've added several recent references to the article. The biggest challenge is the access to heavily paywalled 1940s and 1950s sources - I'm surprised how many mentions of him I can find in recent decades in the media - the issue here appears to access to 60 and 70-year old sources. Nfitz (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 12:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep I have added a couple of sources to the article. Apart from access to digitised newspapers of the 1940s and 50s, there are issues about search results in uncorrected OCR text, and how many title have not yet been digitised, so there are probably more than the 2 sources from that period which have been found and included. If the article is not kept, I suggest a MERGE to his son's article, specifically the section Dermot_Keely#Family, which currently only says "His late father Peter Keely played for Shelbourne". RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Abu H Imamuddin

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

Tagged for notability for three years. Cites a single source, which identifies him as one of two architects of a "notable" building (the building article cites no sources, perhaps it is notable because of its function - city hall - rather than its architecture).

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, JSTOR, and ProQuest, including by Bengali-script name, found: one review, in MIMAR vol. 37, of a book where he was one of three editors, his CV, and some hits as author/editor and "also present at the function" passing mentions. He's a professor, and his writings have been cited a handful of times, but I don't see how he meets WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Worldbruce (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable architect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Under the assumption that late delete !voters considered Morbidthoughts's arguments Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Voyeurweb

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

Limited coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

DELETE - Could not find references in google or news, nor results of any sort in newspaper search. On a separate note, the current article seems functionally unsourced. ogenstein (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you evaluate the existing citations in the current article?

2. Lane, Frederick (2000). Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age. Routledge Books. ISBN 978-0415931038.
4. Cone, Edward (October 2002). "The Naked Truth". Wired. Retrieved January 11, 2011.
5. Geirland, John (October 26, 2010). "Nude amateur hour". Salon.com. Archived from the original on 2010-06-03. Retrieved January 11, 2011.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The Salon piece is interesting but I'm not sure that it qualifies for reliable/notable. WP:RSP is noncommittal on the site but more importantly, the piece is a primary source which should not be used to determine notability. Wired meets RS but while its piece covers a range of subjects, the site's creator is handled similarly. The Spiegel piece mentions the site name three times but the references are trivial: Site is headquartered in Tampa; the reporter stopped getting emails from the operator; a photographer could have taken the photos from the site. Maybe at some point, the site operator decided that he didn't want to be notable as it might draw unwanted attention (which is raised in the Salon piece). Lehman's book mentions the site but in a minor way on a single page in the introduction of a 260 page book. We can't even tell what the purpose is other than to provide a basic example as this is the only page listed in the index. I looked at the Lehman article excerpt on MUSE and I'm not sure how to interpret this. The subject of the paper is not the site; rather, the site is used as the source of imagery. If you wrote a paper on athletics and used photographs of an amateur club to illustrate, would that make the club notable? As to Lane's book, it's completely out. The NY Times published a review of the book and it never mentions the site or its concept. So I went and looked at the book on google books and it doesn't actually carry a single reference to 'voyeurweb' although it does have a chapter titled 'voyeur viewing pleasure', which covers the history of pornography and technology, including the 'web'. Given the date of its publication, that's reasonable, but it is not a source for the site.

Of these, Salon is the most persuasive. I will say that there are a lot of pages with much worse coverage than this one (including the whole batch of AfD candidates) but unless I'm wrong about the Lehman paper or wrong about using primary sources to determine notability, I don't see myself changing my vote. ogenstein (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete Article is simply not notable.The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Struck sockpuppet !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep - The citations in the article along with these additional scholarly ones suggest that WP:GNG is satisfied. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NWEB & GNG. –Davey2010 19:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | 02:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete: fails WP:NORG / WP:NWEB. Sources presented at this AfD do not amount to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. This is clearly not going to develop a consensus for anything other than keep, although I note that folks here have flagged some quality issues with the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

David Simchi-Levi

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. No significant coverage in secondary sources. The draft has been declined for that reason, the author did an end-run and created the article directly. There are also tone issues bordering on G11 speedy deletion, particularly in the "entrepreneurship" section that makes up half the body of the article (excepting the list of publications). Huon (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy keep Easy pass of WP:PROF C1 due to GS h-index of 65 and C8 as current editor-in-chief of Management Science. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC as full professor at a leading research-based university, editor of one leading academic journal and past editor of another, 22533 citations, h-index of 65, i10-index of 156, and (based on the citations, h-index and i10 index) significant impact on his fields. People evaluating drafts and AfD submissions need to consider WP:NACADEMIC and other subject-specific notability guidelines. As WP:NACADEMICS says, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep as passing WP:Prof, however promotional bloat should be pruned. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC).
KeepAgree with the above proofs. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:NPROF C1 and C8 with Google citation over 22.5k and editor-in-Chief of a well-established academic journal. CASSIOPEIA 04:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Easily passes multiple WP:PROF criteria. --Tataral (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep but blow it up and start again. The person is indubitably notable, with an h-index of 65 (as mentioned above). Huon, I didn't decline the draft for lack of notability but for lack of independent sourcing, a problem that has not been fixed by subsequent editing – almost all sources in the page are either connected, self-written or unreliable by our standards. I looked for, but didn't find, better sources. I couldn't see any independent coverage of his business activities in the press, though there are the inevitable press-releases. Every aspect of this – including the unacceptably promotional tone, the ref-bombing with low-grade sources and the sidestepping of AfC – has the typical appearance of undisclosed paid editing, but Shiyuanw has denied anything but a distant connection. What I suggest: revert to this version, rescue any useable independent sources, and leave it for an experienced unconflicted editor to expand. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Eastmain, since when do non-distinguished, non-named chair "full professors at leading research universities" have automatic notability? Where does WP:PROF say that?

Regarding the citations, all arguments I see here are WP:BIGNUMBER. How does Simchi-Levi compare with other run-of-the-mill professors in his field? Have any "independent reliable sources" demonstrated that his work had "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed"? What impact? I hope Google Scholar giving some numbers without context isn't meant to satisfy that criterion. Similarly, criterion 8 doesn't just require someone to be editor-in-chief of any journal whatsoever. Are these major, well-established academic journals? Well-established probably, with a history going back decades, but which source confirms that any of them is major? The highest-ranked (by impact factor), Management Science (journal), has an impact factor between 3 and 4, which apparently is not enough for the top 10% of journals.

If Simchi-Levi were solely a businessman with the same kinds of sources, this article would be deleted on the spot. Huon (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

- See Figure 7 in for the table of median h-index for full professors in various disciplines. Among engineering fields, chemical engineering as the highest median h-index, namely 18. Among all the disciplines listed there, physics has the highest median h-index, at 32. For the Nobel prize winners in physics (table 3 in the same paper), the median h-index seems to be around 40. Simchi-Levi's h-index of 65 is extremely high (I would even say astronomically high) for any discipline. Nsk92 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  - That publication is outdated. The data in the tables you cite is from 2010 and 2005, respectively. The same work gives tables 4 and 5 where the professors with the highest h-index in various disciplines as of 2013 are given. The best engineer overall, Ted Belytschko, had a h-index of 58 in 2013. By now Belytschko's h-index has increased to 146 (and there's no guarantee that he's still the most highly cited engineer). Back in 2013 the civil engineer with the highest h-index had 29, now the same person has a h-index of 126. 65 might have been extremely high six, nine or 14 years ago; nowadays it's probably still above-average, but not exceptionally so. Huon (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    - For the two examples you gave, Ted Belytschko was born in 1943 and Zdeněk Pavel Bažant was born in 1937, both are more than 10 years elder than David Simchi-Levi. As for the journal, the impact factor depends on the areas. Please see the journal ranking in the area of operation research and operation management: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1803, David Simchi-Levi is the Editor-in-Chief or the former Editor-in-Chief of the No.2 and No.5 journals. And as a student majoring in this area, what I know is that we see these two journals two of the most important journals in this area, researchers who have publications accepted by these two journals are glad to select them as their most essential publications. As for the COI, you can see that I have no experience of editing a Knowledge (XXG) before and I made lots of mistakes. Why would he pay a person with no experience for creating his Knowledge (XXG), and if I want to hide the relationship, why did I ask him to send an e-mail to you? I agree that I may not be neutral enough but I tried to. And maybe you need to rewrite it. I sincerely apologize for my inappropriate words and my lacking of experience.Shiyuanw (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The examples I gave were the people with the highest h-index in their respective fields back in 2013. What you can see there is that in the past six years h-indices have been inflated so much that someone like Simchi-Levi nowadays has a higher h-index than the highest engineering h-index worldwide six years ago - no, he's nowhere near the engineer who has the highest h-index today. Apparently the h-index that corresponds to "best in (civil) engineering" has increased by a factor of at least three to four in the past six years (publish or perish at work, I guess). If we assume that the average h-index has increased by the same rate, Simchi-Levi's current h-index of 65 would make him roughly the equivalent of someone who had a h-index of 15 to 20 back in 2013, or even less than that in 2010 - higher than the 2010 median of 10, but hardly world-class.

Regarding the journals, what you present is not a useful ranking, unless you wish to claim that some affiliated publication of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, with a grand total of 12 published articles over three years, is the second-most major journal in the world, more significant than NEJM, The Lancet, Nature and Cell. Huon (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

http://diamscience.org/collections/show/154, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b803/829d28bdce8ff69407c41ec704d38fc7be48.pdf Please also see these two, I just searched the keywords "operation journal rank" in google and I randomly opened these two. Shiyuanw (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~jsokol/jfig/OM-OR%20Journals-rept.pdf and this one. Shiyuanw (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Reluctant keep despite having originally flagged the article for CSD A7. I'm not wild about the WP:NPROF criteria, which seem to me to allow distinctly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL academics to claim inherent notability for a level of notability that in other categories would come nowhere near, based entirely on stats and not on independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. However, consensus is clear and this AFD isn't the place to challenge long-established guidelines. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep per above. Viztor (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)