Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 27 - Knowledge

Source 📝

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 keep. ‑Scottywong|  || 04:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Willie Thornton (Canadian football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphaned since 2010, doesn't seem to have played any games for Edmonton or Hamilton, which would not meet WP:NGRIDIRON. A google search brings up a couple SportsNet articles about trades, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Bkissin (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
This began as a proposal to delete on grounds that the individual did not pass NGRIDIRON. The first two "delete" votes were made on that basis. Eagles247 has shown that contention to have been inaccurate. SportingFlyer now seeks to shift the deletion basis to a GNG failure. However, the newspapers that are likely to cover Thornton's career are, in order of likelihood, those from Commerce, TX (including Commerce Journal), Hamilton, ONT, Dallas, and Toronto -- none of which are readily available online. Given that the individual plainly passes the SNG, the presumption of notability should only be overcome upon a showing that searches have been made (and found wanting) in these sources. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Bkissin also noted it failed WP:GNG, so just meeting WP:GRIDIRON isn't enough. I've done a full search over two search engines and a Newspapers.com search for Canada, which only brings up mere blurbs or mentions like and . There's also a photo of him and a mention from the one game he played in where he dropped a catch. Otherwise it's all agate. I'd be fine with a redirect if there's a list of Hamilton players similar to the player we deleted exists. SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Passing NGRIDIRON creates a presumption of notability. Newspapers.com does not include newspapers from Commerce, Hamilton, Dallas, or Toronto. In order to rebut the presumption flowing from passing the SNG, something more is needed than on-line searches that exclude the relevant metropolitan areas. Cbl62 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"Willie Thornton" brought up no results in the Hamilton Spectator online news search, and their searchable archives go back to 2008. If you want to make the claim he's a notable college football player, go ahead, but a) he's not, b) I've done what I can to rebut the presumption, and c) across sports, we have a tradition of not keeping articles for players who marginally pass a sports SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"a tradition"? Huh? You cite a single obscure rugby AfD with minimal participation and where there was not even discussion of the significance of an SNG. That's hardly the stuff "a tradition" is made of. The actual tradition across hundreds of baseball and American football AfDs is to keep player bios that meet the one-pro-game SNG. The reality here is that you are advocating a drastic departure from "tradition". Cbl62 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Geschichte did an excellent job with the nomination at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Nico Muñiz showing that one appearance and no WP:GNG means sportsperson articles typically end in deletion, which is now the case at rugby league as well. Different type of footy yes, but meeting a sports SNG + failing GNG means delete is the proper outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
A lot of song and dance here concerning other articles and other sports... but I don't dance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Match reports don't contribute towards notability, and the other is a press release. He does not appear to be a notable football player either as that looks to be a lower level of competition. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:NGRIDIRON has long been supported by consensus, which means that published game statistics that show evidence of regular season play in the CFL are indeed enough to constitute notability. So when I read "Match reports don't contribute towards notability" my response is "yeah they do" because it proves passing the threshold established in WP:NGRIDIRON. --Paul McDonald (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, but all Knowledge articles must meet WP:GNG. Whether he has passed WP:NGRIDIRON isn't relevant for my argument - he does, barely, and that's not contested. Passing a SNG doesn't guarantee that an article is warranted. It just creates a presumption that there's significant coverage, and with Thornton, who played during a time where coverage is easily available on the internet, and at an exceptionally small college, that doesn't appear to be the case yet. We frequently delete or redirect articles on athletes who barely pass a SNG if they fail GNG as I've shown above, and we do not typically count match reports as significant coverage. We can agree to disagree again and happy to check if there's any additional coverage that comes in. SportingFlyer T·C 17:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Since he's apparently notable for meeting a subject specific guideline, may as well note WP:SNG states: These are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline. A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article. Note, however, that in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted or merged: a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found nor a mandate for a separate page. Good non-transactional sources still haven't been presented, even with additions to the article, and his SNG meet here is very weak. I really don't see how we can keep this. SportingFlyer T·C 00:54, 3 November 2020 (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 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ellie Geranmayeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially no coverage in independent secondary sources other than a brief accusation in Turkish press that she was connected to a coup attempt in 2016. Coverage of that incident currently takes up half the article, and should probably be removed per WP:SUSPECT. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, appears to have an h-index under 10 based on Google Scholar results. signed, Rosguill 22:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill 22:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill 22:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill 22:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete not even close to enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete not nearly sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC) ��
  • Delete. Too little here to pass WP:PROF. The coverage that does exist seem to fall under WP:BIO1E/WP:NOTNEWS. Nsk92 (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure I can add some other information to this page if that would make a difference. The Turkish story is not important for the headline claim (likely false) but for drawing attention to the fact that Geranmeyah was meeting with a bunch of foreign policy experts, some quite highly connected, sharing a broad ideological outlook which includes no love lost for Erdogan (I would bet the room was far more excited than concerned when news of the unfolding coup appeared on their screens). Is Knowledge not interested in events which bring significant attention to an individual (in this case, at least in Turkey) if those events are reported on with a false context? I'd finally say that despite it being highly unlikely that she and fellow experts were meeting specifically to assist the coup, they could still have been able to assist it once made aware of its scale and ambition. CarlosatUVW (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same bio copied everywhere. I found two books on books.google.com which might be interesting to look at. But they are published by her employer and don't have any in depth coverage either. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2020 (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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Lakeshore, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an informal neighborhood of some sort, but not the sort of legally recognized community that passes WP:GEOLAND. Pre-GNIS topos show a Lake Shore Drive, but no Lakeshore community (it appears on topos after the topographic maps became essentially GNIS mirrors). While I'm finding a few references for real estate listings with addresses on the drive, all I can find that references any sort of a community there is this obituary, which mentions a Lake Shore Subdivision and a Lake Shore Addition. Subdivisions generally don't have legal recognition as communities, so they tend not to pass WP:GEOLAND. Looks like this fails GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 20:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a subdivision near Dawson Springs, not a separate community, per the obit posted by nominator. Typically wouldn't have its own article, and I don't see a reason to have one.--Milowent • 21:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Subdivisions/neighborhoods are not notable. This, like many of the thousands of mass-produced junk articles in KY and WV, are just people who live on the same road and calling the whole thing a community. True, but "community" is not our basis for having an article. Reywas92 21:34, 27 October 2020 (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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Bill Dulin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable offensive lineman who never played in an NFL game and only played professionally for minor league World Football League (which is not listed as a qualified league under WP:NGRIDIRON). Cannot find much in terms of other sources to pass WP:GNG, but I would add that my Newspapers.com account has stopped allowing me to view full pages for some reason. Being an NFL draft pick does not make a subject notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Ongoing now. See Knowledge talk:Notability (sports)#World Football League. Cbl62 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Jarrah Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTINHERITED. As a standalone company Jarrah Records fails Knowledge's company guidelines, having a minor musical output. The article is puffed up with the personal backstory of the owner, including him owning a bar, but none of that makes the label important. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a difficult case. What is clear is that we would definitely not want a redlink here - we would not want deletion, but rather a decision about redirecting, merging, or keeping the article, since a convenience pointer to the clearly notable bands Jarrah releases would much better serve the reader than a redlink. (As such, AfD isn't really the right venue for this conversation, but...here we are.) Jarrah only has two bands on its roster, and as far as I can tell has only ever had two. If there were only one, or if one of them were substantially responsible for its visibility, that would be reasonable grounds for a merger into that band's page. But Jarrah is split cleanly down the middle between the two bands - the label is co-founded by the two bands, and both substantially contribute to its visibility. No single merge target arises, and so it would be a disservice to readers to redirect only to one of them. In such circumstances, a fleshed-out and well-referenced article of the sort we have now is the best solution. Chubbles (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I've had a look at the article's sources and find sufficient description in at least four independent reliable sources. Enough to pass WP:ORGCRIT. As for the article being puffed up: I dispute this. I believe the history of the organisation is important, detailing how the owners met and worked together.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, this was the first independent Australian record label established by an artist/artists that achieved domestic and international success. As a result a number of other Australian artists started setting up their own labels to release their work. It is well known within the music industry that without the pioneering efforts of Jarrah Records that other artists would not have gone down the same route. Satisfies WP:GNG and is not puffery. Dan arndt (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America 08:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Africa Contact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. TheSandDoctor 03:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 03:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator struck his own nomination and !voted for keep. (non-admin closure) KartikeyaS (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Rebecca Alexander (businesswoman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have had a look at some sources that are available and I'm interested to see what people's thoughts are.

  • New York Times - easily the most significant coverage on this person currently
  • W Week - the article is focused on Alexander but the article almost entirely piggy backs off the NY Times one
  • Yes - describes one of her projects as "the first free, exclusively plus-size stock photo library" so a possible claim to notability there
  • Fast Company - not sig cov
  • Auto Straddle - seems to be a promotional/paid for article
  • Katu - very brief

If people are not in favour of deletion then it might be worth considering moving the article to AllGo as Alexander doesn't appear to be notable for anything other than the app that she has created. She appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Spiderone 23:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, moving to AllGo wouldn't quite make sense as she's also known for the stock-photo project and the sources are really more about her than her projects. Passes SIGCOV. The article does need to be improved to demonstrate that notability though. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with both @Paul Carpenter and Bearian: points, I would also add that there are significant amount of other sources that could be added to the article. It just needs to be rewritten and put a stub label on it, which I included below. It also passes notability guidelines, because there are independent reviews of the book she authored. - Juju (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Other Sources


Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Williamette Week Portlander Who Founded App Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY The article is primarily about Rebecca
Bitch Media - Rebecca Alexander Interview Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Feminist magazine interviewing subject
CBS Local - Catering to Plus Size Diners Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Broadcasted locally and print coverage
Oregon Live Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Broadcasted locally and print coverage
She media Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY another profile piece
Total qualifying sources 5
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Spiderone, Since you are the nominator here so I am closing this AfD. --KartikeyaS (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KartikeyaS (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Agent (The Matrix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The character Agent Smith is definitely noteworthy and memorable, being the main antagonist of The Matrix series. However, the other agents are non-notable and forgettable, and this article fails WP:GNG and is an example of WP:ALLPLOT fancruft. It is unnecessary FANDOM-level material. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The_Matrix_(franchise)#Agents - I concur with the nom's analysis, but it is a reasonable redirect to the appropriate section on the main article for the franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Rorshacma. I concur here as well. A redirect would be of better service to our readers. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 02:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The arguments brought up only refer to the current state of the article. Did the nominator (or anyone else so far) actually do a WP:BEFORE search? Because aside from the sources present in the article, a Google Scholar search alone already gives numerous sources, which provide both plot summary and analysis. Sure, some of that content is about Agent Smith specifically (the importance of that character is undoubted), but many also deal with the agents as a group. (If other individual agents may be "non-notable and forgettable" is not the major issue here, as the article is about the agents collectively.)
Examples: Trinity as the "Real" Hero of "The Matrix" deals with the philosophical position the agents are in; Wake up! Gnosticism and Buddhism in The Matrix: the role of the agents when seeing The Matrix as an allegory of Christian Gnosticism or Buddhism; WAKE UP, NEO: WHITE IDENTITY, HEGEMONY, AND CONSCIOUSNESS IN "THE MATRIX": the agents as representing white supremacists (ideas of that are already in the article, though unreferenced); , , , , give us plot summary, definitions of the agents as a group, as well as bits of analysis. Do I need to enumerate more?
And if all of that should still not be seen as enough to meet WP:GNG, it at least proves that the subject is treated in academic sources. So at least some plot summary should be merged into the suggested target article, where it is as yet absent. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Daranios: As you said, a lot of those articles in the Google Scholar search are actually hits for Agent Smith (The Matrix) (as well as some articles you explicitly cited). I just don't see a reason why we need an article on the Agents as a group and Agent Smith separately as a character when surely this would be best taken together? –MJL ‐Talk‐ 01:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: In my opinion taking the two subjects together can work, but is not "surely" the best solution. I think it would be worse than treating them separately, because: Agent Smith is a somewhat special but fairly representative Agent in the first movie, but something quite different in the later ones. And a number of conclusions about the agents drawn in the secondary sources can only be drawn when looking at them as a group, like e.g. them being a representation of white supremacists. So a combined article would constantly have to explain what refers to Agent Smith, what to the agents as a group including Agent Smith and what to the agents except Agent Smith. That would make the article less readable and concise. On the other hand, what's the drawback of having two articles? Sure there will be some duplication, but as Knowledge is not paper, that's not really a problem. Daranios (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Many sources see the agents as the franchise's version of men in black. As that article does not cover this yet, there is clearly scope for improvement per our policy WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

    Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions...

    — Agent Brown
  • Keep - This is another declaration of subjective importance. The only policy mentioned is GNG, but given rationales pertaining to WP:LISTN such as this, even that's questionable. These nominations need better quality control and criteria enforcement. Darkknight2149 19:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as has reliable sources coverage including scholarly articles, therefore passes WP:GNG. The articles main topic may be different but still have significant coverage of this subject, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think I lokked into this a while ago. The issue is that the topic is likely notable, due to some scholarly sources analyzing the concept of the agent a stereotypical man-in-black government worker but our current article is pure WP:FANCRUFT (in the form of pure plot summary) that is borderline a WP:TNT territory. PS. Maybe Daranios could start a reception section, using sources they found? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I have added references from secondary sources, hopefully showing that there is already a bit of content which is treated in academic sources and therefore is not "Fancruft". As my efforts of improvement have been cut short in other discussions recently, I am not motivated to put more work into this at this time. As most secondary sources listed above are freely available, I invite User:Piotrus and User:Zxcvbnm, who seem to be more bothered by the current state of the article than me, to start a reception section. Daranios (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I still stand by my !delete opinion (but this time WP:TNT, per Piotrus). Could there be enough info to create an entire well sourced article? Maybe, but it's better off starting from scratch. There's hardly anything salvageable in the current incarnation, much like the deleted previous versions of the (in-universe) Matrix.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Given the fact that some sections are based on reliable sources, what instance of WP:TNT would apply to the article in its current state? Or, if you think starting from scratch would be better, would you, User:Zxcvbnm, be willing to create such a new article after this one has blown up? Daranios (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about create, but I'd certainly be willing to check the draft for notability and approve it if someone wished to create one.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
So, what about the first question, which of the reasons given in WP:TNT would apply in the first place? And secondly, if you would not create a new and better version yourself, and noone else would for the time being (a likely scenario), we would have none. How is not having an article better for Knowledge than having this imperfect article? Or, third point, why not keep this article until you or someone else willing has created the draft of a better one, and then delete and replace this article, rather than the other way round? We are all here to improve Knowledge, not impoverish it, aren't we? Daranios (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
If someone just wanted an all-plot summary of what an Agent is they'd be better served by going to their article elsewhere. I go to FANDOM for indepth, in-universe descriptions of fictional minutia. Given that the Agents are described in exacting detail elsewhere I don't see the harm of letting this article go.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Soo... no reason to apply WP:TNT. So we should not apply it.
More specifically to what you wrote, I think Fandom is great, I am happy that there is an indepth article, and I think such an article there should have more plot summary than the Knowledge article. But we are not here to discuss the values of Fandom, we are here to make Knowledge better. Daranios (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It's a start, but I meant that we need to write a proper section in reception, scholarly analysis. For now, the article is still TNT-able. For start, we should remove all that unreferenced fancruft. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I agree that a reception section would be a good idea. Please don't hesitate to go for it and create one! For the other thing, "Fancruft" in itself is not argument for deletion, much less for WP:TNT. To quote the essay you put forward: "If the user comes across fancruft, an approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved." If I am mistaken, please point out which part of WP:TNT would apply to our subject here. Daranios (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify to Draft:Bootleg Multiverse. ‑Scottywong|  || 04:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Bootleg Multiverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is just a list of projects, connected on very thin grounds. Even the name is spurious. BoosterBronze (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. We still don't have consensus here. It would be best to wait at least six months before anyone would think of nominating this again. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Francis E. Dec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Francis E. Dec is clearly not notable. His article's sources are questionable at best. The primary sources are merely readings of his rants, his birth certificate and his military service records. Two of these sources are trivial. The other one is a fan website. Honestly, the secondary sources are not much better. Amiran and Zuzel only mention him in passing. Another source is about a performance, not the man himself. The only substantial source is the fifth chapter in Sconce's book. Unfortunately, the existence of one reliable source does not make an article notable. I checked for other possible sources, but I only found Kooks: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief. I cannot access this book. However, I can gauge how reliable it probably is. Its title, cover and publisher give the impression that this book is little more than tabloid fodder. Overall, there do not appear to be enough reliable sources to establish this topic's notability.

References

  1. Amiran, Eyal (26 November 2018). "The Pornocratic Body in the Age of Networked Paranoia". Cultural Critique. 100: 134–156. ISSN 1460-2458.
  2. Zuzel, Michael (2 September 1997). "Fringe Religion Offers Different Nooks for Different Kooks". The Columbian. ProQuest 252904546.
―Susmuffin  04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin  04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin  04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin  04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin  04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. There have been three AfDs for this article, and the most recent one was less than a year ago. While I'll admit that may not make a convincing argument on its own, I don't think that any of the rationale has gone stale (in fact, there's more sources in the article now than there were then). I think that construing notability guidelines harshly is quite justified in cases where there's a political, financial or self-promotional motivation behind people wanting to keep an article -- but here, I struggle to see any ulterior motive for why the article would exist, or why people would want it to be on Knowledge. The reliability of the information in the article seems pretty well attested-to, so the only argument against inclusion seems to be a nebulous "lack of notability" -- but I think the numerous sources ought to count toward that (and there were even sources mentioned in the third AfD that don't seem to have been added into the article afterward). jp×g 05:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you implying that an "ulterior motive" is needed for an article to be deleted? This is not stated in our notability guidelines. We should not keep articles that are not notable. Furthermore, you have not responded to the problematic nature of the sources. Primary and unreliable sources do not prove that an article is notable. Only reliable secondary sources can do so. However, there is only one reliable secondary source that provides an in-depth overview of the topic. The other secondary sources are either not about the subject or only mention him in passing. I acknowledge that there were a few sources brought up in the last discussion. However, none of them are usable. His legal appeals are primary sources in articles that discuss one of their participants. The "Kook Science Research Hatch" appears to be a fan wiki. The Medium article is unreliable, as Medium is a blog hosting service. Finally, there are the two books that contain content copied from Knowledge. Obviously, neither of those sources are anywhere near reliable. Kossy's book has already been discussed. None of the sources brought up in the previous discussion add to the subject's claim of notability. ―Susmuffin  05:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete The most recent discussion was no censusus, and one of the previous discussions closed as delete. Only the oldest one, back before Knowledge had any real notability standards closed as keep. There is just not enough quality sourcing to demonstrate that this person is truly notable. We lack the multiple, reliable, in-depth secondary sources that are needed to show notability. Knowledge is not supposed to be based on primary sources, thus we do not directly use legal appeals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per John Pack Lambert. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article obviously needs a cleanup but this person is the subject of enough works to meet WP:GNG. It's unfortunate that most people (myself included) can't access Donna Kossy's book or The Pornocratic Body in the Age of Networked Paranoia, but having caved in and bought The Technical Delusion: Electronics, Power, Insanity it's quite apparent that enough in-depth coverage exists of this person. Panyd 18:49, 5 November 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Bopartiet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tiny political party with a few hundred votes and without significant coverage other than local newspapers. The nomination is inspired by the deletion of the United Democratic Party (UK). Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Axel Ingmar's List – Avesta Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tiny political party with a few hundred votes and without significant coverage other than local newspapers. The nomination is inspired by the deletion of the United Democratic Party (UK). Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:42, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Alvesta Alternative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tiny political party with a few hundred votes and without significant coverage other than local newspapers. The nomination is inspired by the deletion of the United Democratic Party (UK). Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:42, 27 October 2020 (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 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. Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Zadorin Eugene Mikhailovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass GNG, or NPROF. As far as I can tell he authored one paper in English and a few more in Ukrainian or Russian, which does not establish significant impact. Eostrix  ( hoot🦉) 07:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:41, 27 October 2020 (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 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. A redirect can be separately created and if need be contested. Sandstein 12:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

International School of Engineering (Chulalongkorn University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and promotional, with unclear notability. Even if notability were established, an entire rewrite would be required per WP:TNT. Article was merged and redirected to Chulalongkorn University in 2009, but the material has since been removed from the target article. PROD contested by Hog Farm due to attribution issues, which I have hopefully addressed via a dummy edit. Paul_012 (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Overall consensus, per to the weight of the arguments presented herein relative to Knowledge's notability guidelines is for the article to be retained. The nomination does not provide an actual qualifiable rationale for deletion. An article being used as a baseline for the creation of new articles is not a valid rationale for deletion, and being undersourced also is not. The article does provide some reliable sources, presently from GQ and The Philadelphia Inquirer, so a BLP-Prod is not an option at this time. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON.

The !vote for deletion following the nomination is also not particularly guideline-based, basing notability and deletion upon the state of sourcing in the article. However, per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". In other words, it is not absolutely mandatory that notability is demonstrated in articles via sources, although it is generally preferred. Furthermore, the user has not checked back here to address the two reliable sources that were added to the article later, on 21 October 2020 (diff), nor has the nominator. North America 08:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Benny Boom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very undersourced. Was maybe okay at the time of article creation, but is now being used by new editors as a baseline for new articles - Rich 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Rich 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - Rich 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Rich 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Week Keep Seems to have received enough coverage for the Tupac film. Not an especially strong case, but there are articles in other wikis. ~EDDY ~ 01:08, 2 November 2020 (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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Curtis Richa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Knowledge:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Curtis_Richa. Article's only source is not independent and only verifies that the subject is signed to a particular record label. BEFORE gives me a handful of interviews and a bunch of listings on Soundcloud (and the like), but nothing that would make the article pass GNG. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article is too promotional and needs to be rewritten from scratch to be properly balanced. If someone wants to give it a shot, any administrator can provide a copy of the references used in the article. Aervanath (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Freedom Debt Relief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see the sources presented in this article adding up to WP:NCORP. Those that are not directly tied to the company or company filings with government agencies are of questionable independence. BD2412 T 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC) BD2412 T 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and stubbify. Reuters says it's "the largest U.S. debt settlement services provider" and it had some high-profile run-ins with the CFPB. There's also some discussion in , a paper in a minor law review. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 08:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep "the largest U.S. debt settlement services provider" is notable. Often mentioned and or quoted as a leader in the industry. Lightburst (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, discussed in books, news articles, and even scholarly academic articles. Right cite (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I believe this company might be notable but for completely different reasons than available in the article as will shortly become apparent. The article itself is entirely promotional and has been whitewashed of all negative details. For example, while some of the Keep !voters above have repeated that the company are "the largest U.S. debt settlement services provider", this claim was not made by Reuters but instead is contained in this CFPB announcement which Reuters reported on and which throws a completely different light on the settlements than the whitewashed version in the article. There are almost no negative details in the article and what hints exist in the article are so obfuscated as to hide any fact of wrongdoing on their part. Also, while Rite cite correctly links to a list of scholarly articles, the very first paper is entitled "Federal Oversight of the Debt Relief Industry: A More Effective Means of Deterring Illegal Debt Settlement Schemes" and says
Freedom Debt Relief provides a fitting example of a debt settlement company that, despite being an AFCC accredited member, is mired in disputes with consumers suing the company over abusive and deceptive practices. Freedom Debt Relief settled a class action lawsuit filed by Washington’s Attorney Generalby paying over $800,000 to about 570 Washington consumers who used Freedom’s services. Freedom settled a similar case in New York for about $1.1 million. Freedom Debt Relief has also settled lawsuits in Colorado, Rhode Island, California, and Delaware. Additionally, Freedom Debt Relief makes it even harder for consumers to know who they are actually dealing with because it has multiple registered names under which it does business
Based on the above quote and the numerous other examples included in the list, this article is beyond salvage and needs to be deleted until such time as it can be rewritten from scratch. As it stands, this article is promoting a company mired in controversy and more dangerously, perhaps deliberately misleading consumers into forming a non neutral opinion on the company. HighKing 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the last relist there's been some strong opinions both ways, and I don't think the status quo of the article is really going to satisfy anyone. Further input to reach a consensus would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca 12:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong|  || 16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete The WP:PROMO tone is so insufferable even in the sections where states took action against them, that there's no hope of rescue here. In order to keep this, someone needs to remove the horrid tone and restore neutrality to this copy. Nate • (chatter) 22:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree this is basically advertising for the company. Didn't check their website, but wouldn't be surprised if some was cut and pasted directly from the site for the article. Some of the sources may be acceptable but many just don't seem reliable. Rivertown (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete The sourcing is horrible and it's clearly an advert article that would likely be close to impossible to write probably in it's current form. So, WP:TNT applies along with this not meeting the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Album of the Year (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DEL-REASON #7 and, especially, #8: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." The page has been tagged for further references since it was created in January 2018. The subject does not appear to have received any coverage in its own right in independent reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. The article's only sources are a tweet containing a bookmark recommendation from a music publication, and mention of a study conducted by a hotel accomodation website (concerthotels.com) in which AOTY album ratings were used.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the research, but don't see substantial coverage in these cites, mainly just one-off mentions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I initially thought the coverage might not be substantial. However, the stack.com.au article is entirely about albumoftheyear.org (AOTY) and the Dork and The Line of Best Fit articles were both written because of an incorrect release date which appeared to be based on AOTY. The "Online Music Distribution" book also mentions the website across multiple pages. Taken as a whole, along with the brief mentions in many other sources, I would call that substantial enough coverage for an article. CowHouse (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per nomination. There is a possibility for the article to be rewritten from scratch, though. Tone 21:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Archia Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. A minor patent holder who is only on wikipedia because a school project thought he was female, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete This article has way too much original research, relying on primary sources, and is a very massive violation of the no original research rules of Knowledge. Knowledge is not where you go to publish the work of a deep archival dive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor 06:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Patricia Billings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability? Qwirkle (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. There is a wealth of information and citations out there, I've added a number of them to the article to improve it. There is international sustained coverage over the period of many years, from 1996 to 2020 in reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, Popular Mechanics, and in numerous books, including the Historical Encyclopedia of American Women Entrepreneurs. I did a search under her name and the word "inventor" to find these (when just googling her name, I found junk.) She is a notable woman inventor, and the article should be kept. Before !voting, please see the improved article. Netherzone (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
No, there appears to be a wealth of listicle dribble and pressreleasitis about her...and the press stuff dried up 15 years ago, give or take. There’s nothing sourced to serious engineering, material science, or building trades sources. There’s nothing showing the stuff is in use now, or was ever in wide use. Qwirkle (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Ha. When and how much it was used is not the stuff a BLP is made of. This is about a person. What is relevant is the coverage. A profile in People. An article in the Wall Street Journal. And more. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
An article in the human interest/comic relief column of the WSJ? Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz 21:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Saatanan Radikaalit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NFILM and has been tagged since May 2016 for notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Dakar cherche de l'oxygène (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable short documentary, tagged since April 2015. Nothing found to help it pass WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sixx Orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all WP:NACTOR criteria and lacks the significant coverage required by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Her only notable role was as Devin in The Kicks, which fails NACTOR criterion 1 about having significant roles in multiple notable productions, (2) she does not appear to have a large "cult" following, (3) nor does she appear to have made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". TheSandDoctor 14:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 14:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 14:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 14:50, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Maggie Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a politician notable only at a local level of office. This is partially a procedural nomination because the existence of this article was raised in the deletion discussion on her successor as a reason why that article had to be kept -- but county executive is not a level of political office that we consider "inherently" notable for the purposes of WP:NPOL #2, and after examining this article in depth I'm not convinced that it credibly gets her over the "more special than the norm" bar that she would have to clear to warrant an article.
There are footnotes here, but about a quarter of them are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- and the stuff that is media coverage is exclusively local media coverage, of a type and volume that's merely expected to exist for officeholders at the county or municipal levels, and there's no evidence of the wider nationalizing coverage it would take to make her more notable than the norm for this level of significance -- and not all of those sources are even substantively about her, as some of them just casually namecheck her existence within coverage of other people or things.
And the article content isn't making a strong case for her importance, either: there's stuff about her response to a tax revenue issue that's completely unsourced; there's content about somebody else submitting a piece of legislation that had bipartisan support where Brooks' only role was signing it into law (that is, doing her job); and there's content about a fraud scandal that took down other people in the county government, and didn't involve Brooks at all except as a giver of soundbite (and thus has nothing to do with making her notable). The only content that actually speaks to her potential significance has to do with forcing the public library to revise its internet filtering policies, which is not in and of itself a reason why a person in an otherwise non-notable role would be of enduring national or international significance. People also don't get Knowledge articles just for being candidates for political offices they didn't actually hold, so neither having been considered but passed over as a possible running mate in gubernatorial elections, nor having run and lost in a Congressional election in 2012, makes her notable either.
Simply put, nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to earn her inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

John Wingate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessperson/writer. The article was created and edited by person with likely COI. I have toned down promotional content; see previous versions for more of an idea of what it was. Happy to withdraw the nomination of good sources are found-- will do so quickly if believable independent secondary coverage is found stating he won a TELLY award (or 3) (see talk page for discussion on that topic--it may be his company won something, but I can't even find that). BEFORE completed in Googles, plus NewspaperArchive, Newspapers.com, Contemporary Authors, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus... DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete My BEFORE search turns up a few hits, mostly for another John Wingate. Like Diamond, I will gladly change my vote if specific sources can be found. I see where there are sources for the TELLY awards but those sources would be considered primary, imo. Nor do I see the other 20 awards that is attributed by the primary sources. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Good point--Let us all be clear on the John Wingate who has written a few novels by names not mentioned in this article being a different John Wingate than this author. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Nikki Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR due in large part due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of her roles. While the majority of her filmography is in notable productions, How to Be Indie is the only one where she had a non-minor role. For the others she is either not mentioned at all or had minor roles.

My before search turned up results such as Sidney Morning Herald interviewing a "Nikki Shah" about grief, a CBS article about a local fitness studio, and an article about tennis. These are all merely passing mentions or interviews, but I believe there is a high probability that these are merely false positive hits about others with the same name. TheSandDoctor 14:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 14:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 14:36, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Killing of Muhammad al-Na'im (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another tragic event, but no long-lasting effects. Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 14:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 14:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Everyone seems to agree that the notability of the subject is not very strong. Since it is clearly a borderline case I will close the discussion as No consensus, even though the majority of the participating editors suggest that we keep the article. There is clearly no consensus to delete the article, however. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Vintage Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is not much significant coverage here, just looks like a Minecraft clone. Most coverage is trivial in articles talking about an update or with titles like The best games like Minecraft or 4 best PC games like Minecraft. Can't see this passing WP:GNG. Dylsss 13:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dylsss 13:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, not much more to be said. The nom sums it up.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: While 3 of the references listed do indeed contain more trivial mentions and direct comparisons to Minecraft, the article also has dedicated coverage in the other 2 references: Vintage Story Is An Uncompromising Survival Sandbox Inspired By Lovecraft and The impressive Seasons Update for wilderness survival sandbox Vintage Story is out. These sources look to be independent and reputable enough to class the game as notable. Calling Vintage Story a Minecraft clone is as accurate as calling Minecraft an Infiniminer clone -- Infiniminer was one of Notch's biggest influences in creating Minecraft. It would not be fair to disparage the game due to the context of the articles it is mentioned in; in reality the block-based art style is where the similarity between the two games ends. The description of the game in the Gameplay section illustrates the uniqueness of the game in this respect. fruitshakes (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added two more sources focused exclusively on the game. Also, given that Minecraft is so popular, it is very easy to label any pixel-graphic block-based survival game as a Minecraft clone. Yes, it is very true that Vintage Story is arguably a Minecraft clone, because it was created with the goal of being a better Minecraft. This does not invalidate the merits of the game itself as shown in the reviews, which all basically say it does everything Minecraft does but better. - VeryGoodDog 15:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Extremely Weak Keep I'm going with keep because of the two reviews from Gaming Cypher and Rock Paper Shotgun. While I agree the rest are bad, and the she Rock Paper Shotgun article could probably be better, I still think it's enough. Although, it's really border line. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Gaming Cypher, Gaming on Linux, and Power up Gaming all look like very obscure sites to me, and not reliable. Rock, Paper, Shotgun (which is owned by Eurogamer) is the only source establishing notability in my opinion. For a game which is very similar to Minecraft, I don't think it's enough coverage. Dylsss 16:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep pre Adamant1. The RPS review is substantial for sure. Perhaps the others aren't especially substantial and reliable, but it's borderline. What tips me to a weak keep instead of merge is that this makes more sense as a stand-alone article than covered in some other article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2020 (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 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Tulani Bridgewater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Refs are not RS and are minor mentions. There is no independent in-depth coverage. Searching does not find any sigcov. MB 00:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC) MB 00:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus that the subject passes WP:NPOL. TheSandDoctor 14:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Puteri Anetta Komarudin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NPOL, Notability is assumed when either of two criterion from NPOL is satisfied, subject of article is leaning on #1 of NPOL but a before search shows she lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Even the two sources used in the article are shaky, this isn’t a reliable source & the second being this source is not even about her. GNG is definitely not satisfied here. Lastly, notability is not inherited, her father is a notable politician but it doesn’t translate to her being auto notable via proximity. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@AleatoryPonderings, Sorry for the late response. Now that was what was hard about nominating this for deletion. People are presumed notable if they satisfy either of the two criterion from NPOL but the keyword here is presumed notable & not are notable so I carried out a before search thinking I’d see an abundance of RS seeing as she has accomplished a milestone (you know, the typical type of first x to do/be y) type of sources discussing her but to my surprise this isn’t the case, she’s never really discussed in detail & most of the sources discussing her always include her father. optimizing the google translate would also confirm this to you. NPOL merely points to WP:GNG & in itself isn’t an SNG. Celestina007 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. She’s a newly elected representative so may not have attracted much media attention yet. Unless someone thinks she isn’t actually a member of the PRC, she’s default notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Mccapra like I stated above, NPOL points to GNG, per WP:NPOL people are presumed notable & not automatically notable if they satisfy either of two criterion in NPOL. So one can satisfy criterion #1 for example but still not be notable enough for a standalone article on them. Like you said she hasn’t attracted media coverage just yet. Wouldn’t this then be an archetype WP:TOOSOON scenario? Celestina007 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2020 (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 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. Like I said some sourcing seems to exist but I don't thnk it has convinced people. If further significant sources can be found the article can always go through AfC. Fenix down (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

East Riding Amateur League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE search yields nothing more than a trivial mention in a newspaper and an equally trivial mention in a book . Even FCHD has very little info on this league. I'm happy to be proved wrong but this looks like a WP:GNG fail. Spiderone 16:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Results listing and match reporting don't really indicate GNG, they can be found for competition at almost any level, so not really seeing anything to support GNG, bit no harm waiting another week to see if initial claims of notability can be supported by more substantial articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:13, 27 October 2020 (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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Home Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The edit filter picked up an IP address tagging this for deletion, and then self-reverting with an edit summary indicating that they had accidentally tagged it while logged out. I took a look, and found an article about a local bus company, serving a number of universities in Virginia, which has been unsourced (save for an EL to the company's website) since it was written in 2005. The EL still works, but it indicates that the company is no longer in operation. From a quick look for independent, reliable, secondary sources giving it significant coverage, but I drew a blank; I don't believe the now-defunct company meets/met WP:NCORP. GirthSummit (blether) 12:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 12:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 12:46, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of That '70s Show characters#Steven Hyde. Eddie891 Work 13:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Steven Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE search failed to uncover any suitable coverage of this character in independent reliable sources. Perhaps make it a redirect to List of That '70s Show characters#Steven Hyde? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The "2nd nomination" issue arose because of Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Red Forman, Eric Forman, Kitty Forman, Jackie Burkhart, Midge and Bob Pinciotti, Donna Pinciotti, Steven Hyde, Fez (That '70s Show) & Leo (That '70s Show). --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

4Mag Nitrous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to sugest any notability for this band. Emeraude (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I was basing it on this: , and . I'm not familiar with these sources though. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Boleyn: The latter two are unambiguously self-sourced (no verification), and I doubt the first one fact-checked the obviously promotional claims submitted by their interviewee. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 27 October 2020 (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 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. TheSandDoctor 14:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Nallabati Raghavendra Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author. Fails WP:RS Palmsandbeaches (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:27, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz 21:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Bagbanlar, Ganja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should be deleted, because there is no indication on any other source that this place exists, and it is likely not notable even if it did exist. Techie3 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Techie3 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Techie3 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Bagbanlar is listed as a 'Section of a Populated Place' in United States. Geographic Names Division (1970). U.S.S.R.: Official Standard Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names. The Division. p. 276. - located at 40.39 N, 46.19 E. Looking at google maps, there is indeed an area with a 'Banbaglar Mosque' in the south western portions of Ganja. The other 'Bagbanlar' in that document is clearly Bağbanlar, Agdam. --Soman (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - See Central Asian Review. Central Asian Research Centre. 1963. "By the same decree the following administrative/territorial changed have been made: The settlements of town type of Bagbanlar , Krasnoye Selo , and Oktyabr ' have been included in the boundaries of the town of Kirovabad", having existed as 'settlement of town type' prior to merger with Ganja/Kirovabad this would be sufficient for keeping an article in line with Knowledge:Notability (geographic features) "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low" --Soman (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge If the small settlement was merged into Ganja, Azerbaijan, we should too. The source above established that this is in fact not a "legally recognized place, but rather it's a neighborhood within the legally recognized Ganja. We have nothing else to say about it beyond existence. Reywas92 21:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, if it was a town settlement before the merger into Ganja, it merits a separate article. Notability in Knowledge isn't temporary, if it was a separate legally recognized place prior to merger into a larger municipality it warrants a separate article. --Soman (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    • "Settlement" is not our basis for automatic notability, as you note "legally recognized" is, and "if it was a separate legally recognized place" does not have basis. This includes incorporation as a place with local government, or details about population in a census, or otherwise having defined borders, but not merely being a named neighborhood, about which nothing beyond existence is known. Still, we have no policies mandating separate articles for such places that can be covered in another article, just like the many communities that have been annexed into recognized cities and towns in the US, for example. Reywas92 20:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Türk dünyası araştırmaları. Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı. 1998. pp. 108–115. seems to have quite a lot of in-depth history of this place, at least stemming back to 16th century, but someone with better Turkish language skills could make more out of it. My understanding is that the Bagbanlar (plural of 'Baghban') PGT would have been formed out of the two areas described in the book, the I 'Bala Bağban' (small Baghban, 'garden', old merchant area, with wineyards in 16th century?) and the 'Büyük Bağban' (large Baghban, rural area south of Ganja) http://www.gancapost.info/g-nc-nin-bala-bagban-m-h-ll-si-tarix-h1289.htm has some history on the area. Hüseyin Baykara (1975). Azerbaycan istiklâl mücadelesi tarihi. Azerbaycan Halk Yayınları. p. 11. describes the two localities as Turkish areas (in the context of Armenian-Turkish conflict). --Soman (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep based on Soman's research. I can't access those excerpts but I'm happy to try to track down native speakers to decipher them if someone can grab them.--Milowent • 12:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Soman's findings and we should avoid systematic bias in such cases. --KartikeyaS (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2020 (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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Juan Jose Galvan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was not able to find sufficient evidence to pass WP:GNG. I also was unable to find evidence that he passes any of the 4 criteria at WP:NAUTHOR.

  • - strong coverage but I'm not familiar with the source so I don't know if it's independent or reliable
  • - brief mention
  • - blog, passing mention
  • - is this reliable or independent? Spiderone 11:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 27 October 2020 (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 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) 03:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Anveshi Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been through AfD before. The previous discussion concluded that the subject is not notable, nothing has changed since then. Still fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. My opinion is still that it should be deleted. Coderzombie (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: This has gone through multiple deletions before, that's why I agree with @Materialscientist: here. This page has been recreated by paid editors and socks. Coderzombie (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
There has never been an AfD consensus to “delete”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Previous AfD was Draftify only because there was a possibility of improving notability, but that has not changed in a year and unlikely to change in upcoming time as well, hence I support delete. Coderzombie (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Polite request for closing admin - please investigate as to whether the G4 rationale supplied would be appropriate in this case - when I contacted Materialscientist they did acknowledge they may have made a mistake and happy for reversion, but alas I am not an admin, so cannot do such an action. I would like to also kindly ask for non-admin closers to refrain from closing, if possible, please. Nightfury 21:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Recreation notification - I reviewed the reasoning here and on the CSD log, and decided that recreation made sense, both as a not-strictly a deletion and also that in such a borderline case, its recreation would also aid the AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not convinced by the article's sources. I even tried a bit searching about the actress. There's coverage in some reliable sources but not much which would meet the significant coverage thing. ─ The Aafī () 14:39, 3 November 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of screenshot software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see how this passes any type of guideline let alone WP:NSOFTWARE, this seems to breach WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
We have related comparison articles including Comparison of screencasting software. This content could be merged to related articles.Dialectric (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The stand-alone list ("List of..." and "Comparison of..." articles) is a well-established article category on Knowledge. The categories comparisons and software comparison show that this is a legitimate article form on Knowledge. As a stand-alone list, notability, and often sourcing, can be found on the linked items' pages. If there is something that needs to be sourced on this list page, that is not a reason for deletion of the entire article. Tabulating related, notable software in a structured list format, and including documented features of that software, is not original research or wp:synth. Knowledge:Notability (software) and Knowledge:Software notability are essays and as such are not guidelines and do not dictate or guide content. A search of past afd's shows that this type of article has routinely been kept at afd. Dialectric (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:STANDALONE, which states the article most conform to GNG. Standalone is not a get out of jail free card for notability. It specifically states that there must be multiple reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage discussing the items as a group. Said reliable sources are unlikely to exist, because the topic is far to pedantic. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'pedantic'? The group has certainly received coverage, including tom's guide and lifehacker.Dialectric (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Daisy Watkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reason as Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Static supporting characters; being failure of WP:ALLPLOT and WP:WAF. It's a fictional character written without sources of real-world consequence. Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The nomination includes the characters:

Geschichte (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:26, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Work 13:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Anton Van Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have one secondary source fails WP:GNG Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the sources in the article can be considered significant independent coverage from a reliable source. In several of the sources he's not even mentioned. A youtube video and his own book don't count as reliable sources, nor do lineage trees and school announcements about demonstrations (the YYA links). Martial arts halls of fame are not considered to show notability. My own search also found no significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2020 (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 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. Eddie891 Work 12:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Adam Huckvale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Darts player does not meet criteria of WP:NSPORTS and I cannot find significant discussion of him in reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 07:49, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ahmad Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article uses local mag sites and some other trivial mentions as references. I think these are not WP:RS. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 10. UserNumber (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Ahmad Hussain is a young Nasheed singer-songwriter (similar to Naat Khawan in Pakistan and India) born in Sheffield, England in 1981. Seems to be active only in the British Muslim community, so naturally he is expected to use British websites as references for his article. This article has 11 working references - many of them are archived references. First reference on this article is his PROFILE by an Islamic North American grass roots umbrella organisation – Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA-MAS) Convention held in Baltimore, Maryland in 2014 - an independent, notable large organisation. A full page of profile is not a trivial mention. He is certainly a notable artist...Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It does not meet Knowledge's defined notability and inclusion guidelines for musicians (see WP:NMUSICIAN). It fails WP:NSINGER per lack of significant coverage in many independent sources (one is not enough). He may have worked with several blue-linked artists and organisations, but notability is not inherited. I can't find any evidence to demonstrate serious notability. He might well have a following in Western Muslim music but he doesn't appear to have attracted major attention as yet. UserNumber (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 07:46, 27 October 2020 (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 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. Unsourced. Not suitable to transwiki and target unclear. Anyone can put in a redirect Spartaz 10:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Pecattiphilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG, WP:NOTDICT, There's nothing I got from a duckduckgo search that isn't a plain definition. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 07:46, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz 11:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Raph Graybill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Having a marriage announcement in the NYTimes isn't a good sign of notability. All the other independent sources are about the race for attorney general. Redirect to the article on the political race reverted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Does meet notability requirements in his appointed position as the Chief Legal Counsel of the MT Executive Branch. This is the highest level appointed attorney position in MT and his actions in this role are notable (advocacy litigation and constitutional defense that is more typical of an activist attorney general). I added multiple sources that are from before Graybill filed for office to show that the press coverage does not relate to the Attorney General run and show that his notability is first and foremost as an attorney & for his role as the top appointed attorney in the state. Numerous important cases before the US Supreme court & MT Supreme court.
(Beyond the current AG election there is press coverage for a political election he did win so I added that (notable for his age (youngest delegate), not just the fact that he won - hence the press). He has also received significant press as a scholar / in academics. The current MT AG race is significant and, thus far, Graybill did win primary, but I understand that that alone would not meet the notability requirements).
But again the primary qualification for meeting the notability requirements has to do with hist top level appointed government position of Chief Legal Counsel (+legal actions taken in this role). As another wikipedia article (Joe Jacquot) states about this role: "top lawyer for state agencies in the Administration overseeing litigation, rulemaking and other legal matters. Additionally ... serves as the Governor's advisor on judicial appointments.
Per Knowledge guidelines:
Here are some examples of people in similar or lower positions that have standalone wikipedia articles:
"On Knowledge, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." https://en.wikipedia.org/Help:My_article_got_nominated_for_deletion! "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Extracting_the_meaning_of_significant_coverage
I agree with the argument that the NYT wedding announcement does not relate to notability. I think another editor put that in as a source for full birth name (was not intended as a source used to show 'notability'). I have deleted the NYT wedding announcement as a source and replaced with another source that also shows his full birth name.
I also addressed other citation/source issues, making sure that there are substantial sources that have nothing to do with the political race and show notability as a lawyer, particularly the chief lawyer of the executive branch.
As for AleatoryPonderings' argument that Attorney General of MT wouldn't even meet the notability standards, that is not correct. It does not matter that there is no article for "MT Attorney general". The Attorney General runs the DOJ, and then each Attorney General has their own wikipedia article. The current Attorney General of MT (and I am sure all other states considering it is one most powerful elected positions in the state) has his own wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Tim_Fox_(politician) . In a related example, there is no "Montana Governor" wikipedia article, but that doesn't mean the Governor does not meet the notability requirements, instead there is a list of past governors and then there are standalone articles for each individual governor (for example, Steve Bullock has his own article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanan406 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We have standards that people who are only notable for being candidates aren't notable enough for their own Knowledge article, which seems to be the case here. I do think he would probably be notable if he were elected, but WP:CRYSTAL. SportingFlyer T·C 21:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand there are standards for candidates aren't notable enough for their own Knowledge article, but that is not the case here since the notability is not as a candidate (see new source material on wikipedia article). The reason Graybill is notable is for being in the highest appointed attorney in the state and for landmark case law in front of the US & Montana Supreme Court. This definitely meets the standard of a high level appointed position at the state level that are considered notable Montanan406 T·C —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment To be consistent with other positions I have taken, this should be redirected to 2020 Montana Attorney General election as a usual and appropriate outcome under WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. My position is not bolded because with now 14 days until the election, and notwithstanding concerns about Knowledge being a repository of campaign brochures, I think we should refrain from deleting subjects within the last few days before an election when they might become elected to a position that confers the presumption of notability. --Enos733 (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per my usual standards for lawyers: Rhodes Scholar, clerk to a famous court, counsel to a governor, DNC member, and argued several SCOTUS cases. As a politician, I would redirect this article as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Graybill serves as the current Chief Legal Counsel to Governor Bullock in Montana. Not only is this a notable position in its own right, it is critically important right now as the state responds to the Covid-19 pandemic. From his position in the Governor’s office, Graybill plays a significant role in enforcement of state mandates. Considering the constant revisions to state-wide rules and fluctuations in enforcement, there’s currently an overriding public interest in having transparency into state government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whawes444 (talk • contribs) — Whawes444 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment That is a good point- He is heading up legal enforcement for the Governor's covid directive. There has been a recent surge in cases in the state and enforcement related actions. Sorry I have been a bit busy and am slow with Knowledge editing. I will look up some sources and add a new section because this is very significant/important right now. Montanan406 T·C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.44.237 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Bearian that Graybill's judicial activity in the upper echelons of state government is sufficient grounds for notability, even though the political candidacy by itself isn't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 07:42, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz 21:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Jeff Sebo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the page does not seem to meet the criteria laid out at WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BIO. I see brief mentions of Dr. Sebo in an NYT opinion article and Vox as well as two book reviews in obscure journals 1 2 but no "significant coverage," no "highly prestigious" awards, no "named chair" or distinguished professor" position, and so on. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep I disagree about the award thing I don't think that is relevant but I agree that the article does not have much on it right now but there is a peer-reviewed literature that mentions Sebo's contributions to animal research of course most people are not educated in this subject so it may be harder to expand his article. For example this in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics mentions Sebo. And there is a review for a book Sebo co-authored Chimpanzee Rights in the Quarterly Review of Biology . I think this is a case of expanding and fix up rather than delete. I have tried to read Sebo's material and I have to say the majority of people will not understand what this guy is talking about in his papers. If his article is to be expanded then yes we do need someone educated in this field. There are probably only a few specialists in the world who can read his material. But there is a mini-biography on Routledge for Sebo , that could be used as a reference. There are several book reviews for Sebo in academic journals. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your viewpoint here, Psychologist Guy, and I don't disagree that the sources you mention are interesting and valid. But they still do not appear to constitute "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" or the other criteria at WP:NACADEMIC, right? As in, even if we consider all of Sebo's papers and papers that cite or mention Sebo's work, that still doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I have to admit I don't usually look at the WP:NACADEMIC criteria because I usually edit historical individuals not associated with modern academia so you are probably right. I usually look at WP:Bio, the most important for me is WP:BASIC which is adding multiple reliable sources which is enough to establish notability and pass a biography article. I would agree that Sebo fails the academic criteria you linked to but it also says "Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability." Sebo fails the academic criteria list but I think he passes the criteria for a basic biography because there are a few book reviews. Sebo has co-authored articles with David DeGrazia. Like Sebo's article, his is also probably not passing the academic criteria but there are book reviews in academic journals to pass the bio criteria, to establish notability. On WP:BASIC it says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other". There are a lot of Knowledge articles for modern animal rights researchers like DeGrazia or Sebo which don't have any awards or named chair. I don't think we should submit all these to deletion because they fail WP:NACADEMIC because they do pass WP:Bio. I don't think I am wrong about this but if I am then other users should weigh in and clarify this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for discussing your reasoning. I still don't think it passes WP:BIO, but I can see your point of view. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that WP:NAUTHOR looks more plausible than WP:NPROF, but I still haven't seen a tenable case for WP:NAUTHOR. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I am surprised that you say this when I explain below how Sebo meets the letter of that guideline. Can I ask what makes my explanation "untenable"? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The criterion here is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." So there are requirements of (a) played a major role or sole author, (b) significant or well-known work, (c) subject of independent and notable work or multiple independent reviews. I think Sebo meets (a) for the books being considered other than Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers' Brief, so that's not an issue, nor is (c) since some of these reviews seem independent. But I don't think there has been evidence of (b) because these reviews are not in major journals, newspapers, etc. Essays in Philosophy, Philosophy in Review, and Nestle's blog don't seem to remotely establish "significant or well-known" within philosophy or another sizeable domain. Maybe these books are notable within the narrow field of bioethics, but virtually all academic work would be notable if "significant or well-known" WP guidelines referred to such narrow subfields. If Sebo is notable for these reasons, then I think that would be an unreasonable low bar for the notability of book-writing academics. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. It seems that our disagreement is this: I take it that the book being notable (i.e., meeting the GNG) is enough for it to be a "significant" work, but you take this "significance" bar to be somewhat higher. Is that fair? If so, I think that's a reasonable difference of interpretation. Incidentally, I actually do think that multiple high-quality reviews (even if they're not in field-defining journals) for a published book is probably enough to make an academic notable. This means that many academics are notable, but certainly not all: not all academics publish books, and not all books receive multiple reviews. I do not think it's a bad result that our guidelines (as I read them) mean that many (not all) professional academics are notable, just as I don't think it's a bad result that our guidelines (as I read them) mean that many (not all) professional athletes are notable. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's quite the disagreement because I don't think the book is notable (through GNG or otherwise). If I thought the book were notable, then I would be more amenable to Sebo's notability, though I would wonder whether they are notable outside the book. My understanding is that on WP if something is notable only in relation to another notable thing, then you should just have one article on the latter. But still, I don't think that reviews in Essays in Philosophy, Philosophy in Review, and Nestle's blog establish notability for a book or an other. I think your <small> comment is our disagreement. I don't think WP should lend academics notability so easily, especially given how such a policy would be biased in favor of academics who write books compared to academics who have just as much significance through papers. Jmill1806 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Point taken on the inheritance of notability -- I am just noting what the author guideline says. I am surprised to hear you say that you do not consider the book notable. The general notability guideline says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I struggle to see how a couple of book reviews in legitimate academic journals would not count as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. But I'm not going to argue the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of this AFD, I think that's an interesting topic. Please feel free to notify me if you want to discuss it somewhere more generalized, such as the WP:NACADEMIC page. I think it could be a useful guideline to have laid out, one way or another, because this is such a common sticking point for NACADEMIC. Thanks for the discussion. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks for the ping, Russ Woodroofe. Food, Animals and the Environment: An Ethical Approach was reviewed by Trevor Hedburg in Essays in Philosophy and by Kyle Johannsen in Philosophy in Review. It was also blogged about by Marion Nestle, who is a major figure in food studies, while Sebo was interviewed about the arguments in the book in The Age, which is a respected newspaper with a wide reach. This means that the book is notable (multiple independent reviews in reliable sources), which in turn means that Sebo is notable, as he "has ... played a major role in co-creating a significant ... work been the primary subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", as required by WP:NAUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    I would add that Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers' Brief has probably also been fairly widely reviewed (though I haven't looked), but Sebo was only one of many authors, so I can see editors objecting to using that to establish his notability according to the author guideline. Why Animals Matter for Climate Change, which is sole-authored, will almost certainly be widely reviewed (it's coming out with OUP), so if this article (incorrectly, in my view) ends up being deleted, it can be recreated then. (Sebo also lists some useful coverage of his work on his website which could help to establish notability or be useful for expanding the article.) And I would like to add, before anyone accuses me of anything, that I know Sebo. We both work in the same subfield of philosophy, so it's basically inevitable. I don't think that invalidates anything I've said. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    J Milburn, If it's just Food, Animals in the Environment that's notable, we should create an article on the book and redirect this article to it. In my experience, more than one notable book is generally required for an WP:NAUTHOR pass. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    I am not sure what you mean by that being the case in your experience -- that's not, as far as I can see, what the guideline says. Sebo is surely more notable than the book, and surely has some notability (even if not "enough" for an article -- as some apparently hold) independently of the book. If someone creates an article about the book, so be it, but I would consider redirecting Sebo's article to an article about the book to be a poor result. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    Generally, if an author is notable for only one book, then it falls under WP:BLP1E. If Sebo is only notable for a single book, then redirection is the right result. (WP:TOOSOON is also relevant here.) I do think that there's a case for notability via the NYTimes opinion piece (that is, it's publication indicates that the NYTimes considered his other book to be notable, and considered him as a significant contributor). I'm still considering whether that case convinces me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    I do not believe that BLP1E applies in this case. It isn't the case that "reliable sources cover only in the context of a single event", nor is it the case that Sebo "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". Both of these need to be the case for BLP1E to apply. I understand the "TOOSOON" argument (though I do not believe it is currently "too soon" for Sebo to have an article), and (if the page is deleted) will try to remember to undelete it if/when Sebo's work gets a bit more coverage. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    I think this specific point should be highlighted, because it clearly shows that this article cannot be a case of WP:BLP1E: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to…biographies of low-profile individuals." Knowledge's definition of WP:LOWPROFILE includes five characteristics of high-profile figures, the first four of which apply to Sebo. While the question of whether Sebo qualifies for notability under WP:NAUTHOR seems to be a legitimate question here, we should all agree that by Knowledge's criteria, the Sebo article is definitely not a case of WP:BLP1E. — Eric Herboso 16:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think the NYTimes publishing Sebo's opinion piece indicates they consider it to be notable or considered Sebo significant. NYTimes publishes lots of articles from everyday journalists or opinion contributors with something interesting to say, even if they are hardly known in the public arena. RS coverage is used to determine WP notability. Opinion writing at RS newspapers, which is not itself an RS on WP, does not seem like a notability-generating activity to me, and I've never seen it used on WP. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Jmill1806: I agree that it doesn't contribute so strongly, and certainly doesn't suffice on its own. In this specific circumstance, I'm viewing the opinion piece that refers strongly to a book that the subject has coauthored as indicating that he contributed significantly to the book. I further find that its publication indicates a level of interest from the NYTimes comparable to (probably a bit weaker than) an independent review of the book. At least from my point of view, it helps bolster the other reviews for a WP:NAUTHOR case. The situation where a major outlet like the NYTimes publishes an opinion piece from the author of a book in place of a review is fairly unusual, and I don't think I've seen it arise before. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Fair points. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a review of Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers' Brief in the Quarterly Review of Biology, also in a local library blog-type piece. He wrote an opinion column in the NYTimes that is basically about this book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • KeepThe subject of this article is regularly quoted in the mainstream media about animal issues, and he also is regularly appearing as an opinion writer in major newspapers. I have been adding some citations to improve this article as the citations need much improvement. This article is about a notable academic and should be kept. BrikDuk (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know of any WP guidelines suggesting that "regularly appearing as an opinion writer in major newspapers" constitutes notability in any way. The quotes are minimal and infrequent. They do not constitute significant coverage per WP:BIO or WP:NACADEMIC, right? Jmill1806 (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Jmill1806 is correct to say that writing opinion pieces and being quoted is, without more, not enough for WP:NPROF#C7. That requires that the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. We would need substantial evidence of his being sought after by media, which is not clearly available AFAICS. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per PROF, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:MILL. We almost never keep an assistant professor. Many professors get stuck at the lower levels of academia, myself and family members included (my domestic partner, FWIW, was an assistant clinical professor at NYU, too). I have written dozens of opinion pieces, and that does not make me notable. This person earned his doctorate less than ten years ago. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone is saying "we should keep this article because Sebo is an assistant profesor". They are saying "Sebo is an assistant professor, and he meets xyz notability guideline". Someone being an assistant professor does not make them notable, but it doesn't preclude notability, either. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Do a search for "currently an Assistant professor", there are 147 biographies on Knowledge for assistant professors. Do a search for "currently assistant professor", there are 50 different biographies for assistant professors, that gives over 200. Do a search for "assistant professor" we get 16,136 hits. I went through some of these, I got tired at about 600. There's probably about 4000+ biographies for current assistant professors at Knowledge. This does not include deceased. Some of these have been on Knowledge for over 12 years. We almost never keep an assistant professor? I just literally read about 600+ Knowledge articles for current assistant professors. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Psychologist Guy, while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't have so much bearing on this case. You're welcome to nominate non-notable assistant profs for deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, or userify. His current title is actually clinical associate professor, per the NYU page. Academics on the clinical professor track are generally not eligible for tenure, and often have a more teaching-focused load. Despite this, he's having a successful start to his career, with some reviewed books. I take seriously the reviews for Food, Animals and the Environment: An Ethical Approach: although they are fewer in number than they might be, they help support a WP:NAUTHOR case. The case for Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers' Brief is weaker, with the best case for notability being the NYTimes opinion case essentially on the book; this book also has a large number of coauthors. Overall, I don't see this as quite adding up to WP:NAUTHOR. Looks WP:TOOSOON. I expect that he may become notable in another year or two, assuming that reviews appear for the new book, but that is engaging in WP:CRYSTAL. Since it appears that there are a couple of interested editors, userification could be a good option, for readvancement after at least 2-3 reviews of the new book come out. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    The additional reviews found by David Eppstein are enough to convince me to strike my !vote. I think it's still pretty marginal, but there's probably enough there for a very weak keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Sebo was mentioned in the New York Times wedding section in 2014, and as a hometown newspaper wedding announcement is routine coverage a New York Time announcement signifies certain level of notability and interest that seems to me relevant to the discussion happening here. BrikDuk (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 07:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I recognize that Sebo does not qualify under WP:NPROF. He is also close to borderline on WP:NAUTHOR, due to only having one co-authored book that has generated a lot of nonspecialized media attention. But since he qualifies under WP:BASIC anyway, I don't think we need to debate either of these. Further, Sebo does not qualify for WP:BLP1E, which says "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to…biographies of low-profile individuals", as he meets the first four of five characteristics of high profile people as described in WP:LOWPROFILE. Sebo directs one of the first Animal Studies M.A. programs in the world, and his public philosophy activism results in significant media mentions — most of which aren't listed above, since the articles he writes and interviews he gives don't count as independent of the subject. Incidentally, the above list also only included traditional media mentions; I didn't bother looking up any of the numerous discussions of his work in philosophy magazines and books, since they were already mentioned by Josh Milburn in the original AfD before the relist.
I should also mention here that I didn’t participate in the original AfD because of a potential perceived COI due to serving on a board with Sebo. But since this has been relisted to generate additional discussion, I decided to add my thoughts. — Eric Herboso 10:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
You neglect that WP:BASIC requires "significant coverage." The RSs in your list (National Review, Sydney Morning Herald, Vox, and La Nacion) are single quotes or barely more. I think the strongest case for notability is still WP:NAUTHOR, based on the book reviews in low-profile journals, which he doesn't quite meet. In both cases, he is an early career academic and it seems WP:TOOSOON. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Geeta Shakya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this is a cut-and-dried case of WP:TOOSOON. She is contesting the 2020 election on a BJP ticket which is yet to be held on 25th November. The references only serve declaration of her candidature in Rajya Sabha elections, also the content of this article was copied from . Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Retain Elected unopposed. She has been declared as elected unopposed on 2 November 2020.Agastya11
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Quintus Arrius (Ben-Hur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character doesn't resonate/mean anything outside the novel and its adaptations. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Messala (Ben-Hur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: I am not seeing anything that goes beyond a plot summary and information on who played this character in various TV adaptations. At the same time, the list of 'who played him' could be merged to the Ben-Hur, I guess, through most of the information here is unreferenced (but it likely correct, the odds of hoaxes/errors here are low), if anyone wants to rescue this before it is gone. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Question: "This character doesn't resonate/mean anything outside the novel and its adaptations." Genuine question, but what does this sentence mean? If taken literally it reads like a subjective claim of importance, but I feel like something else was meant based on the wording. Darkknight2149 10:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems to demonstrate a lack of WP:BEFORE and general awareness of the topic. Ben Hur was a huge best-seller in its day, comparable with Game of Thrones or Star Wars today. The author did lots of research and it does not seem a coincidence that there was a real Quintus Arrius, who was defeated by Spartacus. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, saying "Keep. It's a major character in a major work" is equally as bad as saying "Delete. Only a character in book and movies" for much the same reason. Neither of those arguments are really in line with WP:Notability, much less WP:DELREASON. Darkknight2149 17:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep A major character in a major work played by a series of major actors. Merger is not sensible because our other pages are concerned with particular texts or adapations. For an example of a source which highlights the character, see Quintus Arrius, the Roman Triumph, and Christianity. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nothing particularly substantial to meet WP:GNG. The preview of the above is more commentary on the work than the character, so it's not super useful unless there are other sources available. TTN (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. Since the plot summary section is already covered at the article about the book, and the casting information section variously covered at the articles on the individual films, there isn't anything left for a merge to accomplish. Reyk YO! 08:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all The sourcing here is nothing near what we need to show notability. We would need substantive 3rd-party sourcing to show notability. For the record I read the book of Ben Hur, have seen multiple film adaptations multiple times. We just do not have the 3rd-party sources on either of these chaaracters enough to justify articles. Knowledge is not Wikia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: You pinged the wrong person. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry about that.Darkknight2149 00:58, 29 October 2020 (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 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. TheSandDoctor 14:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Skinny Bitch Fitness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article would not seem to meet Knowledge's general notability criteria (WP:NOTE) and the specific notability criteria related to films (WP:NFO) as it does not seem to have been the subject of significant media coverage. It also reads as an advertisement in violation of WP:ADS. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Caroline Junko King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR due to a lack of significant coverage of her roles, as is required by WP:NACTOR, WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor 03:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 03:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 03:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 03:50, 27 October 2020 (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 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. TheSandDoctor 14:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find anything covering this person in several pages of search results (for wendy diaz + islam). Unlikely to satisfy WP:BIO. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Smart Pistol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I really don't think mentions in a couple of overall game reviews + a couple of blurbs on questionably RS fandom websites support WP:N here. This is more appropriately discussed in Titanfall. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I generally think fictional objects are not notable, but there are exceptions. We have one reliable and in-depth source, , and some decent mentions in passing. This is pretty borderline, and I'll sit on the fence here for a while and see if anyone can find any other good source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Piotrus. As the article's creator, I am fully aware of the qualifications for WP:N and I believe this article fully passes them. The sites cited are some of the most major game journalism sites out there. This just seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the nom has refused to discuss whether the article is notable and isn't assuming good faith. Per Piotrus, there is one article entirely about the Smart Pistol's gameplay implications, and many numerous mentions. There's also this article that hasn't been integrated into the article yet about how a real life prop version was created, and an entire article by Kyle Orland about how good the Smart Pistol is that I should be adding in shortly.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    • " This just seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the nom has refused to discuss whether the article is notable and isn't assuming good faith." - Literally none of these things are accurate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Re: the lack of assumption of good faith: You posted a PROD even while the article was still under construction, without messaging me first to ask why I thought the article was notable. I messaged you telling you it had reliable sources, but you immediately went to AfD. That, I think, is a bit uncivil, and if done to a new editor would come across as WP:BITEy. Such knee-jerk attempts to delete ultimately hurts good faith attempts to nominate actual cruft for deletion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not interested in having this argument with you. I've made my case for why "being mentioned in reviews of the game" + a couple of blurbs in non-RS publications does not support notability for every game element. "But I say the sources are reliable" is not a magic bullet to get people to stop disagreeing with you. There is nothing further to discuss here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject appears to be adequately covered by reliable independent sources to justify a standalone article. Particularly where there's at least one instance of a game journalist writing about how it inspired a later work within the genre. Haleth (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be generally covered, and newly discovered sources means that this article can be more improved from its current state. It makes sense why this would be nominated for deletion, just the thought of a "gun from a video game" makes you want to speedy delete it. Heck, dozens of full characters fro video game series don't make it far. It truly does feel like n IDONTLIKEIT case, but it makes sense. Le Panini (me?) 16:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sources in the Reception section make it clear that the weapon is discussed specifically and in detail. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep With a Reception section like that, this should never have been nominated for deletion. It clearly meets all requirements to prove notability. Dream Focus 12:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Piotrus and Zxcvbnm. There's multiple sources covering this with substantial information, including out-of-universe context about its development and its real-world significance. It clearly meets the WP:GNG and I don't even personally see any issues with WP:GAMEGUIDE material based on how it's currently written, though if it arises it can be dealt with through the ordinary editing process. Could even grow into a WP:GA with more work (particularly scaling back some of the heavy quotations in the reception, but that's a whole other discussion, and only helps establish notability for this current AFD). Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Deepak Paladka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comedian who acted in seven films. Couldn't find any sources except , which is yet to be deemed as notable. Regarding this actor, it is WP:Too soon until the actor gains popularity. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2020 (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 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Kadamkadha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film only has source in Internet (reliable: ), which is not enough because multiple sources/reviews are needed to establish notability. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Boney M. discography#Non-international compilation albums. Eddie891 Work 12:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Christmas Time (Boney M. album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. Another common target of Knowledge:Long-term abuse/Hanoi vandal. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2020 (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 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. Geschichte (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sary-Kaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sary-Kaya should be deleted, because there is no indication on any other source that this place exists, and Sary-Kaya is likely not notable even if it did exist. Techie3 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Techie3 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Created by the same person who negligently mass-created thousands of false articles about places in California that are not actually notable communities. An entry in the Geonet gazetteer is not adequate significant coverage to establish notability: I cannot find any valid search results, though I don't speak Azerbaijani. The coordinates provided show just three buildings in the vicinity so the claim "is a village" is blatantly false. The comment someone added to Krasnoye Selo, Azerbaijan (another one of his junk articles) is interesting. Reywas92 05:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Reywas92. --TheSandDoctor 14:45, 3 November 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Zachary Iscol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. If there is no consensus to delete, redirect to 2021 New York City mayoral election or The Western Front. KidAd talk 00:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails GNG and much of the current page appears to be the result of an organized PR campaign. A few major contributors are SPAs and there contributions were basically puffery and advertising. There certainly has been coverage of Iscol but almost all of it appears to be in the context of The Western Front (film) or Task & Purpose and as such is better covered on those pages. I’m guessing that Iscol paid for a big media blitz at some point, either that or their fairy godmother did... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong|  || 05:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Intergang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Knowledge:General notability guideline and the more detailed Knowledge:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). All this has going for itself is a single sentence of 'publication history', other than than, it's 100% plot summary/fancruft. Le sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. William Harris (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - The only secondary sources are collections of in-universe details that fail to provide real world commentary on the topic, so they do not provide anything that can be described as significant coverage. Recounting plot details cannot allow this to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - Aside from the topic clearly passing WP:NCOMIC and Intergang playing a prominent role in the Superman mythos, there are several reliable sources that discuss their creation and history. Some examples:

https://www.cbr.com/things-you-didnt-know-about-intergang/

https://screenrant.com/arrowverse-superman-villains-teases-references-not-use/

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/supergirl-season-3-episode-21-intergang-season-4-superman/

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/10-dc-characters-we-want-to-see-on-supergirl/#2

https://io9.gizmodo.com/supergirls-premiere-teased-a-major-darkseid-lackey-1829741238

https://screenrant.com/apokolips-justice-league-trivia-facts-darkseid-steppenwolf/

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/supergirl-adds-adrian-pasdar-carl-lumbly-more-for-season-3

https://comicsalliance.com/electric-bluegaloo-act-5-olsen-vs-intergang/

https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/365fourth/2010/11/08/day-38-inter-gang/

https://www.gamesradar.com/best-jack-kirby-art-comics-creations/

Additionally, this is a topic that's likely to be covered heavily in older print sources, if anyone has the capacity to check. Darkknight2149 03:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep due to availability of significant coverage in numerous secondary sources easily found on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar concerning this notable topic. --Moscowdreams (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock account
  • Delete (Undecided; !Vote on hold; require more study; I'll try to get back here shortly)- Excuse me, but which of the links above are NOT plot summaries & mentions in passing? - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @GizzyCatBella: For starters, none of them are passing mentions. As for the first half of your question, quite a bit of it is non-plot summary (not that there's anything wrong with reliable sources also covering plot information to begin with). For instance, the CBR source has entire paragraphs of non-plot information, some examples being:
  • "The organization was developed by Jack Kirby for the Jimmy Olsen title Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen, specifically first introduced in issue #133."
  • "Intergang has shown up in a lot of DC media. They have become a bit of a go-to criminal organization for a lot of DC animated and television features and while they vary in goals across adaptations, there is always the core name of Intergang, and some recurring members. When it comes to live-action DC adaptations, Intergang has popped up in Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, and most recently in the Arrowverse, popping up in Supergirl and being mentioned in Arrow. For fans of the DC animated series, Intergang was woven into a number of storylines across Superman: The Animated Series, Justice League, Justice League Unlimited, and in Young Justice."
The Screen Rant source discusses how the Arrowverse layed the groundwork for the Intergang before they were eventually introduced directly. The Comicbook.com sources discuss Intergang in detail, as well as their history of appearing on Supergirl. Io9 discusses from a real world perspective:
  • "Who? Well...DC Comics character Bruno Mannheim was first introduced by Jack Kirby in an issue of Superman’s Pal, Jimmy Olsen. He’s one of the leaders of Intergang (later retconned into the leader of Intergang), a group of criminals that gives Superman a hard time and use weapons gifted from Apokolips. Usually, where Mannheim shows up, his patron in crime Darkseid soon follows. While Darkseid is apparently the ultimate villain for the DC movieverse, we haven’t really heard him mentioned on the CW superhero shows. Mannheim and Intergang were name-dropped back on Arrow in season six last year, but that was to note that Earth 1's Intergang was taken out. Mannheim’s mention here feels more pointed. Lena setting him up to be arrested could just be some plot contrivance to keep James out of the jail cell the writers directed him into last season. Yet hopefully Mannheim will show up in person to exact some revenge--and also hopefully he’ll have more impact than the character inspired by him and played by Bruce Campbell on Lois and Clark back in the mid-‘90s."
As does Screen Rant:
  • "Along with three new DC books (New Gods, Mister Miracle, Forever People), Jack Kirby also took over Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen. Because of Kirby’s interlinked approach to the four books, it was Jimmy Olsen that introduced Inter-Gang, the DNA Project (later named Project Cadmus), and the agents of Apokolips."
And Syfy:
  • "Adrian Pasdar, known to genre fans for his work on Heroes, Agents of SHIELD, and as the longtime animated voice of Iron Man, will join teh crew as the villain Morgan Edge. In the pages of DC Comics, this character, created by the great Jack Kirby, was the head of the Intergang mob, and of a group of villains who called themselves the "Superman Revenge Squad."
The entire Jack Kirby Museum article discusses Intergang from a real world perspective and their role in his Fourth World saga. As does GamesRadar:
  • "Though Jack Kirby is known primarily as one of the main architects of Marvel Comics, in the long term, his creations have also had a massive impact on the DC Universe as well. After leaving Marvel in the '70s due to dissatisfaction with his treatment as a creator, Kirby developed the concept of the Fourth World, the ultimate culmination of his fascination with the mythic cycle of death and rebirth. Populated by the heroic New Gods of New Genesis and their villainous counterparts on Apokolips, the Fourth World brought Kirby's unique fusion of fantasy and sci-fi to the DC Universe, connecting to the publisher's larger world through Superman and Metropolis. Among Kirby's Fourth World creations are mainstays such as Mister Miracle, Big Barda, and Orion, major elements of the Superman mythos such as Intergang, the Guardian, Project Cadmus, and 'Terrible' Turpin, and the villain that has become DC’s primary cosmic threat, Darkseid. Kirby's Fourth World has become a linchpin of the DC Universe, with characters and ideas from the saga still driving stories at DC, and co-writer/director Ava Duvernay's New Gods movie moving forward in development - with none other than Mister Miracle writer Tom King co-writing the script."
Plus, there's the aforementioned print sources that others have been able to verify above. To wrap - Intergang is both a major Jack Kirby creation and a staple of Superman and Fourth World lore. A better question would be why you assumed that they were all passing mentions and exclusively plot summary without looking through them. Darkknight2149 05:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
If those are the best sources, well - all I see are, as GCB noted above, mentions in passing - either about who the author of this fictional element is, or in which works it appeared it. Where's the analysis, where is the significance, where's the impact? Not everything that Kirby touched is automatically notable, and WP:NOTINHERITED is worth to recall. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@User:Darkknight2149 - Sorry for not responding earlier, but I'm occupied with other things. Thank you for the quotes. The first quote states which the authors of this concept are. The second mentions media it has appeared in. The third one seems to be a plot summary. The fourth again states who the author was, as does the fifth and the sixth. None of those sources seems to discuss this topic in-depth if we discount the plot summary elements. Just saying that this fictional organization was created by person X and made an appearance in media A and B does not seem enough to meet GNG, at least as I understand it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Sorry for the late reply. I disagree with your assessment that it's mostly passing mentions. The coverage establishes Intergang as a recurring staple of the Superman mythos (see the first quoted paragraph), goes over a real world history of Intergang's media appearances, and discusses their creation and real world development. The sources go into plot detail as well, but that is to be expected from any fictional element. "Significant coverage" also refers to the amount of detailed coverage received from reliable sources. There is no policy implication that fictional elements need to have a huge real world effect to be considered notable. That's not what "significant" in "Significant coverage" means. Darkknight2149 05:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Yet another "uncontroversial" deletion proposal, eh? The nomination's claims are false as the topic is quite notable, being covered in detail in numerous sources. Applicable policies include WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per identified sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep A number of sources on the topic were found, so it's good that this was not simply deleted after a PROD. Also fullfills WP:NCOMIC. Daranios (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per all of the above. Artw (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. In large parts, violates MOS:REALWORLD and is an accumulation of in-universe trivia. While it is conceivable, based on the sources quoted above, that a sort-of-MOS-compliant stub could be written about this topic, there is little likelihood that someone will do this, and it's questionable whether they should. All but the most important elements of fictional settings are better covered, in appropriate context, in articles about the respective individual works or creators, to prevent their cancerous growth into unholy excrescences of fancruft. Sandstein 12:20, 3 November 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Tor Naam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any reliable reviews about the film in Bengali (তোর নাম) or English. The best sources are , , and . The second and third references are not mainly about the film while the first one is a simple press release about one song from the film. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2020 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TheSandDoctor 14:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Antarnaad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage in RS or any reviews to help establish notability. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't completely understand the point. One could argue that, because of when the internet became truly ubiquitous, and where we are in time, the majority of films that exist were released prior to the advent of the internet. Still, this particular film has not received enough coverage (even from Indian publications) to satisfy notability standards. KidAd talk 18:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm going to give this film the benefit of the doubt. This film has 108 votes on IMDb, not an impressive total -- but it's the 75th or 76th most for an Indian film released in 1991. Would Knowledge have an article about the 75th or 76th most-voted American film of 1991? We would indeed (see Necessary Roughness (film) and Only the Lonely (film)). And considering that India is a more populous country than the U.S. with a larger film industry, I will assume this film is of comparable notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete The argument of having notable cast and IMDB votes has no bearing on film's notability. WP:NFO may be applied here but there are no reliable reviews or major awards to meet the criteria. If anyone could present these, I would be glad to change my vote. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Ab207. There is no proof that the film meets general notability guidelines or WP:NFO. I tried searching for reliable sources but found none. The film does indeed have a lot of notable actors, but there isn't enough information available for a stand-alone article. If someone can find proof that the article meets any of the criteria in WP:NFO, I'll change my vote. I'm reluctant to vote delete because it seems strange that such a popular film (many views on Youtube) would have such little coverage. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've cited three independent reliable sources in the article. More are readily available. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow. I'll know to do what you did for next time when I do my own WP:BEFORE. There is a tremendous amount of sources in that search result. It does meet WP:GNG after all. @Ab207:, what do you think? Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the film has a good chance of meeting GNG. Phil Bridger, would you take us through your sources and brief us on how they have significant coverage. Three sources are great but I'd give a pass for two as well. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2020 (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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑