Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 December	30 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tobrother's opinion makes no sense and is discounted. Sandstein 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debarati Dasgupta Sarkar

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

This page was created for a musician in India, but she appears to not meet our general notability guidelines. I've PRODded this one, but the creator of the page took down the prod after making some modifications to the page. Quick Google search does not turn up anything to meet GNG, and the only link on the page itself is a search for "Indian Idol" on Times of India - and this link does not meet muster in the slightest. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I edited my opening. I apparently don't understand homonyms. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the article be deleted. If someone contributor is there to correct, then why he is not correcting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobrother (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- NOTE - The author of the article placed their comment at the very top of this AfD; I've moved it down in keeping with formatting. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Tobrother, the reason I'm recommending this for deletion was explained in my opening in here. To answer your question, read that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Chhabra

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

This article has been previously deleted, and created as a draft which has been rejected multiple times at AfC. It can't be returned to draft because the draft still exists with important rejection history. Searches fail to return anything other than the usual raft of social media sites. Fails WP:NACTOR Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe you'll find notable sources in some Indian language. Maybe it is more suitable for the Hindi wikipedia?Pancho507 (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, Pancho507, I suppose there's even a case for saying this is the English Wikipedia and not the Indian Wikipedia in English! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails both general notability criteria, and notability criteria for actors. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, cannot find any sources to confirm the information on the page, and awards/nominations seem to be for the films, not her personally. Only has roles in 2 small productions according to IMDb, so fails WP:NACTOR. Also, FYI, there's a duplicate page at Shikha Chabbra, which is also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shikha Chabbra. Achaea (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a copy of Shikha Chabbra, also up for deletion. SPA creator, drafts of these articles were repeatedly deleted. --valereee (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nobody apart from the nominator supports deletion, and since we do not vote here, the opinion by Parksbows counts as much as any other. Sandstein 19:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PEPA (organization)

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

very local environmental group, no general notability DGG ( talk ) 10:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see myself eligible to vote because I've created the page and my opinion might look biased, so I will humbly accept the opinion of the other experienced editors here. Yet, I wish to comment why I created the page: 1) It looks like the organization is more than 100 years old (under different name but still has the legacy) and its actions over that period of time seemed significant to me. Unfortunately, not all of the sources were accessible because many of them were archived in the old newspapers and libraries. I found what I could online, if anyone has access to other sources and wishes to help this project, I would appreciate it. 2) PEPA caught my attention because this organization has been fighting for a long time for the green environment and better Earth - all for the benefit of the future generations and I find during this dark time of ecological nihilism from many governments, this type of organization will have additional weight and significance for many good people among Wikipedia editors. 3) The organization (based in Purchase) never claimed its actions were local - it claims to be a US environmental agency eager to protect the rights of the US citizens. I believe that for at least part of its actions seem to have an impact across several US states, so it is for at least regional or multi-state.(New England?) 4)I replaced the link 11 with more appropriate one. If anyone wishes to help with more suggestions and links, you are more than welcome.--Parksbows (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that Parksbows is allowed to submit a recommendation here notwithstanding that they created this article. However, they are incorrect to say that PEPA "never claimed its actions were local". From the "about" page on its website: "The Purchase Environmental Protective Association (PEPA) is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the environment and preserving the character of our community. By monitoring development proposals and informing the public on local environmental issues facing Purchase and the local area, PEPA’s involvement and documentation of the historical, cultural, and natural features of its unique landscape serves as a vital resource to the community." (Emphasis added.) Technically, the organization's activities might extend into New England because New England includes Connecticut and Purchase, New York is very close to the Connecticut border, but I would not consider it a regional or multi-state organization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Metropolitan90! I’m glad that someone have finally commented here. I’m allowed to comment thanks to the Wikipedia rules (and I’m even allowed to vote but I do not want to abuse this rule) and I think it is right because I can explain here the reasons behind the article’s creation. I find that Westchester County Airport initiative in collaboration with the other environmental organizations (the links are in the article) is a good indication that PEPA is not a local agency by the nature of its actions. Westchester Airport was supposed to have millions of passengers a year and thousands of airplane flights and every major international airport has a global effect. This fact puts PEPA’s initiative far beyond local and one state organization (not a small state I must confess). Another case, the New York state’s lawsuit in the Supreme Court was widely discussed by the newspapers. And here is the New York Times’ article from 2004 https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/nyregion/footlights.html which speaks about PEPA’s history (87 years old agency by 2004) and its involvement with PepsiCo in the previous years. As I already told before, not all the sources were available to me and some of the sources about the organization might be found in the libraries and archives of the newspapers of the New York State. Let's hope that 2020 will be a better year for our planet's ecology! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone!!!--Parksbows (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judging the sources given, it meets WP:ORGCRIT. The article could do with cleanup though. – DarkGlow (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep local environmental advocacy organization that has gotten some significant news coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Schwartz (meteorologist)

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

Notability. A television meteorologist on a local channel. Big in Philadelphia. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Easily the most well-known weatherman in America's 4th largest tv market. In the past he has appeared on national tv (the Weather Channel). Also, co-author of an award-winning book [1]--Rusf10 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appearing on "national TV" on the weather channel is not a sign of notability, and awards are a dime a dozen, nothing defining about these awards. Weathermen are not generally notable, and Schwartz is no exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rusf10. Notable figure and inductee in the Broadcast Pioneers Hall of Fame... — Hunter Kahn 14:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local tv personality, little coverage seems to extend beyond Philly. "Inductee into the Broadcast Pioneers Hall of Fame" appears impressive at first glance, until one views the website, which looks an artifact from 1996. It is also just a local organization in Philadelphia. ValarianB (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I need to do some deeper-web research on this one. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since Bearian might do a little more research...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually a pretty notable meteorologist. It's not surprising that most of the coverage is Philly area, but it is one of the largest metro areas in the U.S. Has won several awards. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keepof all pages to delete this should not be one of them. he is a legend in the 4th largest market in the country and has had a career that included national exposure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.31.34 (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is not just some random weather guy, but it actively involved in the AMS and has spoken to them about forecasting winter storms. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has commented on national news outlets about hurricanes and has written a well-received book. Notability as a meteorologist is shown through wide coverage via reliable secondary sources. Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oliver Fish. There is consensus to not keep this article, but there is no consensus to either delete or merge it. Redirection is a compromise, allowing content to be merged from the history if desired. Sandstein 19:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Fish and Kyle Lewis

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

Now that's new. Not only we have a separate articles about fictional characters (twins) Oliver Fish and Kyle Lewis but we also have this article about them as a duo. Three is a bit too much, wouldn't you say so? References don't seem to support the notability of the duo (fails GNG). Delete or make into a disambig between those two (through KL is in such a poor shape that I prodded it anyway...)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article duplicates the content of two different articles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable couple in maybe the longest running soap opera on tv. Nom says they are prodding the very article this content would be merged to! If the content should be kept, it should; and the only debate is where to keep it, it is; then this was never a good AfD subject.

Perhaps instead a RfC to see what is the best outcome for all three subjects? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should definitely be merged with Oliver Fish because of the large overlap, but I am not sure which one shall be the merge target (the prodded Kyle Lewis has major PLOT issues and therefore seems out of the race). Since the characters' sexuality and relationship seem to be the reason why these characters are discussed at all by reliable sources, my argument would be to only leave this duo article up, or (one step further) merge it altogether into a parent article (I'd say One Life to Live storylines (2000–2013), if it wasn't ALLPLOT and hence AfD-prone itself). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are rare cases where a fictional couple is notable, such as Superman and Lois Lane. However this involves a couple who have existed in an active publication comic book for 81 years, who were shown on a date (well as Clark Kent and Lois Lane) in the very first iteration of that comic, whose marriage in the comic in 1996 was coordinated with their marriage on a TV show, who have been portrayed in at least 4 live action TV series (including the Arrowverse), 4 different live action films, and multiple animated TV series. That is the level of saturation you need to justify an article on two individuals who already have seperate articles, we do not have that here by any stretch of the imagination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I do believe this content should be merged with the Oliver Fish and Kyle Lewis pages and that a standalone page for the two of them together isn't necessary; though I also think the PROD that Piotrus added to Kyle Lewis should be removed at least until a merge can be attempted. If at that point it still appears Kyle Lewis isn't notable, an AFD discussion can be held at that point. Gleeanon409 suggestion about an RfC about all three subjects might also be a good way to go here... — Hunter Kahn 15:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, probably with Oliver Fish. The rise and fall of gay storylines on soap operas is an interesting reflection of changing cultural attitudes towards LGBT people in America. Toughpigs (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article should not become a redirect page, as it would be impossible to know which character the reader is searching for. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply a conglomeration of two existing articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that one of the articles has been deleted, some more discussion on what should be done would be good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Loving the gay representation I see before me, but a section on individual character articles would suffice. – DarkGlow (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A section where? Do you mean merge instead? Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright on the basis of the nomination and the comments above. This is the sensible choice, instead of merging or redirecting. -The Gnome (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome: Why delete, rather than merge? Toughpigs (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I agree that Luther Aragones's comment is not clear. It also does not quite address the notability concerns and the rebuttals haven't been addressed either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Lora

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

non-notable youtuber. All the sources I can find are WP:CHURNALISM (like freepressjournal.in and thestatesmen article), the rest are interviews/passing mentions or otherwise unreliable. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take it into account and not be deleted, remember that it is a piece of article that has this material. I have also added more references to it.--Luther Aragones (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Luther Aragones Your comment makes no sense. What should be taken into account? What material? Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae I am not contradicting myself in what I say. I referred to the material, say the article created, which is a piece of information and especially to evaluate the references added. Although taking into account this article there are many others that if they have any three references, this one has even more. Some are in an interview as he has said, but in the same way information about him. That is why I consider that it should be taken into account when applying this template.--Luther Aragones (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources either are not WP:RS or WP:IS (interviews). Subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.07:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete It's easy to become successful on Youtube if you make the kind of content that most people want. Pancho507 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berke

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

Doesn't appear to be notable at all. The only relevant Google result is this very article, suggesting a lack of reliable sources (or sources, period) about Berke other than the mere five already cited in the article. Also worth noting that not only is there a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by the late subject himself, but according to this comment he made, he apparently "want[ed] [his] story to mean something after [he was] gone" and "hope[d] [his] little notoriety as a transgendered person [would] help [him] to be heard on [his] way out from this world" - not a very good reason to create an article on yourself, wouldn't you agree? Vaporgaze (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This all is at best local human interest level coverage. Nothing here justifies having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole vote is basically a WP:PERX which fails WP:ATA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 22:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject was detailed in an Associated Press article, had two pieces of coverage that, while local, were still outside of subject's relevant geographic area of Colorado and Florida, and appeared on an MSNBC documentary. ミラ P 03:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needs more widespread news coverage. Plus, every single one of us will be forgotten, sooner or later. Pancho507 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low level human interest story. There have been many instances of changing gender and then reversing it, I'm sure this qualifies as anything out of the ordinary. With the article created by the subject and the comment left on the Jbhunley's talk page it sounds like he was desperate to be remembered, best to use other websites for that kind of thing. Mattg82 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AfD's like this are always tough as I understand the want to establish the legacy of those who have passed, but Wikipedia not a memorial and the coverage of Berke is not at the level necessary to establish GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Overcast

Not a notable publication; not encyclopedically relevant.--NL19931993 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP and sources do exist WP:NEXIST. Notable. The CBC covers it Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any RS to support its notability!--Saff V. (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All My Love, Alec Brock

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

Proposed deletion removed. No evidence found that this book meets General notability guideline or WP:NBOOK. As yet unreleased book lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, merely affiliated websites, promotion, personal blogs, YouTube and commercial/cataloging websites that indicate existence, not notability. Article appears to have been created by the author of the book. It's possible the book may gather sufficient coverage once released, but for now it appears too soon for an encyclopedia entry. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book has not yet been published, no justification for an article this soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I also didn't manage to find any coverage of the book in independent, reliable sources. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Campbell

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

Poorly sourced promotional piece by a WP:COI editor. Only one reference is in any way valid, and it's a minor mention. By the description in the article this guy is just getting known, mainly in Texas. Most of the rest of his "career" is "aspiring." So, at best, WP:TOOSOON unless substantial sourcing can be provided. JamesG5 (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails GNG. Let's walk through the references to display this. This article mentions him in 2 sentences, certainly not significant coverage. This article is an interview which is WP:PRIMARY. This isn't even an article but an image. And lastly, this is again, not an article. Overall, COI issues and fails GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HickoryOughtShirt?4. Not nearly enough significant coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The "delete" arguments are less numerous and weaker. The "delete" side argues that this was not an actual or serious assassination attempt. That may or may not be so, but it is not relevant for inclusion according to our policies and guidelines for articles about events. These rules are based on the amount, quality of an event's coverage in reliable sources, and its lasting importance. While there may well be arguments against keeping the article on these grounds, the "delete" side by and large does not make them. They also allege BLP problems, but these seem to be largely an issue of the title accusing the man concerned of attempted assassination, of which he was not in fact convicted. This can be remedied by renaming the article, and deletion is not required to resolve this problem. Sandstein 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

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

Mention of this was recently removed from Donald Trump. While there is media coverage, this doesn't appear to be a serious act and politicians are constantly confronted with random threats. This wasn't a serious threat similar to Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. This was just some wish by a random guy, which has been built up via the media desire for buzz and clicks. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 03:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 03:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs rework/expansion though to be Assassination threats against Donald Trump rather than just attempts, an expansion of List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots in the same way that Assassination threats against Barack Obama is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may not have raised much of a fuss in the US, but it apparently did in the UK, enough to call for a change in the law. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarityfiend, I am curious if there were only calls or an actual change in the law. It should be covered if this article is kept. No comments on the merits of the AfD. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBig Xrayᗙ 22:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to cover WP:GNG. Sources looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is comprehensively sourced and has clear notability given the extent of media coverage. The nominator's rationale does not refer to any of the reasons for deletion. McPhail (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was not an assassination attempt, per the sources, the prosecutor, and the later words of the perpetrator after his psychotic episode subsided. If there's significant content it could be merged into relevant articles about mental health, jurisprudence, or other suitable subjects. Otherwise, mentions in the press do not describe an assassination attempt, and the same article could be written about thousands of non-notable prosecutions, all sourced about as well as this one. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is entirely inaccurate. At his trial, Sandford stated "I tried to take a gun from a policeman to shoot someone with, and I'm pleading guilty". McPhail (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - While that might confirm his intent, does this rise to an actual "assassination attempt"? Best case, this should be trimmed and listed in an article that outlines "threats" to Trump. This really seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE for this case that hasn't risen to any level of major focus by the media or even Trump himself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The incident received extensive coverage in the UK media. WP:UNDUE does not apply here - it is about balance within an article. McPhail (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nonsense. And don't mislead editors who are not fully familiar with the sources and the facts. He did not plead guilty to attempted murder. He was convicted of having had possession of a firearm. No assault. No attempted anything. You think perpetrators of attempts on the life of a US political figure get 6 months in minimum security? All the initial coverage as an "assassination attempt" was revised and discarded. The only issue the media ultimately covered here is how to treat a psychotic young Aspergers guy who had a breakdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sandford himself said, under oath, "I tried to take a gun from a policeman to shoot someone with". McPhail (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Not all shootings are murders or even attempts, and most murders are not assassinations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If that's all you've got, McPhail, you haven't got much. "Someone" is not Trump (did you miss that?) and your argument is only a little stronger if he referred to Trump elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Following his release from prison, Sandford stated: "My friends had said Trump needed to be stopped. They said he was going to destroy the country — but it was the voices in my head which were telling me to kill him. Then one day I saw he was speaking in Las Vegas and I decided to drive there and do something myself." He also stated "The voices were telling me I needed to do a practice run before trying to kill Trump." McPhail (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That source is a News Corp. tabloid not suitable for such content.See "The Sun" at RSN. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comments on the last AfD from three years ago: "Has received consistent coverage since it happened, enough so that the BBC aired a documentary on it six months later." We could argue about the seriousness of the attempt but that is totally unrelated to notability.LM2000 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The documentary was not about assassination. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The documentary is titled "The Brit Who Tried to Kill Trump". The BBC introduce it with the line "In June 2016, Michael Sandford, an unassuming 20-year-old from the quiet town of Dorking, Surrey, attempted to assassinate Donald Trump.". McPhail (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tabloid garbage, promotional and primary for the documentary. Look at what you linked for a BLP discussion. Seriously? Here's the article that describes the documentary. It is about mental health, not assassination. [3]. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The incident passes WP:GNG and the article is well-sourced. No policy-grounded reason for deletion. — JFG ^talk 17:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article; didn't raise the needle in the US but seems to have been big in the UK. I do think a move could be useful however, perhaps Attempted attack of Donald Trump (2016), or Attempted attack on Donald Trump (While many sources call it an assassination, many more simply call it an attack, and it doesn't seem to rise to the level of many other assassination attempts). Other suggestions welcome. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's reasonable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Well sourced, meets GNG, had an entire documentary created about it. If reliable sources are covering this, it deserves an article, so this needs to stay. Jdcomix (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdcomix: Please examine the sources. The "whole documentary" was not about any assassination. It was about mental health, social services, and the courts. And it was just a cable/internet show that was slapped together and has vanished from public view. Like a segment of "Dateline" or "60 Minutes" in the USA. Also, if you'll look at the print media citations, they're all from the time immediately after the incident, before the facts were known and the charges were reduced to almost nothing. There has been no ongoing coverage or discussion of this inceident, because it's not notable. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not opposed to renaming the article, but it's received enough coverage to keep the article. I'll probably start a move discussion on the talk page tonight or tomorrow morning when I think of a name. Jdcomix (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name. I think that the topic is keep-worthy, but the title just seems wrong. It's really very much different from the Reagan example. I haven't quite come up with a proper move target, but I think something along the lines of an "incident", or something like the examples given just above by CaptainEek, would be much better. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Possibly the title of the article could be changed, but the topic is notable, received extensive media coverage and has multiple reliable sources (The New York Times, Miami Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC News etc.) Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name if kept. - Neither he nor anyone else was charged with or convicted of attempting to assassinate Trump or anyone else. But Wikipedia noneless uses a headline which unequivocally says there was an attempted assassination. I thought we were better than this. Moriori (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. "Attempted assassination" is inaccurate and belittles actual attempted assassinations of presidents like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom had guns fired in attempts to kill them, and several of whom were wounded. In conclusion, this was a notable incident but not an actual attempted assassination. Worth noting is that attempted assassination of the president is a specific crime. Lynette Fromme was convicted of this though she never fired a bullet, and served 34 years in prison. This guy was not charged with attempted assassination, served six months on lesser charges, and was deported. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more or less innocuous if it's properly renamed, but all the BLP disparaging descriptions of the incident would also need to be removed. Is it really notable when the only press coverage occurred right at the time of the incident and before the facts were understood. Many of the cited sources do not reflect the later descriptions of what happened. @McPhail: - Why did you create this article? What do you feel is notable about the incident? What brought it to your attention? I am not understanding your devotion to the current narrative in this article. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced; no case for failing WP:NOT has been made. Not overly concerned about the name; in my ENGVAR "attempted assassination" is a reasonable description; but would prefer a rename or move discussion to be held on the article Talk page. How are we for precipitation of the frozen kind? - Ryk72 ^talk 02:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this should probably be WP:SNOW closed at this point. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should resolve renaming, redirect, etc. No rush. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name if kept. Morimori is on the right path. Despite being relatively well-informed about that person's public events, the first I heard about this being considered an "assassination attempt" was when I learned of the existence of this article. The US Secret Service is very sensitive about attempts on the life of the chief executive of the US, & unless they label an event an "assassination attempt", I find it hard to consider that event one. And were it not for having an effect in UK public affairs, I'd go as far as question this event's notability. People get ejected from public events all of the time for various reasons. -- llywrch (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sheer WP:BLP reasons. This entire article exists to accuse a named, otherwise-unknown living person of a major crime that he has not even been charged with, much less convicted of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Article easily passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:SUSTAINED (albeit the longer term coverage was mostly in the UK). Sorry, and while assuming good faith on the part of the OP, this is not a close call. I strongly suggest a speedy close. Discussion of a possible name change can be carried out on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
obvious delete The characterization of this as a serious assassination attempt is patently untrue and there's no "balance" to be achieved between political mouthpiece conservative sources and the rest of the world. On top of it the thing reeks of a certain kind of recentism since it was forgotten about in the US almost as soon as it had happened. The BLP angle is also considerable. Maybe a new article could be written with a more accurate focus on the UK ramifications, but this version of it needs to be gotten rid of, without a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your comment represents a WP:PAG based argument for deletion as all of the issues you raise are essentially fixable. See also WP:Deletion is not cleanup. The article subject easily passes our notability guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though all the coverage happened within a year of the event and there's no identified topic for the article after cleanup? Asking you as an experienced Admin for guidance on this. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage was extensive and of sufficient duration to ring the WP:N bell. And Notability is not temporary. I do agree that whether this qualifies as an actual assassination attempt is debatable. Some sort of name change may be desirable. But that is not relevant to the question of whether or not this event passes our notability guidelines, which it clearly does. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion There is no question that the article passes our notability guidelines, but legitimate concerns have been raised as to whether or not the event in question was an actual assassination attempt. I would suggest that the article subject be broadened. There were at least two incidents during the campaign that involved Mr. Trump's security. This one and another where somebody tried to rush him. The latter one probably does not meet our guidelines for a stand alone article. There may have been others. I wasn't paying close attention to this sort of thing at the time. I would suggest that this page be broadened to cover security related incidents during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. A new name could be applied reflecting the broader focus with this title being left as a redirect. Courtesy ping SPECIFICO, Mangoe, NatGertler

While I have no objection to their being an article on security issues during the Trump campaign, assuming that there is some source article that points to more than just one such incident (so that combining them isn't WP:SYNTH), I do have a strong objection to the current title being used as a redirect to that page. Again, this would be being used in Wikipedia voice to suggest that a living individual attempted an assassination that he has not been charged with, much less convicted of. Really, the page should be blanked even while this discussion continues. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this was a security incident. It was a crazed kid flailing at a guard and knocked to the ground. That's all. He never got the gun, let alone did anything violent with or without it. I also question whether this had extensive or lasting coverage. One can find news reports of countless arrests and then more coverage at the time of the trial. In this case, the so-called "documentary" was a tabloid bit on a web channel run by BBC, now taken down, that dealt with mental health issues, not assassination. It's cruel that a single editor has written 90-95 percent of the text of an article that depicts this young man as a would-be assassain, and I'm stunned that the WP community is apparently content to publish this. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that post-release Sandford has continued to acknowledge that his intent was to kill Trump. McPhail (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it aligns with WP:BLP, perhaps the article should just be titled Michael Steven Sandford and then it discusses this incident and resulting attention appropriately. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That raises WP:BLP1E concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. BLP1E would be a showstopper for an article about the young man. That said, someone trying to grab a gun from a police officer at a rally for a presidential campaign is definitely a security incident, whether they got the gun or not. I don't remember any, but if there were any incidents involving other candidates the article could even be broadened to Security incidents during the 2016 US Presidential Campaign or something similar. Whether or not the term assassination attempt could be retained in a redirect would depend on whether it was employed by reliable secondary sources. That's what we go by. Our personal opinions are neither here nor there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were other security incidents: Man charges security barricade at Trump rally in Dayton --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After pondering BLP, specifically NAME and CRIME, I am inclined to think it would be best if the man's name was redacted from the article and replaced with appropriate pronouns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think one difficulty we face is the lack of coverage once all the facts became known. Really all we have is the coverage of the sentencing at which the judge said he did not think the kid tried to commit a violent crime. Almost all the sources are from a period of confusion made worse by the kid's statements after he naively waived his Miranda Rights and the prosecutor was making inflated allegations that he and the grand jury soon dropped. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an assassination attempt by far. Overall a non-notable incident not worthy of its own Wikipedia article.--Darwinek (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_White_House_intrusion should probably be deleted too, as it was clearly not an actual intrusion, rather it was merely an "undocumented visitor" 173.120.162.159 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the gun wasn't in the hands of the person & wasn't even pointed at Trump. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the many sources discussing the incident. The name of the article is not a reason for deletion, as it can be changed if necessary. Personal beliefs about what does and does not constitute an attempted assassination are irrelevant. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept. I have always thought this incident did not deserve an article, but discusssnts here make a good case for GNG based on the coverage in the UK. However the incident certainly does not warrant the title "Assassination attempt". I think the suggestion above for an article "threats against" similar to the one about Obama was excellent, and should be done if the article is kept (on which I am now neutral). MelanieN alt (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced, reasonably high-profile crime. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge to Donald Trump without redirect, rename if kept. I think it shouldn't have a stand-alone page per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a minor incident, and yes, of course it received press coverage, but I don't think it passes the WP:10YEARTEST. I think the amount of content devoted to this minor incident in a stand-alone article is WP:UNDUE, and the content instead properly belongs at the biography of Donald Trump (or maybe one of the child articles, like about his campaign), and so it should be merged. I do not think there should be a redirect, because this title is totally bogus. If the article is kept, I support renaming it, as it was not an assassination attempt and is not described as such by the consensus of reliable sources. The page, with this title, should be deleted, because we are giving readers the false impression that there was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump's life. – Levivich 04:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable per SIGCOV. Any such incident related to a POTUS in notable. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as the largest BLP violation I think I've ever seen here -- the title virtually accusing a named living individual of a crime they have not been charged with, when a court found them guilty of disorderly conduct. Sitting here writing this, I'm tempted to boldly blank the page or redact the individual's name, but that'd probably be unnecessarily disruptive. What about "2016 Trump rally pistol-grabbing incident", or Security Incident titles as suggested above. Feoffer (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Watchmen (band). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Tizzard

Fails WIKI:GNG.--NL19931993 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Watchmen (band), the band he's most notable for. While "was a member of two notable bands" is a notability criterion in NMUSIC, it isn't one that exempts the person from actually having to have any real sources — but the only reference being cited here at all is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a 122-word blurb about one of his two bands, not a source that's substantively about him for the purposes of establishing his independent notability. A solo album also isn't an automatic inclusion freebie either, but still depends on having reliable sources. There are things here that would be valid notability claims if the article were properly sourced — but there's nothing that's so "inherently" notable that he would be exempted from having to get over GNG on the sourcing just because of what the article says. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hsu

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

Non notable actor failing WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This actor meet WP:NACTOR#1 - he has starred the leading role in 2019 drama Some Day or One Day [5], and also starred a main role in 2016 drama Q Series: Love of Sandstorm. He has been nominated Best Supporting Actor at the 52nd Golden Bell Awards. Idolmm (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable appearances and sourcing. Seems like an clear keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrGibbons (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC) block evasion[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Park (TV series)

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

This show has been acknowledged by Cracked and Screen Rant, but this does not seem to be enough to meet WP:GNG. Newspapers.com and Google Books yielded no results. The other sources are TV publications that only give directory listings as well, along with a blog that does not seem to be an RS. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have mixed feelings about this one. It has received some coverage in at least two secondary sources, according to the article's own references, indicating some level of notability, but the other refs at the article are all primary sources that don't count towards notability. The missing part of the picture is whether it got any media/press coverage at the time of its release in the 1980s – my suspicion is that might have (i.e. WP:NEXIST), but probably not much... My feeling here is that this is probably just barely notable, but it would be preferred if one or two more secondary sources for this could be found to "clinch" it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the "notability" of this subject stems from what an awful failure it was. In addition to the mentions on Cracked and Screen Rant, there's a page on TV Tropes and some YouTube videos dedicated to mocking the series. This kind of thing isn't usually considered significant coverage in reliable sources, but for this kind of topic, I think it indicates that there's legitimate public interest in this topic. At least all of the mentions of it are independent of the source -- the company that produced Peppermint Park is long gone, and the page wasn't written to advertise the series. I think it bends notability slightly but doesn't come close to breaking it. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Having a TV Tropes page is not an assertation of notability. "Legitimate public interest" is not the same thing as Wikipedia-level notability, and this doesn't seem to pass it. Cracked and Screen Rant are literally the only coverage forms that are anywhere close to reliable, and I see no reason to invoke WP:IAR just because you think it's of interest to someone. All rare media is of interest to someone. Does that mean everything on Lost Media Wiki should have a page here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Well, notability is defined as "worthy of notice", and I think demonstrating "legitimate public interest" plays a role in that.

I looked on newspapers.com, and I found a couple mentions, which I acknowledge are very marginal:

Jordan Valley Sentinel (Murray, UT), Jan 14 1988, "Consumer Electronics Show: The Latest of Everything and Then Some": "E.J. Levine and the gang from Unicorn Video were there as were the people from the Peppermint Park video series which is a marvelous series for teaching preschoolers from Mark V Productions."
West Valley View (Salt Lake City, UT), Dec 17 1987, "Home on the Video Scene Dept.": "If you have preschoolers at home you can turn your VCR into a very pleasant learning tool with the Peppermint Park series of educational tapes which feature live action characters in various settings."

Looking at Lost Media Wiki, quite a bit of the articles featured there do have Wikipedia pages -- the current featured articles on the home page are Getting Together, Hortensius, Boone, the original version of The Good Dinosaur, Star-ving and a computer game called Big Brother that Wikipedia doesn't cover. I don't know if everything on Lost Media Wiki should have a page here -- I hadn't heard of it until I was looking up Peppermint Park yesterday -- but if that's meant to be a slippery slope argument then it doesn't scare me, particularly. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: The two articles you cited are both trivial mentions and not enough for notability. "But other stuff has Wikipedia articles too" is not a valid reason to keep this one. Have you found any reliable coverage? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I have not. Just Cracked and Screen Rant, and (to the extent that it matters) TV Tropes. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is not reliable source coverage, and therefore not notability. If you can't find anything, then it must not be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a possible recreation of separate articles about the person and his company, if good sources can be found for either. Sandstein 10:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Afflelou

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

Insufficient evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about a person and company that completely fails WP:GNG. Poorly sourced and no evidence of notability has been established. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 23:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The guy has been flooding the French tv with ads since 1978. The French article has 29 sources, which includes Who's who and the légion d'honneur ([6]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While per Comte the person may be notable, the article is a mess mixing info on a person and on a company. WP:TNT, with no prejudice to recreation of both topics in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satyendra Pakhale

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG with very few reliable sources about the person. I also get an eery feeling that this might be self-promo, as all IPs are from the Netherlands (where he is based) while there is no article in Dutch. The Banner talk 20:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the article itself has many statements for which there are no sources whatsoever, and does not particularly come across as WP:NEUTRAL. That being said, after some searching, I did find a few sources (e.g. New Indian Express, Telegraph India and TL magazine), though most of these are articles seem to be interviews. He does seem to have some possibly notable works, e.g. BM horse chair, Horse stool in V&A and Chair in Stedelijk Museum. The reason I put this as a comment, is because I am not knowledgeable enough about designers to know if these are actually passing WP:ARTIST, but wanted to share what I found. Achaea (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My point for this nomination is that it is a BLP, so sources should be about the person. The Banner talk 17:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Banner: Sure, that is why I put in those sources about him. I wanted to add the works, because they can count towards WP:ARTISTS, specifically under "4. The person's work (or works) has: (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.", so the works are still relevant to the BLP. Achaea (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do know design and he does check out! He passes GNG for artists. He's probably more of a household design name in the Netherlands, but, I do consider him notable enough for inclusion, the article just needs work. I'll drop some citations on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also dropping a few reliable secondary sources on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He definitely meets WP:ARTIST#4, with works in the Victoria and Albert Museum, Stedelijk Museum and Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Having work in major museums like those strongly suggests that SIGCOV exists. I have done some edits on the article, and will do more - including adding Missvain's sources, and also checking the long lists of sources and external links in the article, some of which should probably be included as inline references. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medhai

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

Unknown film that is undersourced. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in reliable sources such as a review in The New Indian Express which although a bad review it is clearly independent, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFILM. Coverage available in independent reliable sources. Sambhil32 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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