Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 8: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:43, 8 February 2019

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 February	9 February >

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. Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClassifEye

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

I felt this was a candidate for CSD:A7 but am not a tech person so decided to go AfD under non-notable company and non-notable technology (most references are from 10 years ago). Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's note: Notability began with a full article published a decade ago about the company's technology and benefit to India. An article about Haloid would not be something to delete, even if today people ask "please Xerox it" rather than please Haloid it. I added a "Benefits to poor" section to this Wiki stub, which now includes book citations. Pi314m (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author observation: Wiki asks for contribtions, decries information being lost, and then . . . history gets deleted? A report posted to the U.S. Department of Justice, available here, says that nine companies in this space developed "contactless fingerprint technologies that are worth noting." The first two are now facing deletion from Wiki's servers. ClassifEye is listed first of the nine. The second is also HatNoted. The report notes both companies have closed. Is this like deleting history? I updated the ClassifEye article to point to the report. Pi314m (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing offered above is in passing and / ot WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Author asks) Merge? i.e. Start an article named Contactless fingerprinting and use both the above article and runner up Pay By Touch, the top two in the Justice Department report, as examples/sections? Pi314m (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pi314m That sounds like a good idea as the technology is likely notable (presuming that there is no existing WP article on this), and it could include discussion around the companies in the space. I find myself recommending on AfD often that older articles, where the sources have dried up for a decade, it is better to consolidate articles around a main theme. It is most likely as time goes on that such consolidated articles will survive, whereas individual weak cases will get deleted and and useful history/references lost. Britishfinance (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge, as articles on technologies are not used to house information on the companies, as it's undue promotional details. I removed the corporate overviews for the two companies: diff. It's excessive and misplaced. Generally, corporate articles are merged if there's a parent company, not a technology article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment. Got it. Without naming the companies (ClassifEye _and_ Pay By Touch), I described application of their technology: USA, England, India, Peru, Israel (section name: Applications). Pi314m (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marilhéa Peillard

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

Besides the fact that all but 1 or 2 of these references are to her modeling agencies aka primary sources, even though she won the Elite Model Look contest years ago, she doesn’t meet NMODEL. Don’t let the advertisement tone of this article fool you. She’s only done about 11 jobs in 6 years and none of them notable. There are not sources out there to substantiate notability. Trillfendi (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMODEL and also any form of GNG. Not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Politycki

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

Almost entirely unsourced, except the subject's personal website, a national library catalogue, two YouTube links to a short video by the subject and a reading by the subject. A Google search only gives one possible reliable secondary source on him by a local German newspaper: [1], so the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Beyond the fluff, the author does not qualify for WP:AUTHOR and fails WP:ANYBIO having won two minor prizes and being long-listed for the Independent Foreign Fiction Prize once. It doesn't help that all of the contributions to the article were from three SPAs (Jabel2150, Corvuslibri, 85.176.22.138). MarkH21 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC),[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I disagree about the exceptions to sourcing. This BLP article has one source about one book. Sourcing through the "External links" is inappropriate, not reliable, and IMDb is a user-generated site. If someone wants to keep all the apparent original research then "prove it" with BLP acceptable sources. The "Five pillars includes "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons." Otr500 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I am finding other sources on German websites but I can't tell how material they are: NDR.de, Stern.de. I can't find anything that would be a solid RS on English sources. He seems to have more than one published work (and even his "authority control" is showing up links) which can imply notability. Untimately we should not have a BLP on WP with effectively no references (the referernce is a link to one of his books); therefore, at minimum, we should draftify. Britishfinance (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think it needs more source(s) to confirm it in an adequate credit. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Paula Fox per WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Fox

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

Not notable as a screenwriter per WP:CREATIVE and doesn't WP:INHERIT notability from her descendants. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TNT as this reads like a National Enquirer piece brimfull with sensationalism, and gossipy tidbits and hardly anything about the subject's actual career. It is also entirely negative and borderline csd attack page, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited... doesn’t matter who was born first. Trillfendi (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:INHERIT notability. The page has nothing due with her as a screenwriter. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paula Fox as that's where she is name-checked in reliable sources. (example). Everybody quoting WP:INHERITED / WP:INVALIDBIO, go and read the guidelines you are quoting carefully and you will find that nowhere does it say you must delete an article. Specifically, "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B.". See Jason Allen Alexander. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paula Fox. Such an interesting story and connections. Seems like a shame to loose this text (some of the most interesting I have read in a BLP for some time). At least a Redirect would preserve what is there and maybe it could be fixed/properly merged in the future. Britishfinance (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Pryor (writer)

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

I am not clear that this writer and businessperson meets WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. The article starts with his relatives and WP:NOTINHERITED. I have found and added one link, though it is an interview. Tacyarg (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Tacyarg (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think he fails WP:AUTHOR and I also think it's a COI problem as well. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He has done nothing notable, and notability is not inherited from one's parents and family friends, royalty excepting of course. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; any case here is contrived at best. Doesn't even make an appearence in the English Times, Guardian or Telegraph Tier 1 newspapers; which would be very odd for a notable British writer, with such notable connections, and who is still alive. Britishfinance (talk) 16:20, 22 February 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. This is not the strongest consensus that I've seen. But there does not appear to be any appetite for deletion and this has been relisted twice. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Grau

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

no indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines. Only reference is to a company that releases his records. Google searches not finding WP:significant coverage in third party sources. noq (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is a rather notable individual in Venezuela as well as in a few circles in the recording industry. I just need to find a few more resources that prove his notability. If given a few more days I can find them.Lightning ride (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mr. Grau recorded nine albums between 1974 and 1983... a series of "reworked" albums a couple of years ago returned him to the public consciousness after being forgotten for 30 years. The problem is that he is completely unknown outside of his native Venezuela, and almost all reliable sources are going to be in Venezuelan print media from decades ago, and nowhere else. I can't help here, but good luck to Lightning ride in trying to find RS. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five albums on London Records in the 1970s, satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion 5. Coverage may be hard to find online, but it seems inconceivable that it doesn't exist. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Systemic bias/source availability arguments seem compelling. That aside, I think this might be an RS? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:58, 8 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur A. Oakman

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

Per source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards. Reliable source coverage is limited to minor passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations, none of which establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Lucifero4

@Lucifero4: Why? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article seem to be used. User:Lucifero4

Thanks. I'm not sure what "used" means, although a high-traffic article, or articles with numerous incoming links may indicate a topic for which large numbers of people seek encyclopedic information. In this case there are several incoming links, but only as a result that Oakman is included on the Template:CofCApostles template. Regarding pageviews, before this AfD the page was averaging about 30 a month, or one a day, just barely more than what a page will receive from "Random article" traffic. I'm not giving a !vote here because I'm not sure he isn't notable in the same way that U.S. State legislators are notable (may only have local coverage, but actions demonstrably affect large numbers of people,) but although I appreciate the position I can't agree with it. However, I appreciate the explanation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources to show notabable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For RLDS a good place to look for sources is the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, and indeed, Oakman's role in the European church leading into WWII is discussed in "National Socialists and Social Idealists: The RLDS Church in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945", R. Ben Madison, The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal Vol. 16 (1996), pp. 15-30, and less extensively (though as "a towering figure in RLDS history") in "Forgotten Outpost: The Reorganized Latter Day Saints of Poland" by the same author in the same journal, Vol. 13 (1993), pp. 31-50. He's mentioned briefly in several other articles on RLDS history, though mostly in one paragraph or a few sentences. There's also the entire biography of Oakman listed in the sources, though of course one might dismiss that as not independent. Bakazaka (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some sources and expanded/reworked the article a bit. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced added by Bakazaka (Madison, Parker) meet WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:41, 16 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Orick

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

I suspect this fails WP:NPOL, although I'm not very familiar with US politics below national level. If this does end up being deleted then the contents of Category:Dayton City Council members might need to be trawled. Sitush (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, Ab Orick, lol. I grew up in Dayton, and Abner Orick was a big deal at one time in that town, IIRC got a ton of local coverage because he considered himself a government watchdog and Dayton's political scene was full of cronyism. He may actually be notable. I'll see if I can find some sources. valereee (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I by no means exhausted the coverage; if anyone disagrees that notability has been proved, I can do more, but IMO I think he probably does qualify. The coverage is almost all local with some coverage in the rest of the state, but that's to be expected. He was a character, but not to the point he attracted national coverage. valereee (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sourcing but I'm still not getting it. I don't think local coverage counts for much when it comes to GNG and I still don't see how he meets NPOL. If we let this through, there will be scope for tens of thousands of people in India whom we at present routinely reject. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the sources meet "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." ? I guess I'd say if there are tens of thousands of people in India who are being written about multiple times in-depth over many years in the primary dailies of their midsize cities, they might be notable. valereee (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying how the guidelines have been interpreted in the past. It is also why quite a few articles by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) have been deleted. I really don't give a crap about US politics but I do dislike systemic bias and the US gets away with murder on that score. I'm not trying to pull an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line here, btw: local politicians get local coverage, it's not usually thought of as being a big deal. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you could mention probably a dozen other Dayton city commissioners and I'd say you're right, they aren't notable. I'd be able to do a search and find the only coverage they got were bare mentions of their wins or how they voted or single quotes in an article about an issue. I'm not arguing that being city commissioner (or the normal coverage that gets you) makes you notable. I'm arguing that in this case, a city commissioner of a midsize city might actually be notable because he got an abnormal amount of coverage. valereee (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm in the UK and can't see many US news sources, even though I see the results listings. Thus, I can't comment on their content, merely on what tends to happen: the "local heroes" type of situation doesn't usually wash at AfD. (Or "local baddy", as it sounds like it may be in this case.) - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I clipped all those articles -- you can't see the clippings? Maybe I did it wrong -- I only recently figured out it was even possible ETA: I don't think he was necessarily a local hero, although certainly the people in his blue-collar white east dayton neighborhoods thought so. And definitely not a baddy, he was well-intentioned. He was just a colorful character lol valereee (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw the links were for newspapers.com and I know I can't see them even though I can get results listings. However, I've just tried the first one and it is visible to me - I've not seen the clipping thing before but perhaps that does make a difference. Anyway, let's just see what other people think. Hero/celebrity/baddy/whatever - he's of local interest and local interest doesn't usually make for encyclopaedic interest in a worldwide context. Perhaps it should, and it would suit me just fine, but I'm just telling you how I've seen it play out in the past. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, since you're not convinced I'll keep working! Like I said, I'd by no means exhausted the sources :) valereee (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't gone through all of the sources to establish whether they're enough to make him special or not — and to be honest, I'm not actually going to, so I'm not going to "vote" either way. (Also, Valereee is making a sincere attempt to improve it, so I don't want to prejudge the results of the effort.) But I just wanted to point out the following: when it comes to city councillors, we do indeed normally require that either (a) they serve in an internationally prominent global city on the order of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto or London, or (b) they can be referenced to a volume and depth and range of coverage that makes them a special case over and above most other city councillors. Simply showing that some local coverage exists is not normally enough, because local coverage of city councillors always exists — so we do indeed normally require some evidence of nationalizing coverage before we deem most city councillors to be notable enough, because if all you had to do to get a city councillor over the bar was show a handful of local coverage, then every city councillor could always show that and thus every city councillor would always be notable.
What I did want to say, though, is that in light of the above discussion I've reviewed the contents of the Dayton city councillors category — some of them do actually get over NPOL on other grounds (e.g. going on to serve in the state legislature), but there are indeed a few who have no credible evidence of notability at all, so I'm already taking on the task of listing those articles for AFD. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bearcat: Thanks for that. Britishfinance (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. The sources are all local to the Dayton area with the exception of two. Akron is far removed from Dayton, and while not incredibly in-depth, it might help with GNG. The other is Cincinnati, again not tied to Dayton, but that is the briefest of bare mentions. Therefore it doesn't pass GNG, NPOL, or any other criteria I can think of to keep this well-written article. Dangnabbit. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a locally notable city councilperson. Lots of coverage in the local papers, but fails WP:NPOL, and the coverage is basically what you would see for any councilperson who serves a long time without really doing anything of note. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret. A well written and sourced article on an interesting subject. However, all RS I found were from the Dayton area, which means I cannot see how this can meet WP:GNG (and per Bearcat above). I'm afraid it must be delete. Britishfinance (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good enough for me, thanks all! valereee (talk) 20:49, 15 February 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. GNG is our bottom line and I find the argument that the subject fails that to be persuasive. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naresuan F.C.

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

Fails [2]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @Sportsfan 1234: WP:NFOOTBALL is a guideline about players. This is an article about a club. Can you please specify a valid reason for deletion? Bakazaka (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I wanted to link [3]. It has been corrected above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and no indication they have ever played in the proper rounds of the national Cup (which is the usual barometer for football teams). Giant Snowman 11:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article says they played in the Thai FA Cup in 2018, it would appear they do pass that standard. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in 2018 Thai FA Cup in the first round.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:FOOTYN—which is a project advice essay and not a Wikipedia guideline—notwithstanding, the only piece of in-depth coverage I could identify is this SuperSubThailand article. All of the mentions in mainstream media reliable sources appear to be routine coverage of the tournaments, and do not cover the subject in detail. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul_012's analysis of the coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 04:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Smartyllama and Pharaoh of the Wizards: - I presume you have located independent reliable sources which verify the claim of notability made in the article (ie that they've played in the National Cup) that you've selfishly decided not to share with us? If so please do so I can re-consider. GiantSnowman 10:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason the Thai League website is blocked by my company firewall, but supposedly this is the match report from their first round cup game. That took me about two seconds to find by clicking through the articles and finding sources. Smartyllama (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The match seems to me to be reliably sourced at the cup article, is there any reason why we can't take these sources as confirmation that the team has taken part in a national competition? Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are primary sources, we can use them for WP:V but when there's evidence the team doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG it makes this a difficult case, especially since searching in Thai language results is more difficult than searching in a language with Latin script. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my above assessment, fails the WP:GNG. WP:FOOTYN is not a guideline. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Reborn Flower

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

Fails WP:NTV, article created in September 2017 and still no air date announced. "In most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network". This is one of many such articles created by the sockfarm User:Xdeluna/User:Boyhoodjams, whose favorite method of writing articles is to have a sockpuppet create dozens of redirects which are later expanded by IPs into articles, when the sockpuppet has already been blocked. Timmyshin (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olwen Kelly

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR requirements. Page deleted twice for this reason. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Olwen+Kelly Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salting. Little that would get the subject close to WP:GNG. The subject has even linked her instragam page and created an IMDb profile. Needs salting. Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON at the present stage. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this time. Same reasons as before, doesn't look like anything's changed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Hanes

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

Subject has doubtful notability; article created by editor since blocked for sockpuppetry Mccapra (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A classic case of flying under the radar, though "radar" is a deceptive description owing to the lack of proactive editors among the community. Article has existed for over a dozen years and in that time never had any stub templates or Alaska-related categories added to it, nor has the talk page seen any additions beyond the WP Biography banner, which is customarily added to BLPs. Accomplishments as a dog musher are underwhelming, to say the least. I found the current link at the Iditarod website. It says that he's been "in the money" (finishing in the top twenty) in his Iditarod career, but it probably wasn't enough to cover his expenses. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a classic example of why Wikipedia needs a more morderated article creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Just competing in the Iditarod doesn't make him notable.Sandals1 (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How did this article survive for so long on WP without being AfD'ed. Zero notability and not even sourced (his bio link is broken) ???? Britishfinance (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 9/11 Truth movement. Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Citizens Watch

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

Non-notable fringe site that fails notability guidelines. First AFD was in 2006, however it was flooded with Keep votes from WP:SOCK accounts, hence closing as keep. PlotHelpful (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would dispute that some of the "Keep" users are sock puppets:

The following are all users with a considerable history of contribution to the project, and with too many contributions for me to consider it likely that they are merely a sock puppet:

USER:Computerjoe - now inactive
USER:ST47 - admin
USER:Angelbo - now inactive
USER:Tony Fox - now inactive, admin
USER:Fairsing - now inactive
USER:Bluedustmite - now inactive

There are only two users who are almost certainly sock puppets, USER:Bov and USER:Gazpacho, and also one that I consider possibly a sock puppet, though probably not, USER:Drett - though it does also appear that they hold some... questionable... political views.

With all that said, taking a quick gander at the sources suggest that the subject is not notable, but I won't vote unless I get the chance to look in more detail. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @NoCOBOL: I quickly scrolled through some of the keep votes as at time i nominated and found out some were blocked SOCK accounts. So i take it back that it was flooded with sock keep votes as i have seen that some were also admins as at then. PlotHelpful (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't this be merged to the 9/11 Comission article, since it is tangentially related? I see a potential, the 2 articles are concise enough. Garlicolive (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019

Comment The section 'Press coverage' looks like a weird way to attempt to establish notability. If the mentions contain useful information you would imagine they be used in the body of the text. Also, if you look at the CSPAN ref, which is a hosting site and therefore primary, it indicates the information on the page isn't even correct. the organisation has two founders, one of whom isn't on the page. Mramoeba (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete leaving aside the sockpuppet overpopulation problem with the 1st AfD, and leaving aside the fact that this is a FRINGE, conspiracy theory outfit to look at the sources. Problem is that the souces I find in searches are either FRINGE (self-published books with titles like The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, and Mounting Evidence: Why We Need a New Investigation into 9/11,) or they are mere mentions , tend to be vague, and have different sets of facts. One of the very few recent mentions in a reliable newspaper, the The York Dispatch, How a national conspiracy theory museum wound up in the 'boondocks' is about a new conspiracy theory "museum, the Hidden History Museum that is composed of stacks of cardboard filing coxes in a rented space in a disused strip mall. The files were collected by a man named John Judge, now deceased. Her's the part about the "9/11 Citizens Watch": [ https://www.ydr.com/story/opinion/columnists/mike-argento/2019/01/16/how-national-hidden-history-museum-wound-up-york-county-pa-conspiracy-theory-museum-john-judge/2582211002/ Judge wasn’t a 9/11 truther, though. Tenenoff said, “He thought those people were fanatics." He formed a 9/11 Citizens Watch to counter the 9/11 Commission, asking the questions that weren’t asked. He didn’t believe, as some truthers do, that the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. He thought that was preposterous, Tenenoff said. How would they get the explosives in the buildings? Were the explosives built into the buildings’ steel frames? He didn’t buy that. Nor did he buy the notion that the Pentagon attack was staged and that a plane did not crash into it. He lived close enough that he felt it. No, all of that was distraction, he believed. He did have some questions. Were the suspected terrorists identified as being on the planes really on them? Did George W. Bush know about the attacks and let them happen to give him a pretext to invade Iraq? He was more interested in the aftermath, Tenenoff said, the loss of civil liberties, the constant state of war, the amount of power shifted to the government. “He just wanted to know what really happened,” she said. The truth, it seems, is out there, contained somewhere in the 270 boxes and 8,000 books and hundreds of audio and video tapes housed in a small, nondescript office suite in the middle of nowhere, Pennsylvania.]. As someone menitoned above, our article cites a different "founder". In sum, there is just not enough reliable sourced, SECONDARY sourcing to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Working on Keep. Trying to clean up the article and find better sources. Don't know why John Judge (not John Judge) isn't included. Put an external link for 4 C-SPAN videos until I figure out which is used as a ref. Here is an RTF of their 9/11 Commission Critique which concludes, "We do not anticipate that we will disagree with all the many conclusions and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission’s final report..." Still looking for"The Omission Report". There are other bad links too. Org seems less fringe and more just criticizing the process and secrecy of the investigation. If you did merge, maybe Criticism of the 9/11 Commission might be a better article. StrayBolt (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment @StrayBolt: As you are working on it can you get rid of the passing mentions please which are clearly there to give the illusion of notability, as noted above (and one may add the BBC ref to that as well). Coverage needs to be in depth and not trivial. Mramoeba (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some coverage here at Scoop.co.nz, Wednesday, 24 March 2004, 10:00am - "UQ Wire: Breakthrough For 9/11 Truth On C-SPAN!" and Scoop.co.nz, Wednesday, 24 March 2004, 10:09 am - "UQ Wire: Breakthrough For 9/11 Truth On C-SPAN!" And these two ladies attended a 9/11 CitizensWatch press conference. And some of the books that reference this aren't self-published either. Karl Twist (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No see this is exactly what is NOT going to help establish notability. This is making me think delete. The CSPAN refs are all primary because it's coverage of their own press conference made by themselves. It doesn't mean it's ok because Scoop posts a link to it which is what your two links are, a link to a conspiracy theory news aggregator page. Also failing to see how a non free Getty image has anything to do with this. If this is the best there is, then it's not notable. Mramoeba (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I believe there is a good degree of discernment by Scoop with what they choose or choose not to publish, just as much as they do with major NZ newspapers. The Getty image is just an indication of the conference that would have been either televised or printed in a reliable newspaper. That wasn't to prove notability as such. It was more for those who want to find out about it as I don't have the time at this moment. Karl Twist (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop is not a newspaper. This is an uneditorialised press release redirecting to 911truth.org, a conspiracy theory website. Wikipedia informs us "The website publishes a large number of submitted news and press releases due to their permissive policy." All of these links are already on the page anyway as they all lead to CSPAN which is in external links. Mramoeba (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having had some time to look at this, this is a clear delete. The organisation managed a handful of press mentions, none in mainstream sources, and the rest of this is primary, some of it disingenuously made to look secondary through the wording and reference landings (from article edit summary I removed the worst). In summary:

1) Primary: Own website, allowable for basic facts/descriptors only

2) Primary: Zogby market research was sponsored by Citizens Watch. This article is a summary of findings

3) Christian Science Monitor is generally considered reliable source, however this is a short article covering groups who submitted questions to the commission the adverts CW posted and quotes, there is no in depth coverage, in fact the only interpretation of CW by the journalist is "one of the groups observing the proceedings"

4) BBC is a mention, the entire article is 9 different reaction comments, no journalitic analysis or interpretation.

5) Abook which is not viewable. From the Google snippet I suspect this could very easily be another passing mention of their reaction to the report, as covered elsewhere.

6) Washington TIMES, wikipedia disputes reliability, "The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations." There is no coverage of CW in it anyway, just a quote from Kyle Hence.

Mramoeba (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting, and agreeing with User:Mramoeba, there are menitons, but fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I still stand by my keep vote. Because so much of the media is controlled by the like of Murdoch, searches need to be done in other areas. The Getty images pic that features April Gallup and Rosemary Dillard states they were at a 9/11 Citizens Watch press conference at the National Press Club. Was it on TV or in which papers? Anyway ..... But if it leans too much toward Delete then the history should be preserved and it should be re-directed to 9/11 Truth movement and a small section be created there. Karl Twist (talk) 13:02, 22 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. Roger Merrill

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

Several source searches indicate that this subject does not meet WP:BASIC notability. RS coverage consists only of meager passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations, none of which establish notability. The article is entirely dependent upon primary sources, which also do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't know why there are so many Latter-day Saints bio's on wikipedia and a lot of them don't pass basic WP:GNG guidelines like this one. Northamerica1000 Maybe you can group them together into one AfD when you find them? Govvy (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: While many of these bios were obviously created because the subjects became LDS leaders, the subjects themselves can have different possible notability claims besides being LDS leaders, so nominating them all together would be a WP:TRAINWRECK. Bakazaka (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Multiple AFD nominations can be challenging but if articles are primary self-sourced like this one I would imagine easier. Otr500 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 00:18, 14 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Neider

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC notability standards. WP:BEFORE searches are only providing a few minor passing mentions, name checks and minor quotations. No significant coverage found in independent, reliable sources; none appears to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom says it all, there's nothing to verify notability here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 00:19, 14 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current (health company)

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

non notable company--sources refer only to early funding and do not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in its current condition does not meet WP:GNG and my quick Google search likewise finds no supporting evidence of notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No obvious sources of notability; small company using WP for promotional purposes. Britishfinance (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above there is no clear sign of notability and the article does rather read as being promotional. Dunarc (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Woah, slow down there, amigos! As the author of the page, I'd like to point out that I've created many articles on Wikipedia ranging from current businesses to biographies of women in British colonial history. This is not PR for a company, neither am I acting on their behalf. Secondly, this article has sources including The Guardian and BBC News. Clearly these are highly authoritative sources. There a multiple other sources for this company. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; they are passing mentions and / or detail company hopes and aspirations. Borderline WP:PROMO directory listing. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 12 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone Backup Extractor

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

Promotional article, lacks reliable sourced coverage of the subject. Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment. Thanks for pinging my talk page! If I understand, there are two questions: notability and whether it’s promotional.

I don’t think the page falls foul of elements 1 - 4 in WP:PROMOTION. It appears neutral and factual. Element 5 states that it’s promotional if not notable — thus your citation of WP:NPRODUCT. Makes sense!

(WP:NPRODUCT says “if a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself”, and “a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right.” On Draft:Reincubate, I see kvng suggests “it may be possible to recast this as an article on iPhone Backup Extractor”.)

With reference to WP:GNG, the page’s citations group into these:

N Tech blogs & podcasts: hard to asses independence, reliability.
N Release note chronology: clearly not secondary.
N Review aggregators: not suitable for notability.
Y National press and government coverage around the royal award. Meets the WP:ORGCRIT tests for multiple significant, independent, reliable, secondary. (Fits “substantial”, too.)

WP:PSTS provides examples of coverage that includes “a scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization” and “an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product”. There are examples of both of these for the product in question at Draft:Reincubate. Would it be helpful if I edit the article's talk page proposing an edit to include them?

It’s been challenging digging out examples of similar products and companies on Wikipedia in order to see how it is done well. ScreenFlow is a much-edited and well-regard page, but has no notable sources at all. I’m not arguing WP:WHATABOUTX, but am curious to find good examples!

Tgho (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tgho can you enumerate which of the cited sources are in your 4th category? I'd like to review those. Also I do think that the article has a WP:PROMOTIONAL slant to it but that should be able to be addressed through improvements to the article - deletion is not required to fix this. ~Kvng (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is challenging to evaluate because at least half of the cited sources fail to meet WP:RS. If anyone is serious about keeping this article then delete all the WP:SPS then delete all sentences without a citation. I fail to recognize how this article meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deletion is not cleanup. ~Kvng (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in two cited sources: [4], [5] ~Kvng (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment. Following up on Kvng’s request for WP:ORGCRIT enumeration to support a keep... apologies for the delay, I’ve been reading forensics books.

Regarding notable award coverage, strong citations are the London Gazette entry here [6] and the Southwark News article [7] (which you mentioned in your comment).

On the “book passage” criteria, there are a number of books with passages on iPhone Backup Extractor in forensics, penetration testing, and as a system utility. A typical example is “Forensics Cookbook” (Mikhaylow, 2017). The following include passages on it, too, and some of these have specific citations in Draft:Reincubate:

Investigating the Cyber Breach (Muniz, Lakhani, 2018)
iOS Forensic Analysis: for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch (Morrissey, Campbell, 2010)
iOS Forensics Cookbook (Birani, Birani, 2016)
iPhone and iOS Forensics (Hoog, Strzempka, 2011)
Learning iOS Forensics (Epifani, Stirparo, 2015)
Learning iOS Penetration Testing (Yermalkar 2016)
Mastering Mobile Forensics (Tahiri, 2016)
Mobile Forensic Investigations (Reiber, 2015)
O’Reilly’s App Savvy (Yarmosh, 2010)
Operating System Forensics (Messier, 2016)
Practical Mobile Forensics (Mahalik, Tamma, Bommisetty, 2014)
Take Control of Your iPhone (Landau, 2009)

On the “scholarly article” criteria, there are several dozen papers with passages on the application and its use. Jonathan Zdziarski’s 2013 paper “iOS forensic investigative methods” has a chapter for it on page 110 (no deep-link I'm afraid). Similarly, 2012's “iPad 2 Logical Acquisition: Automated or Manual Examination?” (Ali, AlHosani, AlZarooni, Baggli) gives it a chapter (p. 119+) and makes reference to it throughout.

I believe these sources satisfy WP:RS and WP:ORGCRIT. I hope this is helpful. Tgho (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks, from this, I'll add [8], [9] and [10] to my list of sources demonstrating notability. 5 total seems like plenty. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The dedication of paid editor tgho is admirable, as dedications go, but not sufficient to overcome the lack of verifiable independent notability. The sources put up in the effort to save the text are tangential to the subject, at best. E.g. the article in the Southwark News is about Aidan Fitzpatrick and not the product; if we want a bio on Aidan Fitzpatrick we already have a source. E.g. the article in the Sydney Morning Herald is a listing of apps that help the iPhone user, among which is this product. Same kind of listing (one among many) one encounters in specialist forensics texts such as the Forensics Cookbook. (Someone offered a London Gazette issue as proof of notability but their link contains no reference to the product; it lists the Queen's Awards and among those who won is Reincubate, with no mention of their product at all.) We are left with simply a gallant effort of a text. -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per The Gnome comments above. A "contrived case" at best. Britishfinance (talk) 14:00, 23 February 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. No prejudice against an early renomination in case any editor believes that the sources added by JGabbard don't pass notability standards. Lourdes 07:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamko

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

This article's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). The references are dependent, local and unreliable. As per WP:INTREF Wikipedia referencing guide, the subject's own website is not an acceptable reference. As per WP:ORG, if no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. OliverKianzo (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No neutral sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple refs added, including two neutral sources. With no further comments during the week, propose close of AfD. - JGabbard (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per most recently added references. Remember, judgments of notability should be based on what sources are out there, not what sources are already in the article. Even the most cursory web search turns up a number of independent secondary sources, not a surprising result for a large, 70 year old company. Sneftel (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the new added sources it passes WP:NORG. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a random company not even mentioned in industry related sources or news papers. Came here through random button. BananasReborn (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost even split, without much discussion about whether or not it is notable but instead focusing on whether the current references show its notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC) comment added --DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a WP:MILL company but a major manufacturer of roofing with operations across a number of states. Many more sources available given it's 70+ year history. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tamko employs 650 people just in the local area, is unquestionably notable regionally and also known nationally, and is one of the largest employers in Joplin. All companies of this size or larger in this area already have articles. - JGabbard (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: There is always the old other stuff argument when that is not only generally a bad argument but not supported by any policies or guidelines. The company has been around a long time and even though likely rated outside the top ten (was #11) I can see some notability although a search seems to be more about the class action lawsuit. That is not abnormal as GAF, Owen Corning, Atlas, CertainTeed, IKO, and Globe Building Materials (probably others) along with Tamko, had these suits over roof failures (and fading), deceptive warranties, substandard roofing shingle manufacturing, false advertising, etc..., for fiberglass, organic, and asphalt shingles. My issue is that because a company has good advertising, as shown by mostly primary sources, does not equate to notability regardless of how much we like it. Adding more primary sources to support notability does not make the case. Otr500 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if I have to compare it with policies like WP:NCORP and WP:GNG it fails both. I created much better articles that were heavily referenced but deleted. HPlilly (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just about every excuse has been used by the Keep !voters above - except the only measure that counts which is at least two references that pass WP:NCORP. Not a single reference that is either in the article or that I can locate online meets the criteria for establishing notability. If we want to simply ignore our own guidelines, fine, lets keep any article on a company that is 70 years old, a major employer and has been sued in court. Otherwise, lets follow our own guidelines. Topic fails NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very well explained above, I guess nothing more left to debate. BananasReborn (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came to the article through random tab. I looked from the above search but nothing much, and as far as I know about GNG it's not fully comply. It is an old company which could be a fact but just an age is not enough. This is what GNG says, " 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." Serena Sermin (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional neutral references added. Reevaluation necessary. - JGabbard (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wachter

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE John from Idegon (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Watcher seems notable enough.TH1980 (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:COMPOSER notability requirements. While his award wins are respectful, none are major music competitions. They are youth awards and #4 of WP:COMPOSER says recognition must be for "major music competition not established expressly for newcomers." Actaudio (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree above that he does not meet WP:COMPOSER notability requirements. The only article that I can see that actually is about him is the Hollywood Sential but the link seems broken and the paper is not a Tier 1 source. He needs at least one major RS where the article is mainly about him and not mentioning him in passing amongst others (e.g. this NYT article), and/or about winning awards (which are not material enough for WP:COMPOSER). Britishfinance (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time, he doesn’t meet the notability requirements. Trillfendi (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:TOOSOON, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:PROF. He literally got his highest degree last year. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lisa Donovan. Sandstein 07:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Station (YouTube)

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

Was deleted in 2009. It was recreated in 2010 and not apparently with any more notability than after it was originally deleted. It has not gained any more notability in the years since. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Lisa Donovan. I don't think the previous AfD in this instance can or should be referenced in making a determination for the current AfD, given pretty much all of the content and information in the article relates to events following it's initial deletion. I don't see the merit in having this as an article out-right (especially as, for all intents and purposes, it has ceased to exist from its original purpose), but it's small enough that it could be merged as I suggest without causing bloat. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Lisa Donovan. Fails GNG, was never notable for WP. Bias to Delete, but will do a Redirect if that is the consensus. Britishfinance (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Albanians in Scandinavia. As an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD. If anyone wants to merge something can freely do so by WP:BOLD. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians in Norway

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

Diasporas are not inherently notable. I see little coverage in independent, reliable sources of the diaspora. There are 195 countries so there could be 38,025 of these; not all of them are inherently notable. I see no issue with a redirect to Albanian diaspora after consensus has been gained. SITH (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The television program cited as a reference seems to be the in-depth coverage that established notability, and the people on the list in the article are individually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The IPS and OECD sources cited are both about a particular wave of Albanian refugees coming to Norway. I cannot understand what that 30-minute news program is about. I am not opposed to the idea of an article but there has to be a little content and some sources identified to be a Wikipedia. My standards are low, and about 3 sources talking about 3 different topics (3 sentences, 3 citations) is my usual minimum expectation. This article is not there yet. Almost none of the content here is matched to citations. We have a quality standard to uphold and it would take a lot of work to get this article up to our low standards. If someone does that work I could change my vote. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it's improved. If the numbers are correct then I believe there is a considerable number of the Albanian community in Norway. Such articles are all over wikipedia, so if it is improved with reliable resources then it can keep it as well Bes-ARTTalk 19:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Scandinavian Albanians PRehse (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a ref and cleaned it up a bit. The nominators 38,025 argument is compelling. I note there is no Norway section on Albanian diaspora. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Comments: I removed the unsourced "Notable people" section and list of names that was BLP violations and original research. This may need relisting for more discussion because at present I am inclined to swing to Delete. Otr500 (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Otr500. I have no great love for such lists, but I thought while borderline it was standard on such pages. I asuum inline citations would be a good start, is anything else needed? ~~I am leaning towards merge with Albanian diaspora~~. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Hello, I share the lack of love. If anyone wants to add some names I don't have an issue but they can't be just dropped names. I stopped after randomly picking three, Bajram Ajeti, Bersant Celina, and Mërgim Hereqi. The last one claims Kosovan-Albanian descent in the lead but is unsourced and the other two have no mention of descent so sourcing would be important. Twenty thousand immigrants may or may not be a threshold for notability to a country and the slippery slope could be new lists of any minor immigration to all countries. A main concern with the list of notable people, not backed by sources, that their families might be war related immigrants or actually just migrated or "moved". Otr500 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this poorly sourced page to Albanians in Scandinavia, where a subhead already exists. Among the problems on thia page is source#2, an old article about Norway accepting 700 temporary Albanian refugees. Are they still in Norway? several European countries have sent their temporary Balkan refugees home. Note also tha the # cited at Albanians in Scandinavia for Norway is only ~11,000. Better to consolidate this brief, ill-sourced, paltry page to an article where knowledgeable editors may have a better chance at bring it up to snuff, and keeping it up to date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Merge the good text if any with Albanians in Scandinavia and make the page a redirect as above. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Albanians in Scandinavia would be a great place to cover this information. Reywas92^Talk 21:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Alright with merging anything salvageable. I don't know if User:StraussInTheHouse's figures are correct but a poorly sourced article would be grounds for the poor but often cited other stuff argument for potentially hundreds of like articles. Otr500 (talk) 07:42, 24 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auseklis (newspaper)

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

Fails WP:NEWSNOTE. Completely unsourced and wasn't edited once since its creation in 2010. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of this page, Starzynka, was blocked in 2010 for being a sockpuppet account. Levvy^owo? 15:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and considering the fact that the page has actually not been touched since 2010 except to put an AfD template, I'm going to have to concur with GN and say delete. Levvy^owo? 15:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 sentence unsourced stub with 1 edit from a blocked user. No prejudice against recreation --DannyS712 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Just noticed this, the subject and the article are so bland that the folks over at WikiProject Latvia didn't bother to give it any importance rating. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 18:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the argument that the poster's misbehavior is moot, as their singular sentence is so sparse one can hardly argue it is promotional. It was, however, extremely inaccurate. The paper seems to have a very interesting history as the first Marxist periodical published in the Latvian language, dating back to the 1800s. It also looks to be an interesting glimpse into the history of Latvian American immigrants, a group no doubt lacking some coverage on Wikipedia due to systemic bias. If the sourcing seems sparse, a redirect to List of newspapers in Latvia would also be logical from where I'm standing. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the article, however having a somewhat short history involving certain diaspora still doesn't make it notable per WP:NEWSNOTE. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 16:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More on this: checking the two book references, it doesn't seem that there's any substantial mention of Auseklis; rather, it's a passing and non-substantial mention (at the most, searching its name only brings up 1 or 2 results in the entire book). Therefore, I do believe it fails WP:GNG. Levvy^owo? 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: When will this be over with? This AFD's been open for 2 weeks now and no active contributions since the relisting a week ago. I'd like this to be over. Levvy^owo? 16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levityn, some articles take a bit longer to delete than others. Consensus simply needs to be sorted out. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Lack of sources decides the case against inclusion. We get hits for Miķelis Krogzemis' pen name but not for the paper.-The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:N/WP:GNG due to lack of sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and particularly the lack of verifiability of the topic. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 Vesti

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

Non-notable TV channel with no sources of any kind. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and lacking WP:RS. PlotHelpful (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All licenced television broadcasters are notable. See https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%2224+Vesti%22+-wikipedia for lots of references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Eastmain's comment. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By far a WP:SOFIXIT case for a national 24 hour news channel. Google.mk exists to search Macedonian sources, and Google Translate easily translates Macedonian. Unless it's a MADEUP thing, the 'no sources of any kind' rationale for a nom should not be used. Also after close if kept, please complete move to Televizija 24 for its current name. Nate • (chatter) 00:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Y. Lew

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

No evidence of any notability. Self promotion, passing mentions etc but nothing reliable and independent discussing the subject. Moved without review from Draft to mainspace by the author long before it might have been ready. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree. I am in no way affiliated with the subject, just an art historian. This subject is worthy of an article in my opinion. Please see references that include NYTimes, artforum, and The Creative Independent. --Wil540 art (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)--Wil540 art (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one is not so clear cut at first glance. The New York Times article used as the first ref is a namecheck and has no depth; on the other hand this W Magazine article has lots of depth. Enough sources are out there to establish GNG easily. Add to this the fact that he co-curated one of the Whitney Biennales (one of the top ten or twenty art exhibitions in the world) and you could probably make an argument that he meets some part of WP:CREATIVE. The guy is high-level. And let's not forget all the coverage that was generated by the Whitney show, like this article in Time, with a video, this Vogue magazine article, this rather good article in the New York Times, and so on. And those were easy to find.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per above and Google News results suggest sufficient notability. Hninthuzar (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG Strong Speedy Keep are you kidding me? 1) Nancy and Fred Poses Curator - named full curator 2) Curated the Whitney Biennial, which alone is enough 3) For better or for worse, was at the center of the Dana Schutz fiasco, along with Mia Locks (and which should probably be included this article. --Theredproject (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Private India

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

Article authored by a commercial company designing books, web-sites etc. All refs are promotional. Nothing here get close to WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James_Patterson_bibliography#Private_series: The article is little more than a plot summary with links to Goodreads etc. I am not seeing evidence of notability independent of the co-authoring franchise series. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a COI problem, not notable for an article. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Film Week

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

This is of dubious notability at best and has been discretely spammed throughout wikipedia for the last two years but I can find no significant coverage and what little coverage is found, is hyper local. No evidence this meets WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG and is just a minor regional event. Praxidicae (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Practically every city has a film festival and there is no indication this one is notable with anything beyond local coverage. Reywas92^Talk 00:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howza ilmeya jamia jaffria

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

Supposedly an Islamic university, but I couldn't find a single reliable source about it (searching for the Urdu name also only gave 5 results, most from wikis). If it exists, it doesn't seem to be a notable true university at all, but some online religious college. Fram (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per nom, found nothing on this. Almost feels like a hoax article? Certainly can't be as notable as claimed and be a ghost in GNG terms? Britishfinance (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to First Norfolk & Suffolk. Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich Rapid Transit

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

Non-notable guided busway, no evidence the name "Ipswich Rapid Transit" has ever been used. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's poorly named. A search for Ipswich guided busway brings up hits. I think it's a sourceable article - first guided busway in the UK, and I've seen a lot of mentions if not significant coverage, including from parliament. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The exact string comes up as a gscholar snippet in "Bus Rapid Transit: Worldwide History of Development, Key Systems and Policy Issues". I'll request it at the library to see if it has substantial content. SpinningSpark 03:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have in-depth content that would meet GNG, but if the article is kept, it can be used as a source to verify some basic facts. On page 248: 0.5 km route and first launched in 1994. It also gives some stuff not currently in the article: there were 739 passenger per day in 2010, and if I am reading the table correctly, there would seem to be only one bus. That last contradicts the article which uses the plural, but how many buses do you need for a 500m run? Also gets a mention in this book, but again, not in-depth. SpinningSpark 12:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced. Snippets and sources with no in-depth coverage don't advance notability for GNG or NORG. Keeping the article so it "can be used as a source to verify some basic facts", Would be hard to imagine if there are no reliable sources to verify what might be called "facts". Otr500 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: I meant the source I cited could be used to verify some basic fact, not the article. And I didn't !vote for keep because of that. I didn't !vote at all. SpinningSpark 18:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything that supports WP:N. Also the article is completely unsourced which is a massive WP:V fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First Norfolk & Suffolk per WP:ATD. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to First Norfolk & Suffolk per WP:ATD. Over ten years on WP and not a single reference. Probably should be a delete as per nomination but happy as a Redirect also to preserve the text in case anybody has enough interest (unlikely) to make a proper article on this. Britishfinance (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deadly

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

No evidence of any notability for this band, no reliable indepth sources. Fram (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my pages references. I apologize if I am not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennymetalsh5 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Article creator (and commenter above) admits that he is the band's lead singer. No reliable independent sources found: the Chicago Reader reference is simply a gig listing, with no prose whatsoever. Richard3120 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I find no significant independent coverage to meet the GNG and I also didn't find anything to show any standards of WP:NBAND are met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. The Keep !vote lacks any rational at all. However with only a single pro-delete comment I could not do more than close this as a "soft delete" which is precluded by the sole keep, however unimpressive it is. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK Music Video Awards

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

As we may witness, the written content on the page is bolstered up mainly by primary sources. Nevertheless, some tertiary coverage is included, but these articles are mostly presented in a form of the list of winners/nominees rather than being actual journalistic pieces to be taken into account, though. I believe the criteria noted in WP:NOTESAL are not measured up to: many laureates of that awards are notable by themselves, but their arranged list may don't– This Is Where I Came In (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but the article's tone could be re-written in places. Vorbee (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The RS independent coverage seems to be all passing mentions or churned press releases, which fail ORGIND. b uidhe 10:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 2018 UK Music Video Awards should have been bundled with this. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 8 February 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. Retained due to more than sufficient sources, under various names. I believe titling will need to be raised at Requested Moves, or further talk page discussion, as multiple names are proposed within the AfD and no notable consensus on that issue found (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Ground (Leeds)

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

PROD removed for reason: "I think it has enough references in books to meet WP:GNG." Well, I'd be interested to know just what book references there are to establish GNG. Here there are no references to the Victoria Ground in Leeds and here the mentions are nowhere enough for notability. Bear in mind the location of this ground wasn't even known prior to old OS maps being released, so it's hardly well covered. Beyond that, the ground did not host a first-class match, as the match was cancelled. So it fails WP:CRIN and beyond that it fails WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should probably be moved back to Victoria Ground, Leeds, even if it gets merged (since it should still remain in categories), Grange Park, Wetherby uses this form of disambiguation and is standard to use commas, not brackets for places, even if they aren't settlements, see WP:UKPLACE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable park. Variously called "Leeds Royal Park", "Leeds New Gardens", "Tommy Clapham’s Park", "Leeds Horticultural Gardens" ([11] (page 2)). Sources to satisfy WP:GNG include [12] p 62-67, [13] p77-79, [14], [15] and [16] It was clearly a notable location in Leeds, not just used for cricket ([17], [18]). It was converted into public gardens and the roads Royal Park Road, Royal Park Grove, Royal Park Road Avenue and Royal Park Terrace were named after it. Appears to have been the site of the first Balloon-related death in the UK, in 1887 ([19]). Cricket-wise it hosted matches involving William Clarke's All-England Eleven ([20]), and regularly Leeds Cricket Club vs e.g. York and Bradford (e.g. [21]), and was regarded by some as the principal cricket ground in Leeds ([22]). A 1902 work of fiction commented on "the bye-gone glories of Tommy Clapham's park, an institution which was at one time part and parcel of the town of Leeds, and which far outshone in popularity the vaunted glories of Roundhay Park or any other of the present-day amusements provided for the toiling masses of the city" ([23]).--Pontificalibus 12:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of given alternate sources under different names, if applicable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the new sources, this passes WP:GNG. Would be good to use those sources for an article expansion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the info found by Pontificalibus. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if kept, I might be better to redirect to Leeds Royal Park (or something along that line), as the cricket ground appears to have made up just one part of the larger park. StickyWicket (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if kept them a requested move could be started to determine the best name, as it's been more than a cricket ground. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Babylon 5. I take note of the clear consensus that this looks like a poorly sourced WP:OR mess and remind anyone engaged in the merge that only properly sourced material may be kept. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5 influences

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

I would like to explain my nominating this article for deletion. I spent a great deal of time trying to find citations for the claims made in this article, and while I was successful in some cases, the vast majority of them are unsupported claims of similarity between the series and other works of fiction, or historical events, and not all are of sufficiently notable status.

Many of these claims may well be correct, and certainly seem plausible. Others are so vague and/or tenuous so as to make finding citations - when one is not the source of the edit - virtually impossible. In either case, without reliable sources I don't believe Wikipedia is the place for them. As pointed out on the talk page the article is a scattered mess anyway, and little better than a listicle in some places. There are plenty of B5 fan sites that point out perceived literary and historical parallels that don't have the same burdens for inclusion as Wikipedia.

In summary the portions of this article for which I could find sources are so few that what is left does not warrant a separate article. I have gathered together the elements for which I could find sources, and put them under a new 'Influences' heading in the main Babylon 5 article. I believe that removes the need to keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricalTill (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and Merge, per nom. Aside from JMS's statements acknowledging the show's homages and inspirations, there are very few WP:RS references available for this. It's a great topic for a paper, but as a textbook example of WP:OR, it doesn't belong on WP. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article constantly quotes a "James Michael Straczynski," and I don't think Wikipedia needs an exhaustive list of all the inspirations of any media. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 16:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jason A. Quest. The majority of the article is, as said, largely OR, and the actual cited elements (the statements from JMS himself, mostly) don't really need an article separate from the main Babylon 5 article. I was initially going to suggest merging those actual relevant bits of information to the main article, but I see that has already been done, and a must more succinct and better organized section with this information has already been created there. That being said, there is no reason to do anything here than a Deletion at this point. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it, just replace it with a redirect to the main article. Anyone can then go and merge over anything worth merging whenever they feel like getting around to it. Dream Focus 01:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've moved and consolidated everything I could cite. I haven't checked printed literature, which may have usable sources, but a good few pages of google searches with various terms for each of the major claims. Most of it seems to be OR, conjecture, or claims so nebulous ("it seems," "a parallelization that can be made," "this is reminiscent of," "are similar to," "is often compared to," etc.) that it's difficult to even begin trying to find sources. Even citations from major sites like the Lurker's Guide are dubious IMO unless they're actually quoting JMS.ElectricalTill (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and taking into account comment above that anything salvagable/mergable has been done (otherwise I would redirect, but wary that some redirects become resurrected). The WP:OR issue is just too great here – both in terms of the topic (how can it ever avoid OR), and even the text, so it is beyond a WP:TNT issue. You could imagine some material being salvaged in a short section on a Babylon 5 article under an "Influences" section (e.g. "Experts regard the following list as important influences on Bablyon 5 ......") that might be sufficiently brief that it is uncontraversial; although, it could still attract OR concerns if the experts are not the accepted experts. Not for a full seperate article. Britishfinance (talk) 20:47, 15 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Hiller

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

I was cleaning this up, but the moment you start cleaning the promotional crap out of an article like this, there's nothing left. There are no reliable sources, there are no real, verified achievements, even the filmography is questionable. So, remove per GNG--just another vanispam article, with heavy COI edits by a now-blocked person whose name is an awful lot like that of the subject. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bernie Hiller has undoubtedly some influence as an acting coach. The documentary 'Pink Elephants' is about him and his work. And he was in some festival jurys. In my eyes, that makes him a relevant person. Sure, the article was pure advertising, but now it's better. The sources are o.k. and there is a criticism-section, too. As far as I know, Pink Elephants is only available in german. But at the latest when there are english subtitles in this documentary, people are asking for a Wikipedia article. Django.Muerte (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This conversation was reopened by request from an uninvolved user. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 13:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Praxidicae in a discussion on my talk page, this needs more discussion before closing. (Non-administrator comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 13:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The "Filmography" section is sourced with IMDb (user-generated) that is not reliable or acceptable as a reference. Otr500 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is still so promitionally written. There are some references in RS, but media-BLPs throw up refences quickly (by definition from their industry). There is no proper article on the subject (as opposed to referring to him in the context of another subject) in a significant RS (e.g. NYT interview). A notable acting coach, given the industry, would have at least one strong interview in a major publication. Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2019 Australian Open – Men's Singles. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Australian Open – Men's singles final

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

Contested PROD, none of the coverage of the 2019 Australian Open gave anything more than WP:ROUTINE coverage to this match. Don't believe there is anything here that can be merged in to parent articles. Iffy★Chat -- 13:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article certainly needs improvement, but calling all of the coverage of one of the two main matches of tennis' biggest tournament WP:ROUTINE? My first impression of this AfD is that it was a joke. See: [24] [25] [26] [27], et cetera. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2019 Australian Open – Men's Singles. This article just serves as a content fork. It is not common practice to have articles dedicated to tennis finals, even for Grand Slam tournaments. Ajf773 (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has plenty of non routine coverage as shown by Sporting Flyer. There are a number of similar articles on finals matches as shown in this category Category:Tennis matches, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just because an article can exist separately does not mean it should. No reason it cannot be merged to 2019 Australian Open – Men's Singles. Notability is only based on it being part of that tournament. Reywas92^Talk 23:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Djokovic beat Nadal in straight sets, so the match doesn't warrant a separate article, unlike their 2012 classic. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please see also 2013 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final. This article should be expanded.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The 2013 Champiosnship is their because of history being created because of Andy Murray. This is a different kettle of fish. Not Homura (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep This article on first glance does not need a standalone article, but despite the straight sets, if the article is improved then I would favor a keep. As it is now, merging is better Garlicolive (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This final wasn't a classic and wasn't an history defining final compared to some of the other ones that do have articles on here. I personally that it should merge into the 2019 Australian Open – Men's Singles. Not Homura (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dareysteel#Singles. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration (Dareysteel song)

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

The song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 13:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This was not a top 10 song. I would not object to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article meet WP:NSONG . beside a song that was featured on TOP40 songs charts , including notable media newspapers such as Herald newspaper , Rayoveto (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To meet NSONG it must be "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts"; the TOP40 charts referred to in this article don't meet this. Britishfinance (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NSONG. Fails GNG. References in the article are either junk or broken. Pure WP:PROMO. Britishfinance (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment. redirect instead Rayoveto (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R. S. Karthik

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

Non notable actor who’s claim to fame is an untitled character in a film. Fails nactor Praxidicae (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable actor. Ajf773 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may not yet be notable, but I must point out that he played the lead role of Smoothu in Peechankai, not an untitled character, as confirmed by reliable sources found by the Google News search linked by the nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's getting coverage as we speak. He is now prominent See the below,
Silverscreen India, February 14, 2019 - A Film On Theru Koothu Is Currently Underway BY Adithya Narayan
Deccan Chronicle, Feb 13, 2019 - Theru Kootthu in focus by Nandita Jennifer
The Hindu, May 07, 2018 - ‘Peechankai’ helped me survive as athis wasn actor, says RS Karthik by Vishal Menon
Scrapes through to a Keep! Karl Twist (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 out of 3 of those are interviews or at best and one is a rehashing of the other but they're all basically WP:CHURNALISM. Praxidicae (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should not be "scraping". This is a media-BLP which means that they thow up refs are part of their media work. These sould not be taken a RS on the subject themselves. The guy has only been in one film with a $140,000 budget whose own WP article is a potential AfD (which means there is a strong COI/UDP issue here). Britishfinance (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 06:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable to give an opinion that this should be deleted, but "per nom" is not a valid opinion as the nominator's statement that this actor only played an untitled character in a film is a bare-faced lie. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except as I commented above, there is still virtually no coverage of this person despite his supposed "starring" in this film of questionable notability. Therefor per nom could also be referring to my comments. At the time I searched for this there weren't any independent, in depth, reliable sources, as remains the case now. Praxidicae (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might be true, but you shouldn't overstate the case for deletion by lying that the subject played an untitled character when it was actually the lead role. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being unduly harsh here and stating this as if my intent was to deceive. At the time when I afd'd this with the sources available to me it showed no main role in a film of note under his name R.S. Karthik. It wasn't until later that the sources stating such were found but my point still stands that he is not currently notable. Praxidicae (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to rewrite history. This is how the article looked when you nominated it for deletion. Notability may not have been demonstrated, but it was perfectly clear that the subject played the lead, named, role in Peechankai, which makes your nomination statement a clear lie. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger Why make these comments when your point is not material to the outcome. Under any WP:BEFORE check, this subject is a delete. I could edit the article myself and get it close to a WP:A7. Do you really think that this subject, based on the information available on him – none of which is a material quality RS on the subject himself (the critical component for a media-BLP) – makes him notable. There are AfD's in the queue that have not even had a comment, and you spend your time like this? Making "contrived" cases to create borderline BLPs is a fools game in WP unless the subject is a figure of long-term historical importance. This guy is not. Britishfinance (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's important that people should know that they will be called out when they tell lies, whether in a correct cause or not. Don't you? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have taken an extreme view that a mistake is definately a lie. If that is the case, then AfD is full of liars as many AfDs have mistakes or inaccuracies in their proposals. I have seen such mistakes in some of your contributions Phil, but I don't call you a "liar". I make comments in many AfDs without voting to note potential mistakes (and such comments have been made to me on my contributions). But I do not assume that they are "lying". What is even worse, you take such an extreme view for an AfD which is not only a Delete, but is most likely a COI/UDP case – E.g. the basis of this article is a lie? Britishfinance (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not lie. Lying implies that I did something with the intent to deceive. That is not the case here. I made a mistake which I admitted and I still stand by my comment that when I initially looked at the article, it appeared to me that he had not held a major named role. If you want to take my temporary inability to read as a malicious act, do so elsewhere because this has gone far off course and I've since expanded on why he is not notable. Further, if you think that I am acting maliciously, please take it to the appropriate venue. Thanks.Praxidicae (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HaLo

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

This is an article about a Japanese musician. I'm not so much arguing for deletion, as I'm requesting help from Japanese-speaking editors in finding out whether there are enough Japanese-language sources out there to pass WP:GNG. English-language sources are almost completely absent, save for wikipedia mirrors and a few passing mentions about a minor appearance on Lori Carson's album. – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC) – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name seems to be 平方亜弥子 if anyone is checking for sources. She seems to do more with narration than with music. Dekimasuよ! 19:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 12:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. If there are foreign references "out there" then someone would need to prove it. If we can't find it we can't just assume they are there as Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. A single sourced BLP doesn't pass any notability criterion. Otr500 (talk) 08:24, 24 February 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. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Euro Hockey League

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

While this article technically passes the Google Test, perhaps we should get a consensus on whether or not we should make an exception for Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are all manner of articles for things (sports leagues included) that never existed or came to fruition, but received enough significant press coverage to meet the GNG. The question to hand is whether those sources exist, not whether this league does. Ravenswing 01:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't follow hockey, but two points: First, is this just a rebranding of EuroHockey Club Champions Cup (women)? The article suggests it may be, so a merge there may be appropriate. Second, this is confirmed to be happening, so there's no crystal ball involved. --Michig (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does article not fall under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball because there are enough sources saying this will happen and it is confirmed it will happen. Justwagen (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Or perhaps more of a question; why is this sorted into an ice hockey discussion? Is there not a better place to present this so that editors who are more familiar with field hockey can interact with it?18abruce (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is listed in a few places. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 12:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 12:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 12:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:17, 15 February 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Brazão (footballer, born 2000)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Player has not played in any fully-pro league. RRD (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No appearances, still needs multiple substantive sources to pass GNG if/when that happens. Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any of the criteria on WP:CSD, so I'd be opposed to a speedy, but he's not notable either. Smartyllama (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY. R96Skinner (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the deletion, the criteria of notability alone does not warrant a need for an article on Wikipedia, maybe in the future if the player achieves notability the article would be reinstated.Garlicolive (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meetWP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL at this stage. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sunrise in Heaven. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caylee Cowan

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

WP:TOOSOON. Virtually no actual coverage and thus far only has one semi-notable role. Fails WP:NACTOR. Praxidicae (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's comment. She's the lead actress in a movie that comes out April 9th 2019 with 5 actors that all have wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junerock21 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film she has a starring role in. If she gets another notable role the redirect can be undone. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Film will not get a wide release (online on-demand only) so even if the film is notable, that is not inherited by actors in it. Reywas92^Talk 23:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Britishfinance (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BFI list of the 50 films you should see by the age of 14

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

This WP:COPYVIO survived three(!) Afd's from 2006 to 2008. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As this is an article about a list that exists in the real world, we have two questions: whether this BFI list is notable, and how much of it can we quote or copy. Merely having an article about this list is not in and of itself a copyvio, so if the topic merits inclusion, I don't see that being a deletion rationale, and we've dealt with this with other notable lists. postdlf (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search does not evidence notability of list. Existence of list by a notable organization that has published other notable lists does not mean this is notable too. Reywas92^Talk 23:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above this page has survived three deletion proposals (March 2006, April 2006, July 2008). BFI (British Film Institute) is notable and a quick google search will find hundreds of movie sites where the list is displayed. I vote Keep, because the only reason 16 year old me watched half of the movies on this list was because of this wikipedia page. Will be disappointed if it's deleted. Theweekndeditor (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT, not a suitable reason for inclusion. Also we aren't interested in lists of other movies sites for purposes of this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage and there are a number of similar lists on Wikipedia such as Rotten tomatoes highest rated and lowest rated etc, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is routine. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of independent sources verifying the notability of this ranked list. The three previous AfD's were conducted at a time where users voted to keep stuff based on general interest and not on policy. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and User:Reywas92. The one reliable source states "The following is an alphabetical list of the ten most recommended films for children to see:". This is noted but where does the other 40 come from? Apparently the "British Film Institute" in the "External links" section. It is there because it would potentially be a copyvio to use as a reference. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument in an AFD. Otr500 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The BFI is, of course, notable, but not every list of films that they produce is. Fundamentally, this lacks meaningful independent coverage. One BBC article isn't sufficient. And there's good reason to expect the minimal attention this list received, because the BFI itself described this list as "in no way final". As far as I can determine, they never revisited this concept after the initial BFI/Barbican Centre collaboration. Insufficient coverage plus the complicated question of whether we can even reproduce lists like this for copyright reasons both strongly suggest that there's only one policy-compliant outcome here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this cruft with no independent sources. Trillfendi (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage, and as noted we can't include the full list for COPYVIO reasons, so it's not even useful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Time is a brutal resolver of notability (e.g. time defending old articles with flaky references to construct "contrived" WP:GNG cases will be wasted; eventually the ILIKEIT aspect, so crucial to their support at AfD, dies). Almost no RS to this list left; the list never caught on. Why would somebody look for this list now?. Britishfinance (talk) 14:21, 17 February 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. There seems to be a consensus the subject meets WP:GNG (which counters "unsourced" claim from the nominator with sources that exist per WP:NEXIST) and the Bearian's rationale is WP:NOTNOTABLE, which is not to be used here. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardin Pavlović

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

Non-notable writer. A few sources mention him in passing, and facts about him appear to be scarce. The "importance" is claimed, but is unspecified and unsourced. GregorB (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am dumbfounded why anyone would think this person was notable. There is essentially no evidence. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some passing mentions here: [28] [29] [30] (as a source?) [31], mentioned here [32]. My Croatian isn't strong enough to understand everything but I think he passes WP:NAUTHOR, the research was certainly interesting. SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are indeed all passing mentions, save for the last one, which is from a 1939 book titled Naša Gospa od Zdravlja i njezina slava, by Ante Crnica [hr]. In it, there is a chapter dedicated to B. Pavlović ([33], pp. 215-220). It does mention his 1747 work, but does not assert its importance either. In particular, looking at this chapter, I cannot find anything of significance that would count towards WP:NAUTHOR. GregorB (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time to allow for input regarding sources presented late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is a difficult subject to comment on. The article claims that the subject's published works were an important development in the Croatian language. The article about the Croatian language has a total of one sentence about the 18th century, saying "However, this first linguistic renaissance in Croatia was halted ..... in 1671. Subsequently, the Croatian elite in the 18th century gradually abandoned this combined Croatian standard." The next para in that article is about the 19th century. So whatever happened in the development of the Croatian language in the 18th century, English Wikipedia has no information about. Croatian Wikipedia has a longer section about that time period, which mentions a few authors but not Bernardin Pavlović.

There are certainly sources with more information about him, but most only have snippet views available on Google Books. The journal Mogućnosti, Volume 44, Issues 1-9, p 10 (1997), has an article which includes these lines (visible in the Google Books search result, but not in the snippet view; translation by Google Translate): "On May 6, 1730, Bernardin Pavlovic reached the Duchab on May 6, 1730, asking the statesman to reach the church authorities and proclaimed him a legitimate and legitimate place of residence, but the subsequent events reduced things faster than he thought. God. 1731. proclaims plague ." A 1934 source, Danica, shows in the Google Book search results the lines "Bernardin Pavlovic, Elder Franciscan, Our Lady's image of this fence. Archbishop of the Priest came to the other side of the fence and at that place solemnly blessed the image of Our Lady by finding that he was exposed to worship in one beautiful place .." Again, the snippet view does not show that part of the page, and it's not at all clear what this is about, or how much there is about Bernardin Pavlovic, but, like the 1997 source, it does seem to be about something other than his publications.

My conclusion from these very partial glimpses of sources is that, including the 1939 book linked above, I think enough probably does exist for him to meet WP:GNG. The sources which mention him date from at least the mid 1800s to the 2000s, so there is certainly sustained coverage. (Is there a National Dictionary of Biography for Croatia or any of its predecessor states? He seems the kind of person who might be included.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources on the person, although Google Books offer only snippets, they might be more than passing mentions - [34] (looks to be the start of a biography)[35] as well as others [36][37][38][39]. It's hard to tell from some of those that offered only snippets if more are written there, but cumulatively they do indicate that he is not a nobody and may qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:31, 8 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Lo

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

Can't find decent sources to support notability under GNG. (Not a deletion rationale, but interesting: article was created by the (now blocked) user Beautini; Lo's company is called Beautini. ) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Indeed, WP:GNG is not met, and there is no claim of notability. GregorB (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. ♟♙ (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough for GNG. There was a NewYorkTimes piece on make-up for weddings that gave her a mention (amongst others), but no actual material artical on her from an RS. Britishfinance (talk) 21:13, 15 February 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Iese

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON John from Idegon (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any evidence the individual has played in an actual NFL or CFL game, so that's a failure of WP:NGRIDIRON. Looking at his college play, it doesn't look promising--I'm only finding basic "transactional-type" and/or blog entries, and even those reports point to a lack of notability. For example, Fansided blogged "I’ll be honest I was excited thinking about what Nate Iese was going to bring to the group last year with his size and athleticism. He had an okay year for the 2016 UCLA Football team catching the ball but his 25 catches for 400 yards and four touchdowns didn’t blow anyone out of the water." The Sacramento Bee only had this to say: "Played fullback, tight end, linebacker at UCLA; considered a freak athlete." I have to admit that I don't know what a "freak" athlete is, but it doesn't sound like he was able to generate enough press there to surpass WP:GNG. There is a pre-season article at the Orange County Register where he got several paragraphs outlining the "anticipation" of what he could do, but by all measures I can find he didn't produce the results that this one article of hype predicted. There certainly are not a good selection of independent reliable sources that wrote about his efforts and I can find no other notability measure that points to a pass. Anyone have better/different research?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Paul McDonald's research. He isn't listed as being on the team roster currently(according to the article here). 331dot (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable athlete.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul McDonald and lack of significant coverage focused on him. With 46 catches and seven TDs in four years of play, he wasn't even a particularly significant contributor at UCLA. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails WP:GNG on numerous levels. He was with the team for a short time and most of the points were very well stated by Paul McDonald. My last nail in the coffin is that the article is also extremely poorly sorted and written, seems like a sandbox article rather than a full article. James-the-Charizard (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Darwin–Wedgwood family. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Wedgwood (1721–67)

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

Not notable except for being the brother of Josiah Wedgwood Erp (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my suggestion on Thomas Wedgwood III below. Mccapra (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There are details of the various Wedgwoods in works such as Chaffers. Andrew D. (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaffers wrote a compendium of English pottery manufacturers (not individual potters) most of which are too obscure to rate a separate article in Wikipedia. In addition John Wedgwood wasn't even a potter. --Erp (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaffers contains biographical details of the various Wedgwoods, including this one, giving details of his work, residence and death. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is a notable historical person. _Srijanx22_ 10:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srijanx22 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge No indication of notability of than that inherited from his brother. Reywas92^Talk 05:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Darwin-Wedgwood family (or even better, as proposed in another AfD to a Wedgwood family article to be split off of Darwin-Wedgwood family). Agricolae (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the other AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a wider Wedgwood family to cover all the relatives of Josiah of dubious notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Notability is not inherited, lack of sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Josiah Wedgwood has been the subject of numerous biographies. An early biographer who wrote a two volume biography and a number of additional books is Eliza Meteyard. Based on her book, I think there is a good case the Josiah's brothers, Tom and John, are both suitably encyclopedic subjects for an article. Their lives and motivations are discussed in detail, and a good deal is known about them. You can see their entries in the book's index, here[40]. I think there is a much weaker case for Josiah's father. In this and other early, public domain biographies of Josiah, all that is written about his father is based on his will, his date of death, and generalizations about potters and inhabitants from Burslem during that period. I am !voting on all three AfDs (that of John Wedgwood (1721–67), that of Thomas Wedgwood IV and that of Thomas Wedgwood III) with this comment, as I think they are similar enough. I am voting weakly because I think the best proof of the subjects being encyclopedic would come in actually improving the pages (based on Meteyard or other sources) and I do not have time to do the improving myself. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Josiah Wedgwood per WP:NOTINHERITED. He is not notable as WP:GNG requires multiple in-depth sources, and only one biography of his brother was provided above. I don't think that even that can be considered significant coverage, but a redirect would at least be supported by the one book. wumbolo ^^^ 20:42, 22 February 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. Many various ideas present, but ultimately, no consensus for a particular outcome has occurred herein. Discussion can continue on the talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wedgwood IV

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

Not notable except for being the brother of Josiah Wedgwood Erp (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my suggestion on Thomas Wedgwood III below. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There are details of the various Wedgwoods in works such as Chaffers. Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty barebones article with little information on the individual himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:D94:36F7:5D0D:60A5 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Darwin-Wedgwood family (or even better, as proposed in another AfD to a Wedgwood family article to be split off of Darwin-Wedgwood family). Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the other AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge No individual notability, merely as member of family. Even if others think he's notable, that does not mean content about him must be on a separate article, it can be covered equally well in Darwin-Wedgwood family. Reywas92^Talk 08:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a wider Wedgwood family to cover all the relatives of Josiah of dubious notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Josiah Wedgwood has been the subject of numerous biographies. An early biographer who wrote a two volume biography and a number of additional books is Eliza Meteyard. Based on her book, I think there is a good case the Josiah's brothers, Tom and John, are both suitably encyclopedic subjects for an article. Their lives and motivations are discussed in detail, and a good deal is known about them. You can see their entries in the book's index, here[41]. I think there is a much weaker case for Josiah's father. In this and other early, public domain biographies of Josiah, all that is written about his father is based on his will, his date of death, and generalizations about potters and inhabitants from Burslem during that period. I am !voting on all three AfDs (that of John Wedgwood (1721–67), that of Thomas Wedgwood IV and that of Thomas Wedgwood III) with this comment, as I think they are similar enough. I am voting weakly because I think the best proof of the subjects being encyclopedic would come in actually improving the pages (based on Meteyard or other sources) and I do not have time to do the improving myself. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article shows no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Darwin–Wedgwood family. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wedgwood III

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

Not notable. Only claim to fame is being the father of a famous person, Josiah Wedgwood, (and two others who also have Wikipedia articles but whose fame is only because they were the brothers of Josiah Wedgwood). For the record and as a possible conflict of interest I am a descendant (but so are probably a few thousand others). Erp (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:INHERITED. There are times, and these 18th century industrialist dynasties are examples, when someone can be notable even though most of this is on behalf of other members of the family. The whole family is notable, as the multi-generational development of their family-owned business (which is certainly notable!). To omit one generation leaves us with a serious hole in the overall picture. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As Andy Dingley says it's the Wedgewood family that is notable, not each individual member of it. My suggestion is that all the Wedgewood articles up for deletion here be merged into a single article about the family, which can both cover why the family matters, and briefly summarise the lives of individual members. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so this is another of those AfDs where it's a bulk AfD, but done silently without cross notifications? 8-(

I'm against merging. The borderline ones will be very thin articles, but they're just easier to manage as clear nodes within the namespace. Even if merged, we'd still keep them as redirects. That said, merging to the family article would still be better than deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Darwin–Wedgwood family article and I could see him mentioned there or in Josiah Wedgwood's own article (along with his two brothers Thomas Wedgwood IV and John Wedgwood (1721–67) who I also suggested for deletion, my apologies for not cross-linking them). I note that this Thomas Wedgwood was not a notable potter nor was his son Thomas and his son John's main importance separate from the other siblings was that he was murdered. If anything, the Thomases, father and son, were rather unsuccessful and the father died when Josiah was only 9 or 10. I also note that if you are trying to show how the previous generations (many of whom were also potters) connect are we going to include articles for all the individuals that connect Josiah Wedgwood to his wife and third cousin, Sarah Wedgwood? --Erp (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There are details of the various Wedgwoods in works such as Chaffers. Andrew D. (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that mention in Chaffers is not sufficient; his work was an attempt to list every maker (Marks And Monograms On Pottery And Porcelain: With Historical Notices Of Each Manufactory (1866)). I don't think Wikipedia should consider each and every manufactory of pottery to be significant enough for an article. Note also that Thomas III and Thomas IV are one manufactory (Josiah started his own separate from his brother). John Wedgwood wasn't even a potter. --Erp (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so there is no reason to arbitrarily limit our coverage of potters to those that Erp prefers. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol..."this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". This is a meta-reasoning (WP:EVERYTHING): Wikipedia merely being able to have article on anything doesn't mean it should. The content on the person may still be WP:PRESERVED in the family article rather than in a separate one. Reywas92^Talk 08:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty barebones article with little information on the individual himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:D94:36F7:5D0D:60A5 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and repurpose -- The Darwin-Wedgewood family article seems largely about the Darwin family, but bringing in a few relatives with other surnames. With several notable members of the Wedgewood family, mainly notable as connected with Josiah, there is a case for having a family article, dealing not only with Josiah's father and brothers, but with wider connections. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to existing Darwin-Wedgwood family or proposed Wedgwood family article. One way or the other, as an entirely genealogical article on a non-independently-notable person, this article as it stands should go away. WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Agricolae (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge No evidence of notability beyond that simply inherited from the rest of the family. Darwin-Wedgwood family would be a fine place to merge any useful information, but he is not notable by himself. Reywas92^Talk 08:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge WP:Not paper WP:Before not honored. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 13:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Notability is not inherited.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Josiah Wedgwood has been the subject of numerous biographies. An early biographer who wrote a two volume biography and a number of additional books is Eliza Meteyard. Based on her book, I think there is a good case the Josiah's brothers, Tom and John, are both suitably encyclopedic subjects for an article. Their lives and motivations are discussed in detail, and a good deal is known about them. You can see their entries in the book's index, here[42]. I think there is a much weaker case for Josiah's father. In this and other early, public domain biographies of Josiah, all that is written about his father is based on his will, his date of death, and generalizations about potters and inhabitants from Burslem during that period. I am !voting on all three AfDs (that of John Wedgwood (1721–67), that of Thomas Wedgwood IV and that of Thomas Wedgwood III) with this comment, as I think they are similar enough. I am voting weakly because I think the best proof of the subjects being encyclopedic would come in actually improving the pages (based on Meteyard or other sources) and I do not have time to do the improving myself. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:18, 21 February 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samie Bower

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

This seems to be one of another attempts at creating an autobiographical article; nearly all sources listed are either from Discogs, social networking sites, and other sources which aren't even from a reliable news site, failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. It should be noted that another user, Entrelations, had this same page on their sandbox created hours ago, so sock puppetry and maybe undisclosed paid editing is highly likely. theinstantmatrix (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's vanity spam and has no coverage in RS. Praxidicae (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt No notability, very promotional. Will need salting. Britishfinance (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above. A Google search yielded 7 pages of results, none of which were reliable sources. Gargleafg (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP: NMUSIC. StaticVapor message me! 22:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Daejeon Citizen FC. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daejeon Citizen in Asian football

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

Not enough list to separate an article, maybe we should merge to Daejeon Citizen FC Hhkohh (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/marge to section on main article, in the same way as Bradford City A.F.C. in European football. Giant Snowman 08:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge A list with a single item is obviously not something that needs a separate page, sheesh. Please just be bold and merge in such blatant cases and come to AFD or start a discussion in the unlikely chance it's objected to. Reywas92^Talk 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jeju United. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju United in Asian football

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

Not enough list to separate an article, maybe we should merge to Jeju United FC Hhkohh (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/marge to section on main article, in the same way as Bradford City A.F.C. in European football. Giant Snowman 08:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daejeon Citizen in Asian football, and please also merge some of the others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daejeon Citizen in Asian football like Jeju United in Asian football. This content can be in a separate article when article and section length requires it but that should never be the default. Reywas92^Talk 23:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge redirect per above suggestion. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to main article, per past consensuses on similar AFDs. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:10, 9 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bajju Rajput

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

Still seems to be problematic. Recreated some time ago after a previous "soft delete" AfD. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, doesn't seem notable either. samee converse 23:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that this was "soft" deleted and re-created already, it would be highly desirable to get more input for a firm decision this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and no substance, the article is pretty much useless. Doradafan (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't even find it on Google Maps. Sorry, I vote delete also. Theweekndeditor (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

?? It is alleged to be a social group in India, not a place. I'm not sure that Maps would be a useful resource in these circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Rajput and/or Rajput clans (perhaps others?). This is way out of my realm of expertise, but, unless there are more definitive and comprehensive sources out there discussing the group, I don't see why this page needs to exist in a standalone capacity. Mentioning the group in one of the pages I listed above might be more appropriate if there are sources available. Gargleafg (talk) 01:42, 12 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firepower Records

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

The only sources I could find for this record label today refer to the 2018 sexual allegations of its founder, Datsik (musician) as well as the songs signed to this label. No other significant coverage can be found, but I do not believe the 2018 events are enough to satisfy independent notability for the record label. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two references (three technically), only one of which (UKF) actually being reliable and usable. Writing format seems biased and unprofessional. Artist section had a bunch of seemingly random (or previously part of the label?) artists added to the list that aren't listed in the reference. Beatport cannot be used as a source in any case, including as a discography page reference. Micro (Talk) 03:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment, I'm not convinced even UKF is reliable... it's essentially the work of one man, Dave Jenkins. There are a couple of other contributors listed, but absolutely no biographical information about them, so we have no idea of their credentials, they could just be unpaid volunteers. Richard3120 (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fail WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree it fails WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO Actaudio (talk) 07:35, 15 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Grove (Downers Grove, Illinois)

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

Only coverage is local and routine. No significant coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This shopping center has a total area of 204,762 sq ft, according to Edgemark Commercial Real Estate Services LLC, and 400,000 square feet according to RD Management LLC. Coverage by Chicago media is regional rather than local. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many articles of shopping centers of this size. This article does a good job of documenting changes to the center to deal with a changing situation. As the documentation of a single site it is dull, but as a reflection of the changing face of commerce it is worthwile. GeorgeofOrange (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Sandals1 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see any coverage that looks like it qualifies for meeting the GNG. Of the four references given one is from the management company, one doesn't mention the center at all, one gives it a passing mention as one of the closing Ultra locations, and the final one says it's been foreclosed on and will be put up for sale (WP:NOTNEWS). Sandals1 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 13 February 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. Copyright issues should be addressed by revdels. I can do this if you indicate exactly which revisions need to be deleted. Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benedetta Dubini

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

Spam bordering on G11 speedy deletion territory. None of the provided sources covers Benedetta Dubini in any detail. Significant parts of the content are unreferenced; multiple sources don't confirm what they're cited for (nor much else about Dubini the person). There are also copyright issues since parts of the "Early life and education" section are closely paraphrased from her website. Huon (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Lucifero4

Note: This discussion has been included in the WiR February 2019 Geofocus: The Ancient World. StrayBolt (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOTCLEANUP Added some RS and minor clean up. Needs more work but doesn't need to be deleted. StrayBolt (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could really use someone who speaks French and Italian to add sources. They exist, but I can't read them (You can see some of these here). The sources that are here are hit or miss. Some aren't great, but the Wallpaper articles are good and the other sources in other languages make me say she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, really struggling to get good quality English articles. Most are in Italian and some French. Subject matter is also part of Wikiproject Women. This project addresses the under-representation of content on Wikipedia about women (both real and fictional) and covering women's perspectives. Only 17% of Wikipedia biographies are about women. Agree I also believe she passes GNG. Equine-man (talk) 15:53, 11 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Fox In Space

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

Fails WP:GNG. References are all links to youtube except for a brief article from A.V. Club (related to Gizmodo and Lifehacker, but I don't consider this particularly reliable) that wasn't significant in coverage. Before search returned fan sites, still nothing reliable. Definitely nothing that covered the game the way this article does (no way to verify what's said). Aurornisxui (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a game, it's an animated web series. Iffy★Chat -- 16:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Iffy Thanks. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A fairly unnotable bit of fan work. The article from the A.V. Club, which is the only valid reference currently in the article, appears to be the only reliable secondary source out there. Searching for more brings up nothing further except for mentions in blogs or user comments, neither of which can be used to establish notability. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the series is very well animated, there isn't much secondary sources that exist. I searched it on Google, and it was only talked about around April 26, 2016. Unless the series grows, an article shouldn't exist. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discus (comics)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears 11 times, according to Marvel Wikia. A Google search for "discus marvel" does not turn up any notable results. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: D or List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Generic term, and current target fails WP:GNG--Killer Moff (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I agree with BOZ above. Merge into List of Marvel Characters or Luke Cage supporting characters. I don't believe it deserves its own page. Theweekndeditor (talk) 02:01, 9 February 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. A possible merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armless Tiger Man

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked in the body of four articles, and the character appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources noted below supporting the WP:GNG, or failing that merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: A or List of Marvel Comics Golden Age characters. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No toher likely target and fails WP:GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. An extremely minor character, whose only sources are primary. However, his name is unusual enough that it could be a valid search term, so a redirect and selective merge would be fine. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cracked has an entertaining account of the character and it's not difficult to find similar coverage elsewhere. The nomination's assertion about the WP:GNG is therefore false while its claims about Wikia are remarkably irrelevant. Andrew D. (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided from the Marvel Wikia goes directly to a lack of significance within the fiction. Marvel has published 60+ comics a month for almost 80 years. A character appearing in only 8 of those says a lot about his lack of importance. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet my criteria for merging or redirect. Coverage of the character in list articles of oddball comic characters doesn't demonstate notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the WP:GNG. Comic Book Resources gives significant coverage to the character at [43] Screen Rant mention him at [44]. This and other coverage found and mentioned count. Dream Focus 00:15, 9 February 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. A possible merge can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestos Man

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears less than ten times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence below of meeting the WP:GNG, or failing that merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: A or Great Lakes Avengers. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is not really any evidence proving Wp:GNG yet though that I know of IMO. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like it passes GNG to me, based on reference 6, and these: [45]] and [[46]]. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No not really. Absestos Lady gets more coverage and she is even more obscure. All those sources are broke too. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference six, as well as both of the sources you tried linking to here, are just blogs. Blogs are generally not considered reliable secondary sources for the purposes of passing the GNG.169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep comic book character that passes GNG. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Both Asbestos Lady and Asbestos Man were only notable for one thing. For being asbestos type villains to their flaming counterpart. But they are extremely minor and they didn’t last long. Not enough coverage. I wish he appeared more since he is a Stan Lee original but he has passes on in both in real life and in-universe. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. The few sources provided that are not the comics themselves are blogs and official marvel handbooks. These do not meet the requirements of being reliable secondary sources. However, they do provide enough that I think a merge would be appropriate. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears in The Supervillain Handbook, The Encyclopedia of Super Villains and The Rough Guide to Superheroes and so passes the WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. These are primary sources where any Marvel character or super villains can appear. You need to read GNG again. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet my criteria for a merge or redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. Appeared in media popular enough that someone might want to read about it, but that doesn't require its own article. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Fall of the Mutants. Any content worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ani-Mator

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked by seven articles, most of which are minor mentions that could be deleted, and the character appears nine times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: A or The Fall of the Mutants. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cypher (Marvel Comics), fails WP:GNG, but no other likely target, and target article provides enough context. Character's involvement in major event in target's story justifies redirect. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fall of the Mutants. 21:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixx

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked in the body of four articles, character appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: F or List of X-Men members. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Suspect is more likely to be a typo than a valid search term. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet my criteria for a merge or redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marvel: The Lost Generation. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Fox (Robert Paine)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked by one article, appears 13 times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B or Marvel: The Lost Generation. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marvel: The Lost Generation. Valid search term but nothing of any worth in preserving. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Killer Moff. 21:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The 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 17:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abir Ibrahim

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

I see no reason why this page passes WP:GNG, there is no reliable source for her, and the only point that can be looked upon is her being a "UNICEF USA Community Engagement Fellow" Daiyusha (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of these sources are not reliable/independent. Those that are, fail Sig Cov. I am confident that an article on Inua Naturals would be sufficiently notable, but Abir is usually only covered in short detail before going on about Inua. This sourcing issue is duplicated elsewhere. I don't believe any of her positions or awards are so large as to demonstrate notability in themselves. As a side note, the article is also a mix of advertorial and a CV. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is a summary of WP:RS. If this article is kept then delete everything without a citation to meet Wikipedia's quality standard. The sources which are cited do not feature this person as their subject or are WP:SPS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dos Yiddishe Licht. Two people argued to merge, but the counter-argument that without references, you don't have WP:V, precludes a merge. Still, the suggested merge target does mention this, so a redirect, per WP:ATD seems reasonable. The history is still available, so if anybody wants to mine this for material to merge. If you do that, however, you need to find WP:RS to support any merged material. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beleichtungen

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

Doesn't seem to pass GNG or Notability guidelines, references are not even for the subject of the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I deleted the blogspot under references as well as the other entry that also doesn't apply. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Mostly notable as Das Yiddishe Licht, and not the newer Beleichtungen. Title probably should be the newer one, but Das Yiddishe Licht should redirect here. As a Yiddish paper in Jerusalem - English BEFOREing won't get you far (though I suspect the yiddishkeit rags in New York probably do refer, in Yiddish, to the Jerusalem Yiddish rag). There are however quite a few Yiddish (which is harder for me to assess RS-wise) and Hebrew hits, for instance: This academic paper on the use of Hebrew and the Yiddish language used in DYL (lots of different types of Yiddish are extant - though following the Holocaust, it has all become a mishmash)..... Here a Haredi paper refers to DYL. Quite a few Hebrew book hits, harking back quite a bit (e.g. 1945) - [47][48][49][50][51][52]. I would expect even more hits in Yiddish literature - whose online availability is spotty, to say the least (Hebrew ain't great either online, but there's quite a bit more). Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dos Yiddishe Licht. As a DYL was created too, and since I do not think Beleichtungen is independentally notable from DYL per my search - a merge to there, leaving a redirect, is probably the best course.Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Partial merge to a disambiguation page. Unless there is enough material for a standalone page, I think a redirect to a disambiguation page instead of an unrelated newspaper would be preferable and less confusing for readers. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the material is withou any references it simply does not make it as a new article. If the material somehow, usually through overight, has already made it as an article, we do not send it elsewhere but eliminate it altogether. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unrefenced and a decade old. No evidence ever independentally notable. Nothing to "Merge" as there are no references; must be Delete. Britishfinance (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there are no references verifying any kind of independent notability. In fact, there are no references out there, period. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most of what is out there is writtent in Yiddish (much off line, some online), written in Hebrew letters.Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 23 February 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. Apart from the nom there is only one participant in this debate, who argues for a merge. If that is an acceptable solution, that can be handled on the talk pages of these articles. If not, no prejudice to taking this to AfD again in, say, 2 months time, hoping on a wider participation. Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Grand Prix Ivan Yarygin 2019 – Men's freestyle 70 kg

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

While this GrandPrix event is notable, it doesn't mean that all subevents (individual gender/weight classes) have the necessary notability to support stand-alone pages. Fails WP:NEVENT.

If we compare it to other sports with multiple subevents, it looks as if neither athletics, judo or karate have similar pages, apart from major championships (World, Olympic), where this is generally accepted. It is rare for such subevents to get the sustained coverage needed for an individual page, usually they get reported upon when they happen, and after that are just passing mentions or lines in databases. Fram (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason are also nominated:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that I disagree with the nomination but I'm not sure AfD is the right solution here. It makes more sense to simply be bold and merge all content of the three subpages to Golden Grand Prix Ivan Yarygin 2019. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment number 2 I just found Category:Golden Grand Prix Ivan Yarygin 2017 and Category:Golden Grand Prix Ivan Yarygin 2018. Whatever we decide here should probably apply to all articles in these categories and it might make sense to either add them to this nomination or at least notify the articles' creators about this AfD. Pichpich (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Presents

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

Cannot find enough sources to confirm WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent in-depth coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 9 February 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. There is no support for deletion at all, and there is consensus that there is coverage of Beno Dorn (even if it was not pointed at all in this AfD) (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beno Dorn

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

Notability of this tailor is exclusively via occasional connection with the Beatles, who just had happened to order suits from him. There are zillions of shops where the beatles went shopping. No in-depth coverage of this guy, just mentions in passing. Notability is not inherited. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fashion didn't just happen in London. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- and how is this related to our notability rules? Namely, which reliable sources speak in depth of influence of Dorn on London fashion? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would you expect someone based 200 miles away to have an effect on London fashion? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guy did not just make any suits he made the suits the Beattle got famous with. This is not hurting anyone and has good sources. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Our rule is that notability is not inherited. Many people did many things for beatles and bragged about this. We do not have articles about them. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that he bragged about this, but that other people wrote about it, that shows notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guy is even on the Beatles tour. There are plenty of references to this guy in various Beatles books confirming his part in the groups outfits. Maybe borderline, but given the mega-notability Beatles, am happy to take a view on it. If a reader heard of this guy clothing the band, wouldn't they expect to find him in WP? Britishfinance (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because folks keep writing about this guy, after all these years. And when the sources are there....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There might be coverage in Bill Harry's The Beatles Encyclopedia, page 352. wumbolo ^^^ 21:03, 1 March 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 to delete, after greatly extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 03:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Jashni

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

This is a connected-editor puff-piece, with enough references to give the impression that the person is notable. However, I believe that notability is not established; Jashni gets a number of passing mentions, as a "creative officer" (here) or as one of a team of producers. I see no in-depth coverage of him or of his achievements, nothing to to suggest that he is any different from the thousands of behind-the-scenes people who help make notable films happen, but do not in that process themselves become notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Primefac who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... I don't remember much other than keeping tabs on it for a while after accepting. Was definitely in the category of a "borderline accept". I have no strong opinions but would personally say that he's not notable just for being someone who has done things. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kvng – I'd meant to do that but it seems to have slipped my mind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

commment thousands of behind-the-scenes people, well' I wouldn't call President a one of "thousands of behind-the scenes people". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline keep. NOtability's are just guidelines to weed unquestionalbe cases. This one in borderline hence special consideration. I's say by the sum of facts (President; twice direct producer; press coverage, although routine, but verifies his activities, not just PR hype. Staszek Lem (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. Found him in 8 magazines in the first 16 references, discussing a wide range of films at Legendary Entertainment. Seems to be ok. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 9 February 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 Draftify. There's no true consensus, but closing this as NC would keep something in mainspace which most people agree shouldn't be there. Draft seems like a reasonable compromise. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rupa Shanmugam

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

Can't find information that would meet WP:GNG. Her company does not have a WP article either. Britishfinance (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several independent sources and so the subject passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide time for evidence of the notability of this subject to develop. If no improvement is made in due time, the draft will be abandoned and deleted as such. bd2412 T 03:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources found or cited are quite poor, and certainly do not meet WP:NPERSON or even WP:GNG: NYS Women Inc is a women's support group that has simply put up subject's cv; the New Strait Times piece is pure advertorial, with a link to the NYS Women Inc cv; and Ipoh Echo is a small local newspaper at Perak. This is just trivial coverage. Let's be gracious and call it a case of WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 10:59, 23 February 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. After extended time for review, consensus is clear. bd2412 T 16:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friary Bowling Club

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

A historic club, apparently formed in 1820, but nothing notable seems to have happened in the two centuries since! There are no relevant sources in the page except a book that I cannot find any reference to and I have found no other sources that deal in depth with this club. I had hoped that there was a possibility of adding a mention in the Friary's page but, despite the Friary being quite possibly notable, it has no article. This page has had no substantive content addition since creation in April 2013. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an undistinguished amateur sports club, so far as I can see, even if older than many. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I couldn't find a single informative source outside of Wikipedia. Gargleafg (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Church Educational System per WP:BLP1E (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul V. Johnson

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable subject, the article qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. The subject is notable only for one event, being appointed as commissioner of the LDS Church Educational System. WP:BEFORE source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources other than this article about the subject's appointment. Fleeting passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations found in source searches do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Church Educational System per nom. My BEFORE isn't turning up anything substantive. b uidhe 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, clear fail of WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 13:54, 22 February 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 move to draft. I will tag the redirect per WP:CSD#R2. Thanks, -- (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Tommei

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

Not notable person. BEFORE finds little else than the scant sourcing in the article. Chetsford (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide time for evidence of the notability of this subject to develop. If no improvement is made in due time, the draft will be abandoned and deleted as such. bd2412 T 03:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify. Nothing I can find to support GNG. Tiny company that raised just over $1m in 2017. There is an assumption that I see repeated often at AfD that TED talks imply notability but I don't think that this is the case. Still young so who knows, but for now, not a candidate for a BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After extended time for discussion, there are three firm !votes to keep, premised on a reasonable examination of available sources, two firm !votes to delete, and one !vote leaning delete. Normally, the nominator would be counted as a vote to delete, but in this case User:Balkywrest as nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Septrillion. It would be odd to give substantial weight to the opinion of a sockpuppet in a discussion, and no less so as nominator. Thus, although the opinion of the nominator is not discounted entirely, it must be given little weight in the outcome here. Given the previous extension of time for this discussion, and the tendency over the course of the discussion for additional sources to be found, relisting this nomination in expectation of a different consensus seems an unwise use of resources. The article can clearly be improved by the addition of sources raised in the discussion, and those supporting its inclusion should consider taking on this task. bd2412 T 02:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riskified

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

Sources are insufficient to prove notability. Balkywrest (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete: all of the sources, even the ones which appear "major", are actually blog-like, such as the WSJ one. SITH (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When you take away the routine funding announcements and brief mentions, there are sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The Wall Street Journal piece is not a blog post in the typical sense of the word. It is written by a staff writer who says has been employed there since 2013. Other significant coverage includes Jerusalem Post, another JP, and Globes to name a few. The page itself needs cleaned up and stripped of the promo, but it certainly meets WP:NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The WSJ reference is even listed as a blog post on Riskified's website ... HighKing⁺⁺ 12:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. Just a promotional directory listing. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a TechCrunch article ([53]) which is a yellow-light source, and can be counted for limited additional notability, on top of sources already discussed above. I don't see any discussion of Globes ([54]) as a source, but it appears reliable and is a national newspaper, so I assume this article can be counted towards notability as well. Lastly, there's a Mother Jones article ([55]) which is definitely a green-light reliable source, and is definitely not biased in favor of this company. That's decent press in two countries. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notabilty. The Globes article is an interview with the founders, not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND. Both this Jerusalem Post reference and this one are classic chrurnalism - faux "profiles" complete with the usual photo/quotes/vision/growth/funding structure but, you know, no actual "news", fails as not being intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND. The MotherJones reference is the best of a bad lot but it is merely commenting on the WSJ reference and doesn't provide and in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This company obviously has a marketing dept but the topic does not appear to be notable and fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like there are plenty of sources available that do not amount to churnalism. In addition to the other sources noted on here, there are two articles from The Wall Street Journal (one's a WSJ blog, but it's still a highly reputable source) and there's one from Reuters. Also, a Google News search reveals a number of sources, many of which are funding announcements. I realize that's not a way to contribute to notability, but those sources are at least supplemental. Maybe reworking the draft might help. Gargleafg (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2006 United States Senate election in Utah. bd2412 T 02:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Ashdown

AfDs for this article:

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

Looking at the sourcing the only sourcing that is indepdent and reliable is connected with his run for US senate. The problem is we have decided that not all candidates for public office are default notable, but the coverage he got is just at the level any candidate can expect. The last discussion 14 years ago was clearly misguided, it included such gems of early Wikipedia thought as a keep vote that essentially boiled down to "keep because Ilike the fact that this candidate set his campaign website up as a .org website and not a .com website". I am less than convinced that a website that aims to get you put in a position where you get oaid should be anything other than .com, but I clearly do not think either way should influence inclusion in Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a well written page but the subject has very small claims to noteworthiness. Delete supported. Gumsaint (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our notability standards for politicians have evolved significantly since 2005, so the first discussion is not determinative in and of itself. At that time, there was still some support for the idea that non-winning candidates for office should be considered notable enough for articles, though that's been much more definitively quashed in the intervening 14 years — now, the standards that a non-winning candidate for political office would have to pass are that either (a) he can be shown to already have had preexisting notability for other reasons, independent of the candidacy, that would have gotten him an article on those other grounds anyway, or (b) he can be shown to have received so much more coverage than most other candidates also got that he has a credible claim to being special. So he might get over our notability standards for businesspeople if somebody could reference his work as CEO of an internet provider much better than this, but simply saying that he was CEO of an internet provider without sourcing the claim at all doesn't get him past condition A — and there's definitely no evidence of condition B on the table here at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added a reference to the front page Salt Lake Tribune profile of him as the XMission CEO in 2004. There are dozens of hits in newspaper databases pre-politics (mid-90s to early 00s), basically because when any paper in Utah needed a quote or example in internet-related coverage they would call up the local internet company CEO. Bakazaka (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as a non-notable businessman and failed political candidate that only garnered such coverage as candidates might expect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2006 United States Senate election in Utah. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:36, 10 February 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eureka Language Services}}<!--Relisted-->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClassifEye}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilhéa Peillard}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthias Politycki}}<!--Relisted-->