Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 February	16 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasun Horsley

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 06:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Rajputs

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

The article has no content other than one name, and even that is contested (sources, all offline, appear to vary on his social group identity). What's left is the line "Sikh Rajputs are followers of Sikhism belonging to the Rajput caste" which is a mere tautology. regentspark (comment) 19:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is not enough academic work detailing “Sikh Rajputs” as a distinct group. Most references just detail that some Rajputs converted to Sikhism which is not really worthy of an article. Other Rajput subgroup pages like Sindhi Rajputs, Punjabi Rajputs, Bihari Rajputs have also been deleted.31.100.154.51 (talk) 14:44, 21 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-^☖ 02:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails WP:GNG. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Very little online but did find this ref in the The Indian Express, [1]. Britishfinance (talk) 01:01, 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 keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbriar Capital Corp

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

Standard run of the mill corp - no meaningful coverage, just the typical PR, funding and passing mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 19:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the references are sufficient to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

could you please elaborate on which sources you find to be sufficient and how press releases, passing mentions and primary sources satisfy the criteria? Praxidicae (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTED. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per your guideline link Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above - emphasis mine. In the absence of actual in depth, meaningful coverage, merely being listed is insufficient, so unless you can provide in-depth coverage, it still fails WP:NCORP. Praxidicae (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE would have enabled you to find this source, this source, this source, many others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the fact that it seems promotional and might need to be rewritten, the company is notable as it is being traded publicly in the Canadian stock exchange. Lapablo (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two of the three sources provided above are "contributed opinions". I wouldn't cite them. wumbolo ^^^ 20:48, 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 delete. Tone 09:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rent24

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

Poorly referenced corp-spam, sourced almost entirely to interviews, press releases (rehashed or otherwise) and basic announcements. No coverage with any depth. Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreliable sources, a quick WP:BEFORE didn't reveal much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 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 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Group

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

No evidence the group is notable for a stand-alone article, nothing in the article shows them as being of note MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete - unless evidence of notability can be produced for this AfD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I spent quite a bit of time looking for a source to meet CORPDEPTH - there is a lot of minor press coverage and references to reports that they've produced, so I thought that I'd be able to find some significant coverage, but I drew a blank. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:16, 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 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) - [2][3][4][5][6][7]. 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 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

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

Orchards of the world

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

There are two problems with this article. The first is that the content of the article directly states that "Orchards of the world is a nickname for Mediterranean forests:", which, if true, would mean that this should not be a standalone article, but rather should redirect to Mediterranean forest. The second issue is that there doesn't appear to be any reliable source coverage that actually establishes that "Orchards of the world" is used to refer to such forests. It appears to be a phrase used in Excellup brand teaching materials, based on both this source cited in the article [8] and an internet search whose top hits were Answers.com pages with titles like "Why are Mediterranean forests called the orchards of the world". Previously nominated for PROD, dePROD by an editor with no other edits who asserted that this article is needed because the nickname is true _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this looks like a nickname from a textbook for Class 7 Geography. It's a misnomer and not in common use. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEOLOGISM. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If multiple unconnected sources used this term it should be a redirect, just like Garden of England which recieves a mention in the target article. I'd expect such a term to be used in books, but it doesn't seem to be, so delete.--Pontificalibus 11:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail of WP:NEOLOGISM. Britishfinance (talk) 13:59, 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 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. Tone 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Khan Vattayil

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

Non-notable person. Article's sole claim to notability is based on his foundation of Sehion Ministries, but there is no indication that this is a notable organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article takes an unambiguously promotional tone and lacks third party references of any sort. Searching on google, there is no third-party mention of him from a source that could be remotely considered reliable. There is nothing in the article that can be saved, and the article cannot be rewritten as there is no source-able information on the subject. SWL36 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete All the references are primary. Google search gives nothing as "Xavier Khan Vattayil", but "Vattayil Achan" gives loads of youtube videos, plus his supporters asking flattering questions about him on Quora (What makes Fr.Xavier Khan Vattayil a successful charismatic speaker?). However, not a single material Malaysian or Indian RS on him as a subject. Article is highly WP:PROMO and I am sure a WP:COI as well. Britishfinance (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure why you would be looking for Malaysian sources. Vattayil is from India. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:39, 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. 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 delete. czar 06:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Marquez (singer)

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

I reverted my own removal of unsourced content for the purpose of this AFD but I can't find any actual evidence that she is notable. I see a few credits on allmusic, which while somewhat reliable can be user generated and I'm not sure that background vocals alone qualify for WP:NMUSIC and I can find no actual coverage of her that is RS or independent. Praxidicae (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Almost an WP:A7. "She is most famous for her appearance in the music video of singer Jason Timberlake" says it all, however, when you dig further on this, you find out that she makes a very brief appearance; she is ultimately a backing singer (not a co-singer). Not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 14:14, 22 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-^☖ 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she's a run of the mill backup singer, period. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How did someone notice her and create an article in the first place? Massive fail of GNG and borderline CSD-A7. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 16:51, 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 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 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" ([9] (page 2)). Sources to satisfy WP:GNG include [10] p 62-67, [11] p77-79, [12], [13] and [14] It was clearly a notable location in Leeds, not just used for cricket ([15], [16]). 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 ([17]). Cricket-wise it hosted matches involving William Clarke's All-England Eleven ([18]), and regularly Leeds Cricket Club vs e.g. York and Bradford (e.g. [19]), and was regarded by some as the principal cricket ground in Leeds ([20]). 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" ([21]).--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 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 delete. Tone 09:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowi

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

References appear to point to only primary sources, niche articles and press releases, falling short of WP:NCORP. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is nothing more than mill corpspam. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Praxidicae. Just another mill corpspam. Lapablo (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Praxidicae. Tiny capital raising, non-notable awards. Fails NCORP. Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While noting that this was accepted through AfC, and carries many references, the article is describing a start-up firm's proposition and funding. Many of the references are merely reporting a funding announcement, some others are incubator/project listings and passing event mentions. The listed awards do not appear inherently notable. I do not see enough to demonstrate attained notabiility at this time via WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 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 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. Tone 09:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond H. Shuey

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

Local politician and appointed public servant who fails WP:NPOL. The author's username suggests that this is an WP:AUTOBIO. The vast majority of references used are primary (mostly PDFs of local government records) and a search for further sourcing failed to turn up enough to establish WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Avondale AZ is not a global city for the purposes of extablishing the notability of its city councillors under WP:NPOL, so the inclusion tests he would have to meet are that either (a) he had another claim of notability for other reasons that would have already gotten him an article anyway, such as serving in the state legislature at another time in his career, or (b) he could be referenced so much better than most other city councillors (i.e. to nationalizing media coverage) that he had a credible claim to being special. But neither of these conditions are in evidence here at all, and the referencing depends far too heavily on primary sources that do not aid notability at all — although the tangential fact about Avondale's economic growth, referenced to CNN with the link title "Please create a screen name to access this feature", is amusing, it's not evidence of his notability as it isn't about him. Nothing here is "inherently" notable at all, and none of the sourcing is getting him over GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and per Bearcat. No material U.S. RS of which he was the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 16:27, 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. In terms of considering accepted reasons for deletion, there was a staunch consensus for Keep on the basis of suitable sourcing (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La muñeca menor

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

Tagged for 4 problems, the earliest of which was noted 6+ years ago. Seemingly, none have been addressed. In fact, there have been no edits in more than 3 years. Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sympathetic to the argument that this article isn't good and isn't getting any better, but that's a drawback inherent in the project as a whole, not a cause for deletion. Instead. there are quite a few scholarly publications focused exclusively on this work. When a journal article begins by acknowledging that "there have been numerous studies" of a work, it's a strong implication that the work is notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per the many sources with significant coverage found by the Google Scholar search linked by the nomination process. The issues tagged for are all reasons to improve the article, not to delete it, and the length of time since the last edit is absolutely irrelevant to either. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've asked for help with some of the applicable WikiProjects to find people fluent in Spanish that could help expand and improve this article. In any case, there does seem to be quite a bit of coverage that specifically focuses on this specific short story. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of citations in academic journals on this story (I added one). Britishfinance (talk) 14:51, 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. The article is no longer unsourced, and consensus is to keep it in some form. Further discussion belongs on talk. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 19:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Martian canals

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

Unsourced, of doubtful notability now that Martian canals are debunked. PatGallacher (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - unsourced. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although perhaps not exactly in this form (and clearly with a more verbose introduction to provide context). This is a very different situation that a list of geographical features from a work of fiction. Sourcing this isn't hard. Schiaparelli and Lowell are in the public domain, easily accessible, and can be cited for the names and purported locations. This list, and its partner article classical albedo features on Mars serve to document what was believed to be the geography of Mars by astronomers of the late 19th to early 20th century. Now, obviously, they were wrong. But I think the principle of "once notable, always notable" applies (for example, luminiferous aether). We keep legitimate lists of legitimately named features on the planets of the Solar System. This is such a list... it just happens that none of the features actually exist. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly relevant historical information. Let's add more sources from a historical perspective, not delete this article. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: RandomCritic, you added this list to Martian canal in March 2006 at a time when references weren't thought so necessary. Do you remember the source? StarryGrandma (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just like we're keeping the list of lunar seas. Andrew D. (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the seas are real geographical features, although we now know that they aren't really seas. PatGallacher (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of historical interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep but probably rename, refocus, merge into article on a "real" topic, or some combination of all of them or more. "Notability" isn't technically affected by the fact that the theory in question has been debunked, but rather just makes all the older sources on it out of date and wrong: newer sources would be needed to contextualize the topic, but I don't see strong evidence that such sources do not exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as information on an influential historic classification scheme. This is history of science, not fiction; we're not about to throw out the properties of the phlogiston either. - Needs a serious lede, and sourcing of individual names might take some digging, as most were coined by either Schiaparelli and Lowell (principally), and one might have to turn to the original sources to find out which. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly unsourced, may well contain OR.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of Martian canals is notable (they have an WP article). I have added links to articles in Nature and Scientific American about them. Obviously the theory turned out to be bogus but that does not diminish from the considerable time and investigation by leading academics (plus wider public) in this issue (there are loads of references to this topic on any google search). My issue however is where this exact list came from? I have added external links to PDF copies of Lovell's book and the relevant Chapter IV on the Canals. However, I am not sure how this list compares (it is not a direct extraction). I guess we still have a potential WP:V issue (but not a notability issue), but given that the lists/diagrams exist, it it solvable task, and clearly someone went to great trouble to complete this list many years ago implying that it is probably right. However, all of this should no prevent the article from being kept. Britishfinance (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As StarryGrandma notes above, RandomCritic might be able to shed some light on the origin of the list. Last seen in these here parts two weeks ago, so might yet chime in? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:57, 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. 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 keep. Firm consensus that as an anglican bishop he is presumed notable, as well as a degree of sufficient sourcing (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George K Turyasingura

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

Does not seem to pass WP:ANYBIO - no third-party coverage. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Angican bishops are generally notable, and it isn't hard to find significant coverage in independent sources for this one.[22] This is a recently created article that needs substantial cleanup - it's not a good move to pull the trigger on a deletion nomination so soon. In other words, multiple transgressions of WP:BEFORE. St Anselm (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, historic AFD consensus is that Catholic bishops are presumed notable because they almost always pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the reliable source articles to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. Did you read the one I linked to? St Anselm (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is an Anglican bishop. Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, Methodist, and Catholic bishops are notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Bishops in the Anglican communion are generally notable. The lack of penetration of the Internet may make it difficult to get sources, but that does not affect its probable truth or notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long consensus is that Anglican bishops are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus here is that "Anglican bishops are notable by default", so I'm assuming we have that enshrined somewhere. I did check, prior to nominating, to see whether we had a WP:NBISHOP or similar notability guideline for Anglicism and couldn't find one; would someone be kind enough to point me to it, so that I don't make this mistake again? Much obliged! Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES summarises AfD consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Thank you for that - didn't think to check the common outcome pages, only notability. In light of that, and the overwhelming slew of Keep !votes above, I Withdraw the nomination (although since there is at least one !vote to delete, this still needs closing properly by someone else). Yunshui ^雲 _水 19:28, 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 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 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. 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: [23], [24] ~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 [25] and the Southwark News article [26] (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 [27], [28] and [29] 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 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 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 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubophonic

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

I just removed some inconsequential "awards" from the article; looking at sources, the company doesn't seem to be notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SUBNOT and comes across as promotional. Actaudio (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment. I am a bit surprised tham my article has been considered for deletion because its not noteable. I hope it will not be deleted without any discussion, since i invested a lot of time for researching and writing. I have written it following the guidelines of other articles on sinilar subjaect, and i think everything was nicely citadet. I dare to note that it has more information it it than many other articles in wikipedia on a sinilar subject ... but of course there is always space for improvement. --Explorations In Dub (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that not everybody is familiar with independent labels, but in such cases any citation coming from third party sites will not be from mainstream sites. I have rewritten the article adding more citations from third party sites from noteable sources in reggae music like Juno, Roots Reggae Review, etc. (such sites are very trustworthy)

I tried to write 4 things in the article: First a brief profile of the label, second the policy of how they choose the music, third the catalog of the label and fourth the feedback it has to the listeners through reviews/airplay/etc, all nicely citated from third party sites/media etc. .. each subject with citation from the research i've done in the internet.

I hope with these changes the article can be saved from deletion. thnx -Explorations In Dub —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. @Explorations In Dub: the problem is that apart from the Cyprus Mail (which sounds like a promotional publicity piece anyway), none of your citations are from reliable or noteworthy sources. Reggaemusic.org.uk, Reggae Roots Review and The Cerebral Rift are blogs, and not acceptable as sources per WP:BLOGS (indeed, the last one appears to be crowdfunded). The Juno chart isn't a recognised chart per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Tribal Realities magazine isn't a recognised source either, it appears to be mostly the work of one man and given away free. Most of the other sources just show that records from the label have had the occasional play on radio stations, which doesn't make them notable either. And none of the artists on the label are notable. Your article on Reggae Sunjam has the same serious problems regarding notability, with the same Cyprus Mail article, and an event listing, and that's it, which means it fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like you will delete the article anyway, so whatever i add or write will apparently have no result. I tell u again that an independent label is NOT a mainstream label and will NOT be in mainstream charts/sites/newspapers/etc (very rare)that does not mean though that the citation is not of quality. I just wonder why articles on same subject (indep. record labels) with less information and with zero citation, or citation of same "quality" as the ones i used are allowed to be on wikipedia? eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Circuitry#cite_note-1 ... there are so many. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahtari Similar links i used in my article (Discogs, interview sites, sites that look like were made privately, etc) but still accepted. ... or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirakel_Musik no citation and external links from discogs and archive.org .... Is this the logic you are using? Is this the way you are facing new editors/writers in wikipedia? because if u decide what to do u must decide the same for everybody and many other articles should also be removed ... and there are so many ;) -Explorations In Dub

Comment. But you see, the Jahtari article has in-depth references from the leading national German newspaper, a German national broadcasting network, a syndicated British newspaper, and a British events magazine (although this is just an event listing, and the weakest reference of the lot). The Dubophonic article doesn't have any references from sources at this level of recognition, so you can't compare the two cases. But I agree with your other examples, and that they should probably be put up for deletion too... we're not picking on you, it's just that there are well over five million articles on the English Wikipedia, and a lot of the bad ones can go unnoticed for years. But all of them should pass the basic criteria for verifiability WP:V, and when an editor funds an article that doesn't, it gets nominated for deletion - we do have the same criteria for everybody. Richard3120 (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it will be easier if instead of spending my hours writing articles only to be rejected at the end, to fish out all these thousands of articles for deletion ... easier, faster and with no stress. I hope u don't accuse me of vandalism though :) By the way regarding the Dubophonic article, it was in the list of the articles that people wanted something to be written on wikipedia => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music Perhaps i am indeed adequate to write a "proper" article, but perhaps there is another one who would want to write about it. I would be also very curious to see how another person would deal with the subject. Explorations In Dub —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Explorations In Dub. Do not be discouraged if an article you have created, and one, moreover, on which you have worked hard, as you say, is being deleted. It happens all the time, due to the nature of Wikipedia. It has happened to me a few times, too, for what it's worth. The way to go forward is to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and particularly with the WP:AFC process. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Richard3120. Above arguments in favour of keeping are about existence (versus notability), and feel like WP:FAN. Britishfinance (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NCORP. The argument that the text's creator has worked hard for it is not relevant. -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 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. 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: [30] [31] [32] (as a source?) [33], mentioned here [34]. 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 ([35], 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 - [36] (looks to be the start of a biography)[37] as well as others [38][39][40][41]. 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. ansh 666 07:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brighter AI

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear @Cwmhiraeth:, please consider the source from the updated version of the page: ^[1]. This is an article from a German newspaper, Die Welt Kompakt, a reliable and independent source, which is dedicated solely to Brighter AI.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ Kugoth, Jana (2018-10-17). "Das Geschäft mit dem Datenschutz". Die Welt Kompakt (in German). Axel Springer SE. Retrieved 2019-02-19.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could only find press releases. Nothing from any reliable source. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Lapablo (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:00, 9 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 speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Witherspoon

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played in a pro game. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep passes WP:NGRIDIRON having played professional football in the National Football League for 3 regular season games. NFL.com.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFD withdrawn I made a mistake in starting this AFD and have already requested[42] that it be withdrawn. If any other admin sees this, please close this discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Contrary to the nominating statement Witherspoon did indeed play in the NFL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:06, 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.

I don't why the user User talk:WilliamJE is saying that he suggested for deletion this article because in his words Terry Witherspoon "Never played in a pro game". The references say he played in 3 NFL games https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WithTe00.htm. So this user argument doesn't apply in this case. Tecmo (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Calvert (actress)

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

Fails PORNBIO. Can't agree she passes GNG either Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG by having some mainstream references and WP:ENT#2.[43]Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What part of WP:PORNBIO does she fail, exactly? (SN: Guilherme Burn, while I agree that the article should be kept, her Instagram account isn't a good source; better sources include: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are sources written by the subject, rather than about her, any better than Instagram? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Instagram account isn't a good source" Why not? For the listed requirement I believe good.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on coverage in independent reliable sources. What the subject writes about herself on Instagram is neither independent nor reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: It is not a question of "What the subject writes about herself", but rather of number of fans.Guilherme Burn (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I said, notability is based on coverage in independent reliable sources. Number of fans has nothing to do with it. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Burn, you're really not helping. Anyway, to answer Phil Bridger's concerns, most of those articles are written by her, not about her, which proves a career outside of porn (not that that's a requirement anyway). Also, even if PORNBIO was the only issue here, it hasn't actually been explained how she fails it; instead, most of the delete !votes (not yours, Phil) are from the usual group of "delete" !voters in porn-related AfDs. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources written by the subject are not considered to contribute towards notability for anyone else, so why should they be so considered for porn actors? The only other source that you linked is clearly a press release, so also not independent. And I don't see any "delete" opinions here based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, which you linked, but based on notability guidelines. In fact you are the one arguing on the basis of of personal likes rather than independent reliable sources. The fact that many of the same editors make the same valid points in other deletion discussions doesn't make their statements here any less valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources aren't prohibited (see WP:PRIMARY); if they were, many journalists probably wouldn't have articles (see many of the subjects under Category:MSNBC people). Anyway, as for the idea that I'm the one arguing the other point, well, you probably haven't taken part in many of the other porn-related AfDs over the years. Speaking of that, in these types of AfDs, people who commonly !vote "delete" (again, not you), argue that the article doesn't have any independent sourcing from the subject, but "independent" always seems to be confused to suggest that most of the sources should be independent of pornography (pornography is a category; the title of the article itself is the subject). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sustained coverage needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ENT; significant RS coverage not found. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources cited in the article are independent and reliable, and the sources offered above in support are obviously not either. The only one not written by the subject herself is clearly a press release. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She meets WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). You need to check the WP:BEFORE. These people do not often screen well on quality RS for GNG for obvious reasons, hence WP:PORNBIO. Note that Spartz is an administrator but has put a whole list of PORNBIO's up for AfD quoting that they "don't meet GNG", which has attracted the group above who support their AfD and make no reference to PORNBIO (but quote GNG). We should be following WP:PAG. Britishfinance (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which award(s) do you consider to pass WP:PORNBIO? The only ones listed in the article are in the "Unsung Siren" category, so, by its very title, for non-notable performers, and a group award which is specifically excluded by WP:PORNBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "Unsung Siren" category is an XRCO Award, which is one of the two major awards explicitly listed under WP:PORNBIO, and which also being a solo award (you can check it here under XRCO Award#Unsung Siren), also meets the WP:PORNBIO requirement that "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". You may not like the subject (and clearly many above don't), but the WP rules are the rules. She passes WP:PORNBIO. Britishfinance (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the same WP:PORNBIO that I am? There's nothing there that says that every minor category of the XRCO awards leads to notability, but only that inclusion in the XRCO Hall of Fame does. This is nothing about whether I like the subject or not, but about applying Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including WP:BLP, which many editors seem to ignore when it comes to porn actors. Are they somehow subhuman? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PORNBIO highlights two of the awards that it considers signicfiant by listing their halls of fame - AVN and XRCO (I'm sure that the case for other porn awards such as the XBIZ Award etc. can also be made, but that is not needed here). Outside of clarifying group/shared awards, it does not add further qualification about types of individual AVN or XRCO awards. All of the individual XRCO Award#Unsung Siren award winners since 1993 to 2018 are listed and referenced on the WP XRCO Awards article. Note, it turns out that she also won another solo XRCO Award in 2018 as well, and I have updated her BLP for this. Britishfinance (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, being in a hall of fame is not the same as winning a minor award. The fact that Calvert was still unsung three years after first receiving an award for being unsung is that very unusual thing that we get at a deletion discussion, positive evidence of non-notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is about winning an AVN Award, or an XRCO Award. And she has two (in a solo category, which is the only category that WP:PORNBIO is specific about). You are trying to argue a case of non-notability from winning a notable award (as recorded and listed in the WP XRCO article since 1993). Britishfinance (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About fifty years ago I won a very notable award, a Blue Peter badge, but that doesn't make me notable. The award that Calvert won is far from "a well-known and significant industry award" as required by WP:PORNBIO, being one of the many minor awards that any trade group in any industry gives. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would if the winners of Blue Peter Badges were discretely watched by tens of millions of people per day on BluePeter.com sites; and WP:BLUEPETERBIO clarified that because nobody wants to be associated with watching Blue Peter Badge winners (including Tier 1 RS), they should be recorded on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Erpert - Given the notable awards won as well as the indepth sources above this is an easy keep, Meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:43, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Perri

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Article has been deleted twice in the past. PROD and BLPPROD have been contested. Spike 'em (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also there is a more extensive Draft:Lucas Perri which was rejected for move into main space on 28th Jan. Spike 'em (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nzd (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The draft is much better and can be used once the player makes an appearance in a professional match. Nzd (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above: use pre-existing draft when notability attained. Eagleash (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the users above, the player is not notable enough for a standalone page right now, but the draft can be used in the future if the player becomes notable. Garlicolive (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:05, 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. Sandstein 07:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Shankar (actor)

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

Not notable actor. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uday shankar is very good actor Telugu Cinema, already he has done a featured movie titled Aatagadara Siva and now he is doing a film #US2, which is working title of film. Soon they are going to release this film.

Definitely he is notable actor in tollywood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavan9542 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dubious notability, even more dubious content. Two of the sources are from about 15 years ago about a child with remarkable memory. The others are about an actor. There's no indication that they are the same person; none of the "actor" sources, not even one that quotes a childhood acquaintance, mention his memory feats. Much of the content, including the upcoming second film, is unreferenced. Huon (talk) 22:48, 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-^☖ 03:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very close to an A7. Very little RS on him. Lede says it all "is new name in Telugu Cinema". Very PROMO and likely COI/UDP issue. Britishfinance (talk) 01:07, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher David Quick

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

Quick fails N:FOOTY because he has never played in an FPL or played internationally. This is the only thing I found on him so he fails WP:GNG as well. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/forget-messi-ronaldo-suarez-vardy-11289572 Dougal18 (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear all-round notability failure -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Govvy (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV per my check.Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:04, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional space navies

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

The article has been unsourced since its conception 13 years ago. It has no obvious encyclopedic merit and merely lists crufty names of various fictional spaceship fleets, usually under some variation of "*** Space Force" or "*** Space Fleet".

While the concept of a space navy might merit a section under Space force#In science fiction, this article has nothing to add. Any space navies that merit an article will go in Category:Space navies. An example of WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune to entries that actually have articles (or at least redirects, e.g. International Fleet). Delete. Every other science fiction work has one or more space navies, so listing them all is not a good idea. I'm also not seeing any significant comparable lists in the (non-fandom) wild. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough notability for Wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:49, 20 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-^☖ 02:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By my count only 2 of them actually have articles specifically about the space navy - Galactic Patrol and Starfleet; the rest of the blue links are redirects to more general articles e.g. New Republic (Star Wars). That's not enough articles for a list of notable things. Maybe some content could be merged to Space warfare in fiction? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Acland (died 1553)

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

Fails basic notability; only claim to fame is being the apparent subject of a single (also non-notable) portrait. Sneftel (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the article's own words: "Little if anything is known of his life and career". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he had a portrait made, and his estate is ~~not~~ now a national landmark, indicating that he was important back then. Once a person is notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. House and portrait is owned by the National Trust (which means that they attach some notability). He is getting listed in historical books for Devon (although not nationally as far as I can see). Could be a redirect case to Acland, Landkey also. A well constructed and sourced article so willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Britishfinance (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He has no connection to the house. Killerton was purchased by a later John Acland (died 1620). And I don't see how simply being the subject of a painting (unless it's the Mona Lisa) confers notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP is packed with BLPs (and BPs) that meet GNG but will be deleted over the coming years. Historians will not chronicle them in even a hundred years time; despite meeting many of our policies, they are inherently non-notable in the long-term. This subject, almost 500 years later, is still being recorded. Maybe the policy is WP:PRESERVE or WP:NOTPAPER, but this is a well constructed article which does no disservice to WP or its subject (there is no PROMO/COI here). There are far (far far) more serious cases for AfD then this one. Britishfinance (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Notable work.BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 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) 01:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Docs

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

Article relies too much on primary sources and reads more like a sales pitch. Ruxnor (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only non-trivial reference I can find is [49]. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:13, 4 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. The charts mentioned don't seem to be suitable per WP:CHART. ansh 666 08:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Be

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

Not really my area, but I cannot see how this passes Wikipedia:Notability (music). Edwardx (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! New here, but it appears his album debuted on the Billboard charts, which is a nationally recognized music chart. According to those rules, this article should stand then, right? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bebnor (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That applies to entries on the main Billboard chart. His album "appeared in the Billboard Independent Albums and Top Heatseekers at numbers 41 and 10 respectively". Edwardx (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:55, 9 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel Mountain Brewing

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Juggler Juggler (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:NCORP. Reywas92^Talk 21:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7 - non-notable company --DannyS712 (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "c'mon, they've got burgers and beer! Yeah coola, but without WP:RS its not notable. Drat!", Delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:A7. Britishfinance (talk) 13:23, 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. Tone 09:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joana Plankl

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

No information, no citations, appears to be purely promotional. Artist does not meet music/notability guidelines. Actaudio (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most likely an attempt at promotion, and it's a messy attempt too because she operates under two names. Note that the name Petty Joy has been redirected to this article. ( [50] ) This article tries to promote her work as a DJ, in which she uses Petty Joy as a stage name. But the article is titled with the name Joana Plankl, which she has used as a nude model, and that line of work is not mentioned in the article. Under that name, she might have a small amount of notability for appearing in the German edition of Playboy, but if the article chooses to focus on her music work, that is even less notable. Nothing can be found beyond the typical retail/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Doomsdayer520 has this right, it's a promotional article for a sometime German Playmate of the Month and DJ who plays mainstream chart music at mostly private parties. I sometimes express frustration at AfDs for DJs, because I know the DJ in question is well known on the dance scene but there aren't any online sources... but that isn't the case here. I'm sure Ms. Plankl can DJ, but she sure doesn't get booked to play the cool clubs of Berlin and New York, and even the weak references in the article have mostly disappeared without an archive, leaving us with no decent reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nothing in terms of RS to construct a BLP. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Strong WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Will need Salting. Britishfinance (talk) 15:05, 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. ansh 666 07:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Channel

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

Doesn't meet WP:N/WP:ORG. Juggler Juggler (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:25, 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) 07:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as next to no view, no assertion of notability and suggests is already historical. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a translation of an article on ms.wiki to which I’ve now linked it. However I looked for sources in Malay (which I can’t read) but searching for ‘Ansar Channel’ or ‘Saluran Ansar’ produces only a couple of passing mentions here and here and no other mentions of the channel, so it definitely does not meet our notability requirements. Mccapra (talk) 03:33, 9 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. Tone 09:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambur Times

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

Doesn't meet WP:N/WP:ORG. Juggler Juggler (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Falls under WP:A7 criteria quite obviously, seeing there seems to be no coverage on this paper or organization anywhere online aside from its website.Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 08:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. (Not "speedy delete" because the assertion of a 20,000 copy circulation is, if true, a claim of notability) --DannyS712 (talk) 09:54, 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 redirect to Stuart Matthewman. As WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Bley

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

Only one cited article from 2015. Searched for more on her and she does not have information that meets the notability requirements for music. Actaudio (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:24, 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) 07:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches find passing coverage for the subject's Twin Danger and Beast Patrol bands, but insufficient for WP:MUSICBIO in their own right. Neither these nor the subject's other projects have the coverage to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible redirect, I saw one article that has some good coverage but more is needed. I think if we can't find much more, how about it gets redirected to her father Paul Bley or Stuart Matthewman? We could have small paragraph in either. I think in a few years she'll be easily notable. By redirecting we can preserve the history. Karl Twist (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Stuart Matthewman seems like the best case scenario at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 23:45, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Bond

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet criteria for WP:MUSIC. Most of the references were retrieved in 2006 and no longer work. Additionally, the end of the article says she left the music industry in 2009 because "she is no longer four years old and is way to cool for that stuff now lol." Actaudio (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:22, 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) 07:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could we get some votes on this? This person (who made one album when she was 4 years old and "retired" 5 years later) is really not notable. Actaudio (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's at least one RS mention ([51]) and probably more (I can't access Wayback right now). Has anything changed in policy since the last AfD? Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:36, 7 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 Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Frank

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASE John from Idegon (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:26, 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) 07:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect He doesn't meet the notability criteria for baseball players and the references are typical reporting for a college baseball player. All conference is insufficient to show notability. He's only played in a short season A league and no other Tampa player at that level even has a redirect. Definitely doesn't meet any criteria for having his own article, but I can go with WP:CHEAP. Papaursa (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. Legion X (talk) 20:45, 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 delete. Tone 09:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doodle Army 2: Mini Militia

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm concerned that this game doesn't meet GNG - there is some pretty standard coverage on mobile-gaming-specific sites, as you'd expect, but nothing to indicate any artistic merit or critical acclaim, or any form of real impact. I'm sure it's quite a fun game, but I don't believe it belongs here. Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, analyzing the references in the article:
- 1 While it is a "coverage" from a reliable secondary source of the game, it certainly is not a WP:SIGCOV since nothing in depth about this game is mentioned except the pricing (worthless encyclopedia wise) and difference from Doodle Army 1. But it's not a passing mention either, so it's kind of in between. Meh.
- 2 No idea what is this supposed to be since it brings me up to log-in.
- 3 Passing mention by name.
- 4 A fan website. Enough said about the reliability.
- 5 Firstpost here. Good enough source, not that much in-depth, but can be used to write something.
- 6 Appmodo is a blog as it says on the front page, making it not reliable.
- 7 An unreliable website citing summary of the game, making it WP:PRIMARY as well.
- 8 Not a WP:SIGCOV, even before we enter the talk whether it is reliable or not. "Best multiplayer games" title does not give me confidence about that.
- 9 Same as **4.
- 10 Unreliable source per WP:VG/RS.

In my WP:BEFORE search I found this on The Daily Star (Bangladesh) https://www.thedailystar.net/shout/app-review/doodle-army-2-mini-militia-1461607 which is not WP:SIGCOV (3 sentences, 1 of just reciting what the game is about, 1 that the player has a jetpack and 1 that it is fast paced (which is subjective)) before the "you will be terrible" part) as well and apart from that, all either unreliable sites or blogs. For now, unless someone else finds another I lean to delete based on failure of WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Gaming reliable websites largely ignored this game, and that is probably not just because. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and thanks to Jovanmilic97 for the sources run-down. Ifnord (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:55, 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. Tone 09:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trackback submitter

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

Not notable. Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. The article has a single external link to a blog post from "Search Engine Journal", which does not appear to be a reliable source. I didn't find any other sources for this subject. — Newslinger talk 02:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sping. I agree with Power~enwiki's reasoning. — Newslinger talk 04:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 02:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 02:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 02:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 02:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 11:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per nom - the one reference doesn't establish notability. The title is also miscapitalized as the content is about a specific product - Sping is the article on the phenomenon in general; I'd support a redirect for this title as a plausible search term for that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 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. Mz7 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Blue (Blue Raspberry album)

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

I first came across this article as a potential GAN project, but I unfortunately could not find anywhere near enough coverage from reliable, third-party sources to justify an independent article. It seems to fail WP:GNG to me, though I have opened this AfD to get further feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found. A redirect is unlikely to be useful from such a convoluted title - anyone looking for the album can find the artist via the entry at Out of the Blue, which if this is deleted should be pointed at the artist. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 8 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) 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. Record company shenanigans seem to have killed this album stone dead, with the result that it came out years after the artist recorded it and with no publicity, unfortunately (for us) resulting in no sources to be found for it. I think Michig's rationale regarding the search term is valid, it's not a likely one and therefore a redirect won't serve a purpose here. Richard3120 (talk) 00:13, 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 delete. czar 03:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piggy (Mutual Fund)

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

Fails WP:ORGCRITE, financial express source is reliable, but this company is not the sole focus. Other sources might not qualify. Also somehow the username of the creator led me to evidence for COI on this article, can't say how because of WP:OUTING. Daiyusha (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article for a start-up company. Britishfinance (talk) 21:29, 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) 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An in-depth reference need not be primarily about the topic. The Financial Express discussion of Piggy is more than a passing mention. Some of the other references are from reliable sources as well. The article does not seem unduly promotional. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Comment - I took a look at the Financial Express article. It seems rather promotional and I'm not confident that it would be an RS. Or am I mistaken? I am leaning towards delete, but willing to learn more. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional, no indication of notability from reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking the in-depth coverage required to meet WP:NCORP; the one-paragraph description in the Financial Express does not do it for me. In addition, this startup company (a label used by multiple sources) may fall under WP:TOOSOON.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:17, 25 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 09:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frewitt

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

Speedy declined, source searches don't bring up the requisite depth of coverage for corporations. SITH (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as English references, nothing adds up to WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:52, 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) 02:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. Google Books has some coverage in this source. As far as German sources go, here's an in-depth perspective on the company's Operations Director: [52]. There are a few articles written by individuals working at the company (e.g. [53]), which don't contribute to notability. A few passing mentions: [54][55]. Overall, I'm afraid I have to agree that coverage is looking sparse. I'm not sure we have enough to write an article with. Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netmorf

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

Speedy declined, appears to lack the requisite depth of coverage for corporations. SITH (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of these magazine articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 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) 01:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 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 Tehrik-e-Istiqlal. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Party (Pakistan)

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

PROD-ed (Why should I have a User Name?) and de-PROD-ed (Soman) in 2014. My source searches don't show the requisite depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass WP:NORG. I'm also open to a redirect to Tehrik-e-Istiqlal, but as it has already been PROD-ed I'm opting to discuss it. SITH (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a brutally google unfriendly title. Do we have it in Urdu? Trying to separate it both from the general words and also its successor is making me lack any confidence in an actual BEFORE judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This search finds a few reliable-looking sources confirming some basic facts. A merge with Asghar Khan might be better than one with Tehrik-e-Istiqlal, because this seems to have been a vehicle for his personal ambitions rather than a broad-based party. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/~~Redirect with Tehrik-e-Istiqlal. Not enough sources to confirm independent notability, seems more sensible to add it to the Tehrik-e-Istiqlal article, which this article claims to be a fore-runner of. 12 years on and the article still lacks a single reference. Britishfinance (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the material is unsourced, it is not worth merging, just Redirect. Britishfinance (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 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) 07:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom. Legion X (talk) 20:44, 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. As noted by RebeccaGreen, there's some cleanup that needs to happen with the sources. Facebook??? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, @PamD: please don't rename pages while an AfD is in progress. If nothing else, it breaks the automated scripts that most people use to close them, which makes extra manual work to clean up after the breakage. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Akua Nyarko Petterson

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

With correctly-spelled name: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment I've moved the article to the correct spelling of her name (Elizabeth Akua-Nyarko Patterson - hyphen between 2nd and 3rd components, and "Patterson" with an "a"): it seemed too bad to leave even though there's an ongoing AfD. PamD 13:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Author) She is very notable in my country looking at the kind of social works she has done. She is an activist for girl and the marginalised person. Jwale2 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwale2: Can you provide reliable sources that substantiate this claim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese sure why not, but I want to find out whether you have also looked at the sources I provided for her articleJwale2 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwale2: yeah, I looked, is that all you are able to provide? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Of the sources listed in the article, AmeyawDebrah.Com has significant coverage, but I wonder about it's reliability, it looks like a personal website. The second source triggered my antivirus, so I think not reliable. The last source is a link to Petterson's site, so primary source, not reliable. A WP:BASIC basic search turned up nothing, so I searched for Ghana newspapers. I tried Ghana times, IRIN News, a couple of others found here. Nothing from any of them. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. I have found and added another source, a long article in The Weekend Finder. The CitiFM and EnewsGH articles also provide significant coverage, and as far as I can see, are independent and reliable. There is also shorter coverage from Ghana News Agency and the Herald Ghana. I agree that the AmeyawDebrah source is not reliable, and I don't think the CNBC Africa one is independent - it is sourced to Forbes, and the Forbes article does not have an author's name. I have also edited the article. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Elizabeth Akua-Nyarko Patterson, the correct spelling of her name - it currently has "Petterson", which would not help in finding sources. Some of the unreliable sources could probably be removed, but that is another job. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:15, 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) 15:23, 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) 01:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. It is borderline but there are sources (per RebeccaGreen above), and RS are thin on the ground in her part of the world (and even thinner for female-BLPs). CNBC/Fortune would not be covering her if she was a nobody. Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 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 redirect to PlayMania. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Peachey

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

Non-notable tv presenter. Only sources are a couple of promotional biographies and some gameshow episodes she hosted. Google search finds nothing useful. PC78 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a little surprised that this individual hasn't received that much attention in reliable sources as a result of her apparently major role as a host of this game show. Here's a passing mention: [56]. Absent anything substantive, I'm afraid I deletion is looking like the best answer. Another alternative to would be redirect to PlayMania. Mz7 (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct, I'm partially with Mz7 on this. Let's preserve the history and re-direct to Playmania or Quiznation. Karl Twist (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct, Agree with Mz7 and Karl Twist. Legion X (talk) 18:46, 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 delete. Tone 09:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragondoor

AfDs for this article:

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

Page is unsourced and I cannot find anything to support it meeting WP:GNG. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 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) 00:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Short lived promotion. Does not meet notability guidelines. StaticVapor message me! 09:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG. I found a few passing mentions [57][58], but no significant coverage. There appears to be a publishing company with the name "Dragondoor" that is unrelated to the subject of this article. Mz7 (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; nothing here that is GNG. WP is not a repository of data on pro-wrestling.Britishfinance (talk) 15:10, 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. Mz7 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Demons

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

Professional wrestling stable completely lacking reliable coverage. The promotion is also likely non-notable as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Dorado Wrestling Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hard to find references which might be based on the common-ness of the term in results, but I cannot support WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:02, 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) 00:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:22, 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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Byrdie Green

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability, not enough sources exist for an article of substance, not sure she is a jazz singer (more blues or soul) Vmavanti (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. A couple of NY Times articles (and having appeared as a soloist at Carnegie Hall in the first place) make a good first step to notability, but there just doesn't seem to be much else. Sneftel (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of those articles is about seven sentences, a very brief review of her performance. The other is about the same, too brief to be of much use.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWhile her albums are verifiable and her credits/history meets notability, I can't find notable sources to verify any more of her history. Actaudio (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing on this article which was added yesterday may look adequate, but it isn't. Click on the links under "sources". A citation link is supposed to lead directly to the source of the information. These links don't.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. For sources in archive.org, that is just how it works - documents open in the middle, and you use the search function (just above the document, on the right) to search for the word(s). For Google Books sources, a link with the search expression could be used, but if not, the search window in the result brings up the relevant page. Offline and paywalled sources are acceptable per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and these are much more easily accessible than that (they WP:NEXIST). Anyone can easily find them (and could easily have found them in a WP:BEFORE search). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not supposed to link to a search. Readers should not have to do a search after being led to a page by a citation. The citation must lead directly to the information. From what you've said, you've been doing your citations wrong. You can find URLs in both Google Books and archive.org that lead directly to the information. Doing a search isn't necessary.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. These are not my citations - I was explaining why the citations in the article before I added any lead to a search within the source. 2. Why not replace the urls in the citations with the urls that lead directly to the cited information? Editors are not general readers - WP:BEFORE requires editors to perform searches, and encourages us to then cite the sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with improving citations. I do it almost every day. I was defending my comment, which you criticized, that the citations had not been done properly. I didn't say you added them. I simply said they were inadequate. I always search before I propose deletion. I continue to be puzzled by the crusader mentality regarding "rescuing" articles and "saving" them from deletion (Oh no!) as though one were saving a drowning child. I don't care either way. As long as the information is sourced.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second point. This, too, is a courtesy to the reader: Avoid sources that require payment. I'm baffled by your suggestion that paid sources are "easily accessible". Easy for you maybe, but not everyone can afford to pay for every web site they come across. Let's put readers first.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. It may be your preference to avoid sources that require payment, but it is not Wikipedia policy. 2. I did not say that paid sources are easily accessible, I said that these sources, the sources in the article which require a search within the source, are more easily accessible than paid sources.RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about common sense.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She released 3 albums on Prestige Records, and therefore meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". (The previous editor also says that she meets notability, so it's not at all clear why they voted delete.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't release three albums. Prestige released three albums. Sounds like nitpicking, but it isn't.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is the exact wording that WP:MUSICBIO #5 uses, and is irrelevant to the fact that she meets that notability guideline. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be unrelated to notability, but it has a lot to do with common sense and clear, logical prose.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apart from meeting WP:MUSICBIO #5, there are also many reviews of her recordings and performances in newspapers of the time, so she also meets #1. I have already added 4 to the article, and there are more to add. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four albums on Prestige if we include the one she recorded with Johnny "Hammond" Smith. Satisfies WP:NMUSIC. Coverage found includes a couple of brief reviews from Billboard ([59], [60]. More coverage from the 1960s is likely to exist in print sources. --Michig (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies MUSICBIO. Also sources can be behind paywalls, and sometimes there are no urls available for search results. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changing my vote because this had a LOT of info added since it was first nominated. Actaudio (talk) 06:47, 26 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. Down-weighting comments from users who appear to have a connection with the subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ensmallen (C++ library)

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources; searching online and in academic databases, the only coverage of the subject appears to be published by the library authors themselves. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, this is too soon: the software was presented in an arXiv preprint just last October, far too recently for it to have had significant community uptake or influence. To see the kind of sourcing this would need, compare the articles on PyMC3 and PyTorch, which were nominated for deletion and survived. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple reasons for keeping this page as is: (1) the associated paper is more than just an arXiv pre-print; it is actually published at an official NeurIPS workshop (see accepted papers and associated DOI); NeurIPS is a well-established and highly influential conference in machine learning and artificial intelligence. (2) according to Google Scholar, there are already 2 other papers which cite the associated paper, meaning that it already has impact; the citation count is only going to increase. (3) the ensmallen library is used by mlpack, a well-established library of machine learning algorithms (use evidenced by source code on GitHub: FindEnsmallen.cmake, lmnn.hpp, etc). (4) the ensmallen library implements many optimization algorithms directly described on Wikipedia, such as the seminal Stochastic gradient descent and its offspring, meaning it has direct practical consequences Gtfjbl (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2019 (AEST)

Two citations is pretty low. Once the paper gets many citations, if the paper gets many citations, an article would be in order. As for the other arguments, I don't think that notability should be inherited between the subjects described in points 3 and 4, I think it's entirely possible for major machine learning libraries to be bloated and conversely implementing stochastic gradient descent is not unique and I don't see why that would .immediately make something likely to have received coverage. I can't say I'm familiar with the NeurIPS conference, and it does get a fair amount of coverage in the press, but from working in an adjacent field my impression is that even the best conferences are still full of tons of papers many of which don't really go anywhere or influence much. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Scholar, the NeurIPS conference is ranked #1 in the Artificial Intelligence field, with a h5-index of 134 and h5-median of 221 (source). As such it would be safe to say it is very influential venue. One of the primary reasons for the existence of the ensmallen library is to concretely address the serious limitations of previous implementations of many optimization algorithms (including SGD and Quasi-Newton) such as brittleness, inflexibility, lack of integration capability, slow execution, etc. Since optimization algorithms are widely used in machine learning, having very robust (from multiple view points) and an unencumbered open source implementations of such algorithms has direct practical consequences for the wider application of machine learning in many products and industrial processes. Gtfjbl (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2019 (AEST)

Being accepted by a selective conference is like getting published in a peer-reviewed journal: it's a start, but by itself, it doesn't automatically make the topic notable. We need indicators of impact and influence, like discussions of and citations to that work. The only GS citations to the paper are by its authors themselves. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is a signal that it's too soon to have an encyclopedia article about it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or userfy per above. I agree that this is WP:TOOSOON, but given that it was recently released, as well as being featured in NeurIPS, suggests that more references could emerge. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ensmallen has actually been around for quite a while, just not as its current name. If you take a look at the paper it is the optimization framework from mlpack, which has been used in over 100 scientific publications and has well over 100 contributors on Github. So despite the fact that the NeurIPS workshop paper was published in only October, based on the git history the ensmallen codebase has existed since 2010, and the community is much larger than a single recent workshop paper would imply (see also that ensmallen itself has 60+ contributors already, a sign that this is not a small or very recent effort). So personally I don't think this is WP:TOOSOON and I think it would be useful and relevant to the machine learning community on Wikipedia to keep it here. --Nemarts (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Wouldn't it make more sense to cover it within the article mlpack, then? XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 14 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, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable; hasn't received coverage in multiple secondary sources, just their own original workshop paper and then citing that paper in a couple of Arxiv preprints with overlapping author lists. Sneftel (talk) 09:47, 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 no consensus. Again, sadly. There seems to be a consensus that there are two reliable sources/reviews in the article for the subject, but there was a WP:BARE concern raised, and there was no support of the "typically 7 to 10 for a song article" part of the nomination. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faces (Candyland and Shoffy song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland song)

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

Two years ago, I initially submitted this page to AfD with the weak rationale of "Not notable", and a result of no consensus. I still believe this song is not notable due to the lack of available sources (typically 7 to 10 for a song article), the fact that the song did not make any notable performance or sales chart, and that it has not been nominated for or awarded a notable award, the latter 2 of which are requirements for WP:NSONG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep, there are two reviews and three other references. Gab4gab and I both voted to keep this the last time around, and the AFD for "Faces (Candyland song)" has not yet been posted on this page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked in the nomination, but I've added the Oldafdlist template, if it helps. Bakazaka (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At a minimum, the article should be merged into Candyland (musician). --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The song is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage which Meets WP:NSONG. I'll point out that the notability criteria presented in the nomination is incorrect. There is no criteria requiring 7-10 sources. The three additional criteria (charting , receiving awards, releases by multiple artists) are not notability requirements. They simply suggest that if a song fits one or more of them then it is likely to have the necessary coverage even if it hasn't been located by editors. The article meets the notability guideline with multiple independent reliable sources and should be kept. I urge JalenFolf to withdraw the nomination because it is based on a misreading of the notability guidelines. Gab4gab (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Jax 0677: @Gab4gab: I agree with you that a song article doesn't need seven to ten references, as Jalen has suggested. But Daily Beat and Goodmusicallday don't look like reliable sources to me, and I'm uncertain about Earmilk, which leaves a maximum of two reliable sources for the article (the iTunes link only proves the song exists and was released), so it's still borderline. Richard3120 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the little info available on Daily Beat and Goodmusicallday I agree they don't appear reliable. Gab4gab (talk) 23:30, 13 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) 00:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 11:52, 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 to delete, after greatly extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 01:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Crow (comics)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked in the body of two articles in passing mention. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence of notability shown below by Killer Moff, or failing that merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B or List of Native American superheroes. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the sources provided in at 1, 2 and 4, we have to presume this passes WP:GNG until somebody actually checks these books and discovers the extent of the coverage. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one of the Keep !votes is actually justified as a literal Keep, currently meaning there is a Delete/Merge/Keep split
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination makes an unsupported, false assertion about the GNG as the subject appears in a variety of sources including Native Americans in Comic Books: A Critical Study. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Native American superheroes, since that seems to be the character's claim to notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:11, 8 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) 00:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Native superhero list. Passes GNG from sources, but not notable enough, IMO, for a solo article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Native American superheroes. I am not opposed to a merge, but I am not sure how the information would be carried over from this article to the list, since the target list currently is just a collection of names without any real information on individual characters. Hopefully, it will be improved in the future, as it is a valuable and interest topic. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Waters (calligrapher)

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

Not finding WP:SIGCOV of this calligrapher. Tacyarg (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you actually delve into the available sources, and search for material, you will find that he meets the WP:ARTIST "recognized by his peers" criteria easily. He has:

done the calligraphic lettering on four stamps for the US postal service
consulted for Maya Lin on Typography at the Vietnam war memorial
had his own font released by Adobe ("Waters Titling")
designed the typography for the Women in Military Service for America Memorial at Arlington Cemetery
talked and lectured all over the world, indicating he is a recognized world authority on caligraphy and typography.

He has also had decent coverage: when National Geographic does a profile, that is not minor. The depth is not what it could be, but the breadth is wide, which is why I found it easy to add ten sources to the article. With the above accomplishments, it's clear he is recognized by his peers as a serious dude.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Montreal described, this individual is very notable but in a niche category. They don't have the same wide-ranging notoriety as, say, a world leader but within that sphere they are well-covered. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So calligraphers can't be notable? There seems to be plenty of coverage here as a calligrapher and that's how we should judge this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 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.

[1] Kugoth, Jana (2018-10-17). "Das Geschäft mit dem Datenschutz". Die Welt Kompakt (in German). Axel Springer SE. Retrieved 2019-02-19.

[1]