Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by جواد (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 14 April 2019 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luciano Garbellano. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 13 April 15 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was move to draft per article creator's request (note that it would have been much easier to ask an admin to perform this task, rather than opening an AfD). Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Garbellano

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

non-notable --Javad|Talk (25 Farvardin 1398) 15:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the nominator here is also the article creator. It would be useful to know what prompted the change of mind. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Phil Bridger. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • here I want to move the article to draft namespace, but I made a mistake at that time and move it to article namespace. The article is not complete yet to publish and needs some modifications. I mark the article for speedy deletion but it has been rejected, please move it to my sandbox, to complete it and then I move it to main namespace. Thanks --Javad|Talk (26 Farvardin 1398) 22:25, 15 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Patrick

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Small town politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Boyce LA is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors, but the article is not referenced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2. The fact that some local media coverage exists is not in and of itself a free notability pass for a mayor — every mayor of everywhere can always show some local coverage in the local media, so the notability test for smalltown mayors requires evidence of much wider coverage than just the expected local stuff. Five of the ten "references" here are primary sources (raw tables of election results) or blogs, which are not support for notability at all — and the five that are media coverage are all purely local media coverage of his death itself, rather than substantive career coverage of his accomplishments in office, so they aren't clinching anything either. A mayor is not automatically notable enough for an encyclopedia article just because the local newspaper reported his death. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patrick seems to be more than just a local politician. Jet magazine reported that he was a multi-time officer with the National Conference of Black Mayors. The Town Talk wrote of Patrick "Julius Patrick Elementary: Julius Patrick was once principal of the Alexandria elementary school that bears his name today as well as North Bayou Rapides. He served the community in capacities other than as an educator, including when he became the first black mayor of Boyce. Patrick also served as president and vice president of the National Conference of Black Mayors for Louisiana, and chairman of the International Committee for the Transportation of Technology to Third World Countries. He met with presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton to advise them on policies affecting small cities and schools." [1]--TM 18:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A smalltown mayor isn't automatically notable enough for Wikipedia just because the school board named a school after him — at least half of everybody who's ever been mayor of anywhere would be exempted from having to clear our notability standard for mayors if "something in the city got named after him" were an automatic notability freebie in and of itself. And everything else in that description still only counts as notability claims if he can show that he got media coverage, expanding beyond just the purely local, for it — one blurb in a local newspaper listicle about all the namesakes of all the area schools is not enough coverage all by itself to turn those into inclusion-clinching notability claims. Bearcat (talk)
I think you should read the entire quote. He was a multi-term leader of a national civil and political rights organization. I am intrigued by the the International Committee for the Transportation of Technology to Third World Countries as well. Given Wikipedia's systematic bias against non-white people, I think we should take this into account when nominating and discussing deletions.--TM 10:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still requires hard evidence of actual reliable source coverage about his work in that role, not just technical verification of it in a listicle-blurb in his hometown newspaper. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NPOL, all coverage is hyperlocal; typical Billy Hathorn local or non-independent obituary sourcing. Reywas92Talk 21:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While I do think that TM does bring some valid points, the current sourcing doesn't support GNG. If someone were to be able to find stronger sources, I'd most likely say keep. Even if deleted, I wouldn't mind seeing the article rewritten. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because his being killed while in office gave a little more than normal coverage it is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 20 April 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carola Remer

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

All she has is modeling agencies and directories. Trillfendi (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nomination rationale is false, as article already has a Cut (NY Mag) source listed. I just added an easily located Die Welt profile. In other words, this article is sourced to the same level as the dozens of other 3-sentence name+heritage+agency+clickbait fashion model articles proliferating throughout the encyclopedia. Technically, a pass of WP:GNG, and perhaps of WP:ENT (since WP:NMODEL just redirects there), depending on how one interprets fashion model participation in shows, ads, and covers as "other productions" or not. Bakazaka (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Cut’s Meet the New Girl series was just an appendage of their Model Manual (aka the directory of profiles they haven’t updated since 2012). They really only tend to offer trivia beyond saying a few jobs a model did. Trillfendi (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a modeling agency, not a directory. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That “article” is 3 sentences then right at the bottom Explore other rising stars (plus all the big names) in our extensive Model Manual, featuring runway pics, glamorous editorials, model bios, career timelines, and more. Very obvious that they wanted the reader to segue to their directory since that’s what they were known for. Meanwhile in her career section, the first sentence is a dead link to her

former modeling agency One Management, which shouldn’t have been there in the first place. The only thing left was models.com which is reserved for the infobox. The nonsensical inclusion of “supermodels.nl” which is a forum at best, is undignified. Trillfendi (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing indicating that Ms. Remer's career as a model is particularly notable. As mentioned above, any references link to model directories, or aren't working links (supermodels.nl and the NY Magazine links, as of right now). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Balon Greyjoy: Is it your understanding that the working Die Welt link in the article is a model directory? Bakazaka (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to barely satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ENT. I also agree that the nomination rationale is false. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How wonderful it would be that people would actually learn about fashion media before the uneducated quips about my rationale. Too much like right I guess. Take out the defunct NYMag directory and it’s defunct Meet the New Girl blurb attached to it, take out the obsolete, inappropriate reference to her former employer One Management, and take out the ridiculous, unreliable defunct forum “supermodels.nl” and you’re now left with one thing. And that’s enough to satisfy an article? No. Trillfendi (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:NMODEL, has not "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions" - just having a job as a model does not establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 04:14, 10 May 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. Sources look good now. Withdraw nom. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Watson

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

Couldn't find any third party sources for this church musician. The article doesn't have any citation at all. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I don't know how an article can simultaneously have a BLP PROD and AfD applied to it. I have removed the PROD, as I have added references. I don't think a very thorough WP:BEFORE can have been done - two of the sources I have added are freely available on Google Books. The third is an obituary in The Times. Apart from having an OBE and therefore meeting WP:ANYBIO, he also meets WP:NMUSIC #6, having been organist and conductor of "two or more independently notable ensembles", Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford and the Oxford Bach Choir. There are probably other criteria of WP:NMUSIC that he also meets - I have not yet searched journals and newspapers for reviews, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    RebeccaGreen, I had looked at Google News and on Google itself but I am getting hit for a different Sydney Watson. And there were no references on the article before the tag. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A clear pass of multiple notability guidelines, any one of which would have been sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I encourage the nominator to consider this AfD as helpful feedback on WP:BEFORE searches, and on the importance of WP:NEXIST. Thanks to RebeccaGreen for putting in the work yet again. Bakazaka (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bakazaka, I did search for the user but I am not getting any hits for the person. Even the news search yield no results.
    On a side note, now doing a re-search I found hits for https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SL9BDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=Sydney+Watson+church&source=bl&ots=7B9yha5nIC&sig=ACfU3U0U_WIvAhTSNdOgujJbgRUqENb2sQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik8pGn69DhAhXCThUIHZNZD9sQ6AEwCnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Sydney%20Watson%20church&f=false, which could be included in the article? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since RebeccaGreen already added that source to the article, I'd have to say yes, that's a good source. Google and Google News have a strong bias toward online sources posted in recent years. For someone who died in 1991, searching other sources is more useful. I recognize that the minimum threshold in the WP:BEFORE guidelines does not always match up with the best way to find sources. Unfortunately, the result of this mismatch is that it is much easier to nominate than to source, the burden for sourcing falls disproportionately on a small subset of editors, and (in my opinion) the likelihood of burnout increases among some of our most capable colleagues. Bakazaka (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tyw7, as Bakazaka says, Google News will rarely show results for anyone who died in 1991 (unless they had been in the news in the last few years). Google Books is more likely to show results for someone who has been dead for some time, and who is likely to have been written about. There are other Sydney Watsons, but this one, according to the article, was an organist, so I searched for "Sydney Watson" organist, which brought results about the right Sydney Watson towards the top of the list. WP:BEFORE suggests "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." From what you say, it seems that you did not search Google Books or Google Scholar, both of which are more likely to - and do - give results for someone who was active over 40 years ago. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--references prove notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen, Bakazaka and Epiphyllumlover. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:50, 15 April 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 accordance with WP:RELIST, which provides that a "relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days"). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TG Mohandas

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He gets pretty good news coverage on the internet, almost on a regular basis. The subject is not a politician, so WP:POLITICIAN not applies. 137.97.61.194 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the strings to his bow is clearly that of politician, so WP:POLITICIAN does apply, and Mohandas clearly does not pass it. That simply means that he should be judged according to the general notability guideline, which he may or may not pass, according to the coverage that he has received in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "One of the strings to his bow is clearly that of politician" ? Making comments and public speeches in political subjects does not makes a man politician by default. Nor does he satisfy the definition of a politician by his occupation. WP:POLITICIAN does not apply.137.97.89.175 (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is a leading media personality with two popular programs which is still running. He is also a leading public interest litigent. WP:POLITICIAN does not applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdvent (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject is fails GNG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : TG Mohandas is the head of intellectual wing in Kerala of the current ruling party of India, Bharatheeya Janatha Party. He has contributed heavily as an RTI activist and as a litigator, to protect the rights of Hindus and their places of worship, called temples in the state of Kerala. Hindus are being subjected to institutional harassment by the leftist government and he is also being harassed in social media and internet for fighting legally against this. This harassment is evident even in the above edits which is against the community standards of Wikipedia.
   1. Fight against mismanagement in temple administration[1] 
   2. Fight against mismanagement in temple[2]
   3. Fight against forceful acquisition of temple by Devaswom[3]
   4. Fight against unlawful activities.[4]
   5. Sabarimala Petition[5]

References

  1. ^ https://www.livelaw.in/sc-issues-notice-on-pleas-against-govt-controlling-devaswom-boards-seeks-participation-of-devotees-in-temple-administration/
  2. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/hc-admits-petition-for-ban-on-entry-of-non-hindus/article25637804.ece
  3. ^ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64595022/
  4. ^ https://www.deccanherald.com/national/fund-collection-in-madanis-name-in-kerala-179979.html
  5. ^ https://www.pgurus.com/conversation-with-mohandas-t-g-on-why-kerala-govt-is-disobeying-supreme-court-verdict-on-sabarimala/

--Rsubodhlal (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being the head of a national parties state wing's intellectual wing doesn't make him notable. There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject and no evidence he played a major role in politics or election campaigning .Thus Delete.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not just passing mentions, either he, his public interest litigation or social comments are the subject. He is not a politician to play a major role in politics or election campaigning, no one has made such an argument here.137.97.89.175 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being an Hindu nationalist is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.livelaw.in/sc-issues-notice-on-pleas-against-govt-controlling-devaswom-boards-seeks-participation-of-devotees-in-temple-administration

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranrs143 (talk • contribs)

  • I would like to make a plea to people to concentrate on whether Mohandes is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, per the general notability guideline. I recognise that some sources have been provided, but their impact gets lost in statements about what a wonderful Hindu nationalist he is. Such statements are only likely to make people look at this article with suspicion, because Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view, not a Hindu nationalist one. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :He is a well known person from Kerala[1],and i hereby submitting some reliable source [2]

I think this article should be retained according to the General notability guidelines..!!

References

  1. ^ https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/impose-afspa-in-kannur-demands-t-g-mohandas-english-news-1.1349508
  2. ^ https://www.asianetnews.com/topic/tg-mohandas

Padavalam Kuttan Pilla (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As already noted above, we need fewer statements on how wonderful and important this person is, as that is completely besides the point of WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:ANYBIO. It would be helpful if the "keep" !voters could indicate 2 or 3 of the best references that in their opinion support notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He is an important individual (I think). The news search brings up plenty of coverage. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], and let's use WP:COMMONSENSE please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the high profile of the subject in question (thus satisfying WP:GNG); this includes large numbers of articles referencing him and his activism in both regional and national newspapers. --RaviC (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/news/india/bharatiya-janata-party-fumes-at-ias-officer-tv-anupama-for-being-bias/articleshow/68777157.cms
  2. ^ https://scroll.in/latest/900077/devotees-of-all-religions-have-the-right-to-enter-sabarimala-temple-observes-kerala-high-court
  3. ^ http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2018/oct/29/sabarimala-is-for-all-ban-on-non-hindus-will-ruin-secular-fabric-kerala-hc-1891561.html
  4. ^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/every-genuine-devotee-will-be-offered-necessary-assistance-at-sabarimala-kerala-government-to-high-court/articleshow/67368829.cms
  5. ^ https://www.newsx.com/national/kerala-bjp-leader-approaches-high-court-seeking-ban-on-entry-of-non-hindus-in-sabarimala-temple
Page views isn't a valid reason to keep. So far, nobody has offered a policy-grounded rationale why the topic is notable and should be kept. Nobody has offered any sources that discuss the topic in depth. That's really all that matters here. This isn't a matter of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following an overturned NAC, I am relisting because of the number of SPAs in this AfD. I see only one keep !vote from an established editor here; a "keep" closure is not clearly appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that this fails WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources are reliable and meets WP:Notability. -MA Javadi (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Close Admittedly, this is not a subject where I can claim to be an expert, but I think that I am smart enough to use Google News and find multiple articles from that region's media that go to some length in citing Mr. Mohandas's ongoing work [2]. I believe this article will benefit from a rewrite and improved sourcing - and that seems to be an issue with many articles that are recklessly thrown into these deletion debates. And, after more than two weeks online and multiple relisting, I think it is safe to say that it is time to move on and stop bickering over this article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 21:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. T. Ramesh

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 14 April 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. Tone 15:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. P. Mukundan

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because he served for many years on the national executive of India’s governing party. Mccapra (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being a member of national executive of India’s governing party doesn't make him notable. There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject and no evidence he played a major role in politics or election campaigning .Thus Delete.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I have listed that below. 137.97.184.23 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs an independent assessment of the sources added by User:137.97.184.23
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:137.97.184.23. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources appear to establish notability but the article needs a lot of work to get the information from those articles onto the page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources indicated by 137.97.184.23, GNG/NBASIC notability established. Given that the individual could get as high as possible and not qualify under NPOL I would clarify that they are therefore not limited by not satisfying NPOL (as it doesn't apply to them). I thought I'd be piling on but I realised it was actuallt 3, not 2 deletes so far. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:11, 5 May 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Mathew

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being the founder of a minor political party splinter group is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have enough substantive media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but the sources here are not substantive media coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 14 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

V. Velankutty Master

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Political organizers are not entitled to an automatic notability freebie just because they existed, but this cites exactly zero references to measure his notability with. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 14 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girijakumari S.

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this neither makes nor sources any strong claim that she's notable for other reasons besides the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 14 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Kumar

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this neither makes nor sources any strong claim that he's notable for other reasons besides the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 14 April 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) 12:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hahn

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY by playing less than 200 games in the DEL. Article was mostly blanked in 2016 and previously had references regarding a criminal record and sparring with Mike Tyson but that, I'm certain, is a different Chris Hahn. Therefore, this Chris Hahn more than likely fails WP:GNG too. Tay87 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a completely unreferenced article about a person who plays in a hockey league that does not constitute an automatic WP:NHOCKEY pass — DEL is in the list of leagues where a person can get in the door if there's evidence of distinctions, but not in the list of leagues that guarantee an article the moment the person has skated onto the ice. Going back into the article history, there's never been any evidence of GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, either: all there's ever been for this Chris Hahn is college hockey statistics databases, and the news coverage that got added and then removed in 2016 was indeed for a different person who merely happened to have the same combination of first and last names. (Hockey player Chris Hahn, born in 1985; criminal Christopher Hahn, 45 years old in 2015. Admittedly my brain isn't so good at math sometimes, but two seconds with a calculator will tell you those facts don't suggest the same person.) And while some of the article's prior college-athlete content got blanked at the same time as the wrong-person criminal crap, none of it actually suggested a stronger basis for inclusion, or cited any notability-supporting sources, either — so this can't be fixed just by reverting back to an older version. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. He isn't an ice hockey player, but he is a boxer. This article is completely unreferenced, but according to this CBC article Chris Hahn was a local sakastoon boxer who has also boxed Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. Each of those boxers are notable, so boxing with them is a big deal. Clovermoss (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC) It's possible that there's an ice hockey Hahn, but I've never heard of him (there doesn't seem to be any online mentions of him, either) and these two people are both from the same general area. Rewriting the article to include information that is verifiable and from reliable sources about the boxer seems like the better option to me. Clovermoss (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this article isn't wrong — it's just about a different person with the same name, which is not the same thing as being wrong. The ice hockey player verifiably does exist, he just isn't notable for existing. At any rate, there's no evidence that the boxer clears our notability standards for boxers either. If a boxer doesn't have any claim to passing WP:NBOX, then he doesn't magically clear WP:GNG just because a couple of pieces of purely local media coverage exist about him in his hometown media: a person has to compete in national or international boxing competitions to clear NBOX, not just fight a more famous person in a purely local exhibition match of no national or international significance. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the article is wrong for covering the ice hockey player, although I wasn't exactly the best at communicating that. What I was trying to say is that even if there isn't a ice hockey Chris Hahn that's notable, there's a boxing Chris Hahn that is. But CBC is the only source I've found that covers it and that isn't enough. I looked at other sources that covered him and there's a lack of them. I was hoping that one paragraph in this university news might have led me to something, but it hasn't. In addition, taking a look at WP:NBOX, you're right, he isn't notable. Since this article is about the hockey player and not the boxer and neither are notable anyways, I'm going to change my keep to delete. Clovermoss (talk) 18:17, 14 April 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. There are many !votes going in all directions, but at least it is clear that there is no consensus to delete. The other alternatives (draftify, merge elsewhere) can be discussed on the article's talk page. Should no improvement of the article or a meaningful discussion about alternatives be forthcoming, then there is no prejudice to a renomination after a reasonable amount of time. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of edible invasive species

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

Unreferenced and arbitrary list of plants and animals. An invasive species is a species that is not native to a specific location. This article doesnt recognise that fundamental fact.Rathfelder (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this article can be improved, but I think it does not warrant deletion. In the absence of better judging criteria for lists (haven't been able to source one for botanical species) the list seems fairly useful in a general basis and is obviously not promoting anything. Since it's educational and can serve as an excellent point of research for those interested in the subject, I think it should stay. Skirts89 11:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague for an article. Invasive to which location? Edible as in tasty or non-dangerous? --Michig (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article not based on any sources, indeed it says it was "listified" from a category, which of course had been constructed piecemeal and at random. The narrow taxonomic focus - higher plants and familiar animals - says volumes about the WP:ORish method of selection of these species. This listicle is a disgrace to Wikipedia - we need to be getting rid of the whole idea of the uncited list ("oh, it's all right, it's got bluelinks") and basing lists (if any) on comprehensive, reliable sources. It's been policy for years now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like there is a lack of sources, we just need to add them. Eating Aliens: One Man's Adventures Hunting Invasive Animal Species -- GreenC 15:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When the linked article says it is invasive and edible and cites these facts, then having it on this list uncited is not a big problem to me. I remind you that policy does not require every sentence on a page to be cited, only certain classes of fact. WP:LISTVERIFY explicitly says It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation. Items verified in their own article count as "obviously appropriate". SpinningSpark 21:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTVERIFY explicitly says: statements should be sourced where they appear. There is nothing obvious about anything on this list. Rathfelder (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep I'll have to agree with Spinningspark regarding the citations, but I would be open to merging this article with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species, this information should not be simply deleted. Garlicolive (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has potential for expansion, scope is limited enough to make a good article; could be referenced better though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anything useful in the list it should be in Invasive species. It makes no sense as a separate article. Species which are seen as invasive in one context are obviously native in another.Rathfelder (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and reopen the previously deleted Category:Edible invasive species which is where this data was lifted from. Whilst I accept some of the points made regarding usefulness, I don't see why this needs an article to simply list what the category did. Perhaps if it were to be transitioned into an article, one could be made at Edible invasive species (itself currently a redirect) by lifting the section content it redirects to at Invasive_species#Invasivorism. This would then contain some more detail specific to the edible-nature of each listed item, rather than just a list. This list article to me serves no purpose, and I don't understand why it was lifted from a category in the first place. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands it is positively misleading. The only actual text states: It is illegal to propagate many of these species. It fails to notice that legality is jurisdictional. There is nothing illegal about the propagation of Brown trout where I live, for example, nor is there any suggestion in that article that it is illegal anywhere.Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: You need not reply to individual comments, particularly ones like my own which to a certain extent, takes on your points and concurs with your view on removal of the article. I suggested reopening the category as there would then not be any erroneous prose associated with it, though of course the matter of the listed species being "invasive" is still subjective. I think my proposal satisfies those who wish to retain some manner of list (as it was in the category), whilst allowing for some form of new article with an alternate structure and purpose, utilising existing prose elsewhere for the foundation. Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite happy with your proposal. I didnt mean to suggest I wasnt.Rathfelder (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It passes WP:LISTN – see Scientific American for an interesting history of the concept. It just needs some focus on the cases where people have tried eating the invasive species as a way of combatting it. Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included by Andrew Davidson in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article/list should be developed and researched. No reason to delete. WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTCLEANUP It passes It passes WP:LISTN. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to avoid the issue of the article's scope being unclear (a species is invasive somewhere and non-invasive elsewhere), why not refocus the article to be about cases where it was prominently proposed to eat an invasive species as a way to deal with the invasion? ---a3nm (talk)d
  • Comment: The article's lede was changed by Andrew D. to limit scope to cases where eating a species has been proposed or used as a population control measure. That's a better defined list, but scope would need to be defined to include or exclude use of invasive species as pet meat, fodder, etc., and if kept then such an article would need a rename to reflect the article's restricted scope. Even with reduced scope, the list is likely to include such exotics as cat, dog, cattle, pig, boar, deer, rabbit, hare, goat, horse, donkey, camel, rats, mice, squirrel, fox, possum... ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very happy with that approach - but we would need evidence in respect of each species. Rathfelder (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some invasion species were released on purpose to produce food, others just spread on their own. Any animal has edible meat, so should we include nutria? If a weed plant no one wanted is spreading about but it is technically edible, should it be listed? How about a list of just things that were released into the wild on purpose for food production and are now considered an undesirable invasive species by law makers? That'd make more sense. Dream Focus 20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Joe Roman, creator of the list's idea. Content likely shouldn't be its own article given lack of sourcing, but Roman is clearly notable enough for his own article and this should be mentioned more in depth there. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is agreement that in its present form it is no good, but if someone is prepared to do some work on it I am happy to withdraw my proposal.Rathfelder (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination cannot be withdrawn once there is support for deletion. However, I definitely agree with your conclusion that it needs work regardless of the outcome (unless, of course, it is ultimately deleted). ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion struck -- shifting to Draftify so that those who want to pivot can:
  • a. agree on the scope of what the article is to pivot to; and
  • b. decide on a suitable name that properly reflects this changed scope; and
  • c. adequately source it
~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - based on WP:FRINGE advice about eating invasive species - doesn't meet WP:NOTESAL, the list has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"; or WP:SUSTAINED, neither the list nor the fringe advice nave "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time" - Epinoia (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rickshawala (1993 film)

Rickshawala (1993 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guideline for films. Only two sources I could find were on the page and are IMDb and Movie buff. Both sources are bare bones, really only saying the film exists, so don't have significant coverage (and per WP:NFSOURCES cannot then be used to determine notability). Most other sources through Google are for the later film of the same name or they are WP:CIRCULAR websites. Creator has created this article to promote Jayanta Nath, like other pages they have created which have been deleted recently through AfD. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I have found [15] but this source is not useful for defining notability, because it does not have significant coverage and WP:NFSOURCES states that these sources don't define notability. This still leaves no sources which define notability for this article. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM because it lacks sufficient WP:SIGCOV or any real coverage at all except that it exists. There is nothing any editor could do to make this article have a place on Wikipedia, as the coverage just isn't there. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:13, 28 April 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 10:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EICB TV

AfDs for this article:
EICB TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a TV network that, apparently, no longer exists. Not only that, but the website linked to in the infobox is for EICB Productions, not TV. I am aware that this article was previously nominated, but the discussion ended in a "no consensus", so maybe it needs to be re-nominated. 2600:1700:C960:2270:CCEA:7022:976C:2DD (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:EICB TV per request by IP - procedural creation of AfD page. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The links in this article don't support the content which claims that this company owns dozens of low-power television stations. Specifically, the official site doesn't identify the company as owning television stations, and many of the links to queries of the FCC database don't retrieve any records, or if they do, the records don't mention this company. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 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. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Varga

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

Played 5 WP:NFOOTY games in 2009 (per SW) or 17 games in 2008–2009 (per [16]) in the third-tier semi-professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. Does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 20:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 17:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 20:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me. Clearly fails GNG. After college tried his luck in the minor leagues - failed. There's no significant coverage here. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, but in the absence of sources it is not sufficient. This guy is from the internet age in an English speaking country - sources should be trivial to find online were he notable - they simply do not exist, and those asserting NFOOTY should pony up with a few in-depth reliable independent sources.
  • Keep – 17 appearances is clearly enough to pass WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this individuals admits that he was semi-professional - LinkedIn (same guy - same graduation year from Duquesne University) - working as "project specialist" in Fairmont Supply Company from May 2007 to October 2009 (following which he moved to Bombardier Transportation as a "Manufacturing control analyst") - a period completely overlapping with his stint with the Riverhounds (2008-9) - it is quite clear this is a semi-pro player, that the Riverhounds employed semi-pros, and that the league (given multiple other examples) - is not a WP:FPL (I will further note - that the policy status of WP:FPL - is merely that of an essay - e.g. zilch) - and besides not meeting GNG (the more important criteria) - this is a NFOOTY fail as well. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: - how does a semi-pro player, playing in a league with several other semi-pro players, pass NFOOTBALL? (which itself merely creates a presumption of GNG). NFOOTY states - "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable." - as this player was employed by Fairmont Supply Company for the entirtity of his sting with the Riverhounds he was semi-pro, and any game he was involved with was not a game between two teams from "fully-professional leagues". Note that professional (receiving pay) does not mean fully-professional. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He played in a fully-pro league. A handful of semi-pro players doesn't affect that; same with a non-professional youth player playing in the Premier League, for example. GiantSnowman 07:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A source backing that up? WP:FPL, which is a mere essay, cites USL itself (not a RS) which says - "USL SECOND DIVISION One level below the USL First Division lives in the USL Second Division, the foundation of professional soccer in the United States .... The league is the birthplace of professional players that aspire to reach the highest-levels of the game, while providing affordable family entertainment within their city" - which actually ("foundation of professional soccer" and "birthplace of professional players") doesn't even support "professional" (though AFAICT USL D2 did pay a wage to everyone) - let alone "fully professional" (players don't work elsewhere). USL D2 was mainly a player development league - a large chunk of the rosters in the league were post-college players on rookie contracts who played for around a single season. Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG Article is in need of development. Needs work - not afd WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 20:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY (the keep !votes made on this basis need to be discounted as the league has been removed from the list at WP:FPL following a discussion). Number 57 08:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How does it pass gng?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 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) 12:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bochette

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

Played 2 WP:NFOOTY games in 2006–2008 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. Currently coaching a college team. Does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 20:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 17:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 20:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me. Clearly fails GNG. After college tried his luck in the minor leagues - failed. There's no significant coverage here. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, but in the absence of sources it is not sufficient. This guy is from the internet age in an English speaking country - sources should be trivial to find online were he notable - they simply do not exist, and those asserting NFOOTY should pony up with a few in-depth reliable independent sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – meets WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, see also WP:NCOLLATH for college exploits. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What college exploits? Leviv ich 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Played Division-III for RPI (Liberty League) - generally div-III NCAA is non-notable. Now coaches women's soccer in UAlbany. Interestingly, from 2007 he was assistant coach at RPI (no, Liberty league awards are not significant) - which means he was a part time footballer for the Hammerheads (typical situation for USL D2) - and thus yet another example of the semi-pro status of many of the players there.Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is high time we revised the ridiculous inclusions criteria for footballers and stopped including as default notability second rate leagues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case - third rate. USL D2 - USL D1 - MLS.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY (the keep !votes made on this basis need to be discounted as the league has been removed from the list at WP:FPL following a discussion). Number 57 08:52, 18 April 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Jafta

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

Played 11 WP:NFOOTY games (SW) in 2010 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. Does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG; e.g., this brief mention and this routine signing coverage. In college, he made the NAIA All-American team (distinct from the NCAA All-American team), which I do not believe should/does qualify for WP:NCOLLATH. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 17:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY (the keep !votes made on this basis need to be discounted as the league has been removed from the list at WP:FPL following a discussion). Number 57 08:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to California Gold. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislaus County Cruisers

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. Team in local league with no claims of notability Rogermx (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is notable as the league was considered a fully professional just needs to be improved.Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Professional soccer teams are definitely notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Added a couple sources. The league they were in wasn't local, and they played in the U.S. Open Cup. This is effectively a keep vote, but [17] suggests a merge and redirect to California Gold. SportingFlyer T·C 23:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. As little as I think of the various sports notability guidelines, even those don't support keeping this. WP:NTEAM says, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline, and this fails that badly. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They briefly received national coverage for playing San Jose Earthquakes in the U.S. Open Cup in 2000, and the Soccer America article shows they at the very least received local coverage in the Modesto paper during their time on this earth. The only coverage I can find on the contemporary internet is routine press coverage of their away matches, but considering this was nearly 20 years ago now that doesn't surprise me much. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Coverage does not meet the GNG. Played in a non-professional league and best coverage was when they played an MLS team, but notability isn't achieved by one 5-0 loss in a soccer game.Sandals1 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to California Gold per SportingFlyer, WP:PAGEDECIDE and [18]. In 2002, the Stanislaus County Cruisers changed their name to California Gold. That would explain the lack of internet sources to meet GNG under the old name. It's just one team, though, so it doesn't need two articles. Redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the content can be merged. Leviv ich 19:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nominator, I agree with merging this article to California Gold. Thanks for the research, Levivich! Rogermx (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't thank me, I copied off of SportingFlyer's !vote :-) Leviv ich 22:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd side with a redirect but I don't see much reason to redirect to an unreferenced article.Sandals1 (talk) 17:45, 24 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L. Todd Burke

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

Doesn't pass WP:JUDGE and none of the sources used appear to be reliable secondary sources. GPL93 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUDGE doesn't cover sub-statewide level judges, such as state judicial districts or county-level judges, so this is more a question of whether of not the subject meets WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
No, but the discussion on notability at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability states that state trial court judges for courts of general jurisdiction, which Burke is: "Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability." WP:JUDGE isn't the only criteria that we can look at. GregJackP Boomer! 04:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but there still isn't really much that indicates notability. Of the sources used, one is a legal directory entry, which pretty much any practicing attorney can have (1); (2)followed by the homepage of the city of Wilmington, NC (No mention of Burke at all); A "find a DUI lawyer" website (3); (4) a PDF of a lawsuit, (5) a passing mention in a blog by the American Bar Association, (6) another passing mention about the same subject in the local newspaper; and (7) an entry in an alumni newsletter. These aren't the references necessary to establish notability in my opinion. I also brought up WP:JUDGE because it was specifically used as the reasoning for keeping the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even check Google News/Books/etc? First, the ABA Journal webpage is not a "blog"--it is the web presence of a print magazine that is published monthly. He's listed in several books, such as Roslyn Muraskin, Key Correctional Issues 170 (2005) (covering a DUI case); numerous news articles; in a law review article, and so on. Second, you brought up WP:JUDGE in your original statement suggesting deletion, you didn't bring it up as a response. GregJackP Boomer! 05:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a Matter of fact I did and I didn't believe I found enough to establish notability. My apologies on the ABA newspage but at the end of the day it is still a passing mention. Best, GPL93 (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO, WP:JUDGE, WP:GNG, etc. and passes WP:V (links= [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], etc)--PATH SLOPU 05:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources appear to meet WP:GNG as a state trial court judge. The ABA article only contains a passing mention about the subject in the article. The other articles do not show the nationalized or international coverage necessary to pass WP:JUDGE (The Washington Times link is to a picture of his courtroom [I presume] - and not about the subject). (Also see WP:POLOUTCOMES about local mayors as an equivalent [where judges, like mayors, are expected to receive routine coverage of their activities)). --Enos733 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion on this has died down and I'd like some more opinions on if this passes WP:JUDGE or not...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 07:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the request for more opinions, I think this subject does not pass WP:JUDGE (not a state judge) and does not pass WP:GNG either. Skirts89 11:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject is not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 19:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting guy for sure, but just not notable. Working in government after having politician parents (notability is not inherited) and giving out a quirky court sentence do not make this man pass WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. He's an average local public figure, and none of the awards or honors he has received are significant. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:30, 28 April 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 10:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pilar Lastra

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

No reliable source to proof WP:BIO, simply being a Playboy Playmate is not enough B dash (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 April 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 10:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kasie Head

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

Can't find enough reliable source for her, likely fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She doesn’t meet the notability standards for beauty pageants. Trillfendi (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO only significant achievement is winning a state beauty pageant in 2002 (see WP:1EVENT) no notable achievements otherwise. Dan arndt (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete state level beauty queens are not default notable, and being a model on a game show does not put her over the top with respect to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saini recipients of military awards and decorations

List of Saini recipients of military awards and decorations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic is too specific that the list only has one entry. I don't find any reason to keep this list at all. KCVelaga (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created the list as a split from Saini people in August 2010 when it looked like this [25], and was tagged to be split, which looked quite sensible. The list looked like this at the time: [26] with over 40 people listed as recipients of awards, and each one cited. Looking at the history, what has happened between then and now is that User:Sitush has spent six years cleaning up the article, removing insecure sources, and then removing those listed as they had no sources supporting them being Saini. I note that Sitush has done the same at List of Saini people which used to look like this: [27]. As Situshi has spent some time on these articles, it would helpful to have their insight into the situation. What appears to have happened is that articles and lists have been created about Saini people, but there is some doubt as to if they actually are Saini. This is not my area of knowledge, but I understand that castes are generally identified by surname, as indicated here: [28]. I can see it as plausible that some editors have felt it self-evident that if an individual's surname is "Saini" then they are part of the Saini caste, while others would feel that in order to be listed as part of the Saini caste there would need to be a reliable source which explicitly says "Foo Saini is a member of the Saini caste". This comes down to the Blue Sky debate: Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. One way round this would be to title the list List of recipients of military awards and decorations with a Saini related surname, though my thinking is that is probably what is implied in this and other caste related articles. I'm seeing both sides here, and will wait for Situshi to comment, but I'm inclined to thinking that this is a keep, and that many of the names removed should be restored. SilkTork (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it has ever been accepted by the community that we can reliably associate caste with surname. A similar treatment has been given to numerous other articles that make this assumption and I know of no successful challenge to this. In any case, I find it obnoxious for Wikipedia to build a classification of people by caste into its structure. SpinningSpark 21:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Sitush/Common#Castelists explains and is based on longstanding consensus. - Sitush (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link Sitush, that seems to explain things quite well. SilkTork (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable. I agree with silktork  that the names should be restored (see this version) and the article should be improved with more sources. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aman.kumar.goel: those prior names cannot be restored in the format then presented - please read the explanation I linked to earlier. Briefly, last name is not verification, living people must self-identify, claims of caste associations etc are not reliable sources. The list should probably be deleted (merge what remains in it, if valid) but if you must expand it then you're going to have to follow the longstanding consensus, not restore poorly sourced stuff and original research then try to find something to support those restorations. - Sitush (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. Sure, we've sources stating that "X, Y, and Z won Bharat Ratna" and that "X, Y, and Z have black hair", but that doesn't mean we should have a List of black-haired Bharat Ratna winners. Not to mention that caste publications such as Saini Jagat and sainionline.com are not acceptable sources. utcursch | talk 00:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV that this topic is notable in independent reliable sources. Based on the above conversation, it just seems like someone's attempt, I'm not claiming intentionally, to pigeonhole people into a group they never identified with in order to create an article. Including the living people that used to be on this list without proof they were members of this caste was a major BLP violation that cannot be repeated if the article is kept. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA MinervaELS (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cap'n Crunch. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean LaFoote

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

Lacks notability. Merge content into Cap'n Crunch Themightyquill (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Except for an article in Fox News that literally lists this character as one of the most forgettable mascots [29], this character doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Userqio (talk) 12:47, 14 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Barnett

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Cannot find any sources that do more than mention subject incidentally. Rogermx (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, winner of notable award. There will be significant contemporary news coverage, even if you can't find it with a simple Google search. I have added Blomberg biography as a reference. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A Bloomberg listing is not particularly useful for establishing notability. Note: Rich Farmbrough created this article and a lot of other stubs for winners of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, a award that doesn't appear to be all that significant. Many of these other winners' articles have been tagged for questionable notability, e.g. Pamela Neal, Janette Pallas, Nicholas O'Shiel, Anne Duncan, etc., and should be deleted too. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence anyone who gets this award is automatically notable, and many of the others should go too. Should otherwise be sources covering them besides just for the award. Unclear why there's The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2011), etc. as well. Reywas92Talk 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a couple of sources to the article. I don't see why the award would not qualify for WP:ANYBIO - it's a national award, not a local one, and there were 10 recipients of that award each year, in a population of about 60 million overall. Assuming that about 3/4 of the population were aged 20+, the award was given to 10 in 45,000,000 people, or 2.22%, which is surely notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as winner of notable award and User:RebeccaGreen has improved the article with more references giving credibility to its notability. Thanks MyanmarBBQ (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 04:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even though this article has been improved since nomination, I don't see any notability. Doesn't pass WP:GNG and I think this article falls under WP:NCORP as well - not even a notable business associated. Skirts89 11:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP is not for people, it's for organisations. The question is not whether the organisation/s she is associated with are notable, but whether she herself meets any notability criteria. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, perhaps I wasn't clear. I merely included that comment to indicate that not only is the subject not noteworthy, the company she is associated with isn't noteworthy either. Thanks! Skirts89 13:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This improved article still fails WP:GNG because the subject lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV of her life or career, and her "fame" revolves around WP:ONEEVENT - an award from the Queen of Britain. As notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED, there is no reason to hold this particular royal honor as an automatic grant of notability anymore then we would a 100th birthday card from the Queen (and yes, I know that is more common then this award, but my point still stands). Newshunter12 (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riya Brahma

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

Actress who seems to fall under too soon, I'm trying to find ANYTHING on her, the only things I can find are about a film not even out yet. Wgolf (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment English sourcing was pretty sparse. Based on English sources alone, I would vote delete. However, I think its likely that Brahma has gotten far more significant coverage in Indian press, so I'm hesistant to vote delete based solely on the English sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG. I could not find any sustained WP:SIGCOV of her in a WP:BEFORE search I did, and any notability she might gain from the upcoming film Gwthar is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL at this point. I am not opposed to the article being recreated at a later date if she becomes notable down the road. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 05:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Salter

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

Not notable as an academic or a politician, and fails WP:GNG as well: the only significant coverage is in a student newspaper. StAnselm (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see much evidence of notability here. Frickeg (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of any notability as an academic or in any other capacity. --Tataral (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is not notable. Bacondrum (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, doesn't fit any of the criteria. Catiline52 (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but split National Alliance (Australia) and move much of the content there. To the admin that deletes the article, please send it to my user page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find sources or anything to imply notability. Just a small cog in the political realm in Australia. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 18:26, 18 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Rose (fragrance)

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

Just because it is made by a celebrity doesn't mean its notable. funplussmart (talk) 02:02, 14 April 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 Mason family. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Thomson Mason

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

Many of his relatives are notable--and are in fact major historical figures-- but I see no evidence he is. . The military career seems undistinguished, and according to the source given, that the fort is named after him rather than others of his family is only conjectural. (Note that the similarity of names in his family makes searching rather difficult) DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per Robert. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊
  • Redirect. Concur - not much is available here. His brief service record is available - [30] as is dying in 1846 - [31]. Fort Mason is possibly named for him - [32][33]. But that's about it - the article is built around this by adding additional material on the events he played a part in. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 15 April 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 Mason family. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Mason VI

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

Many of his relatives are notable--and are in fact major historical figures-- but I see no evidence he is. (Note that the similarity of names in his family makes searching rather difficult) . DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - His role in the ownership of the historic Mason estate at Gunston Hall is sufficient notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How THIS can get a weak Keep? Has anyone seen the references? Out of 4 references - three are from the official website of George Mason! I am new here but even I know that official website is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia rules Dariakupila (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. From the article, his "accomplishments" appear to be being born into a notable family and inheriting an estate. Even the book The Five George Masons (which I can't view) seems to have only two mentions of his name. The rest of the sources are no better. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and simply put a mention in the Mason Family article of his existence. The nominated article talks about his family members, but where is the evidence that he's notable himself? As presented now, this entry does not constitute inclusion worthy per WP:INVALIDBIOGraywalls (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mason family. There are several casual mentions, and I believe it is sometimes possible to build an encyclopedic article from disparate casual mentions, but this is not one of those cases. Most of the encyclopedic information in this article is about his wife, not him. We only have birthdates, who he was related to, and a piece of property he owned. That does not help us understand the subject, and he does not otherwise appear to have any notability independent of his famous relatives. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect He is clearly not notable on his own to pass WP:GNG, but as the sixth George Mason a redirect to the Mason family article wouldn't be inappropriate as he is a part of that puzzle of relatives, despite being unimportant himself. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy & Internet

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

Not notable. Minor e-mag. Tagged for no sources since 2013, and it's been 6 years and no one's fixed it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added indexing info to the article, with 3 independent sources showing that this meets NJournals. I would suggest that the nom, Harizotoh9, withdraws this nomination. --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the relevant notability guideline, as argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Thrills Incorporated. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Science Stories

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

Short lived science fiction magazine that ran for two issues. Due to its extremely short length, there's nothing else to ever say about the magazine other than what's on there. And it's so short lived, it's not really notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I created the article (I think when working on Amazing Stories, to disambiguate it), so for now I'll hold off on !voting keep or delete and wait to see what others think. Meanwhile, here's what I have in the way of sources:
    • SFE3, cited in the article in the earlier print edition. This is an (extremely short) article about this magazine.
    • Ashley, Mike (2005). Transformations:The Story of the Science-Fiction Magazines from 1950 to 1970. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 0-85323-779-4.: this just includes the magazine in a list of sf magazines; there's no discussion.
    • Tymn, Marshall B.; Mike Ashley (1985). Science Fiction, Fantasy and Weird Fiction Magazines. West: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-21221-X.: There's a half-page devoted to the magazine in this encyclopedia; it lists some of the stories and provides bibliographic information.
      Just realized this sounds like it's just an entry in a list; it's not. It's a discussion of the magazine, followed by some bibliographic information about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blackford, Russell; et al. (1999). Strange Constellations. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-25112-6.: mentions it on p. 64.
The magazine was mostly (but not entirely) a reprint of the Australian magazine Thrills Incorporated, which does not yet have its own article, but definitely should -- Tymn & Ashley have two and a half pages on it and there are more sources elsewhere. If the article doesn't survive this AfD, I think it would be reasonable to merge it into Thrills Incorporated when that article is created; or it could be moved to that name with an explanatory initial sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Does not appear to have substantive sources to establish notability. Reywas92Talk 06:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The length of the run is unimportant – see WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. The subject appears in numerous histories of SF publishing, including the following. Andrew D. (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The History of the Science Fiction Magazine
  2. Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines
  3. Transformations: The Story of the Science Fiction Magazines from 1950 to 1970
  4. Strange Constellations: A History of Australian Science Fiction
  5. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
  6. The Science Fiction Magazines
  7. The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
  8. The Complete Checklist of Science-fiction Magazines
  9. The MUP Encyclopaedia of Australian Science Fiction and Fantasy
  10. Time Machines, The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines From the Beginning to 1950
Commment: The issue with size is that, since it ran for exactly two issues, what else could possibly be said about it? Its history is so brief that nothing happened and it can be summarized in exactly 2 sentences. Thus I cite WP:PERMASTUB. The other issue is that most of the sources you cite are guidebooks and encyclopedias, which attempt to be thorough and name every single sci-fi source. Thus, they can't be used for notability, since such books list everything. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that a two-issue magazine can have nothing interesting to say about it is demonstrably not true. Here are some GAs on very short runs: Space Science Fiction Magazine (one issue), Fantasy (1938 magazine) (three issues), Miracle Science and Fantasy Stories (two issues), Tops in Science Fiction (two issues), and 10 Story Fantasy (one issue). A couple of FAs on very short runs: Science-Fiction Plus (seven issues), and Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories (seven issues). I think the question is what the sources do say, and while you're right that most of the above simply include Amazing Science Stories in a list, both the SF Encyclopedia and the Tymn/Ashley Encyclopedia give the magazine a separate entry. So far I think the best idea is to make the magazine part of a future Thrills Incorporated article. It could also be part of an article on Pemberton's UK reprint magazines, of which there were several, but most of those are going to be covered separately anyway -- e.g. the Pemberton's edition of Planet Stories is described in that article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough material for a Pemberton's article then I think that is a better idea than my suggestion of Thrills Incorporated even if information on Pemberton is already scattered across multiple articles. In any event, I am at WP:PRESERVE on this one. SpinningSpark 08:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough specifically about Pemberton's to be comfortable creating an article on it yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Thrills Incorporated and mark as needing expansion. This seems more like a footnote to the Australian magazine's story rather than independently notable. Thrills Incorporated itself is demonstrably notable. SpinningSpark 20:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 21 April 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 Space: 1999. Sandstein 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999)

Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Location for the tv series Space: 1999. Not independently notable. This is pure WP:FANCRUFT material, that belongs on a fan wiki. All we need is a disambig page for Moonbase_Alpha, with a brief mention of the location for the show, and that's it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete ridiculous depth of fancruft for a two-season show. Reywas92Talk 06:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:FANCRUFT is an essay with no standing, not a policy-based reason to delete. The nomination makes suggestions for development of the topic and deletion would neither be necessary nor appropriate to do this. Our actual policies are WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. while WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP tell us that AfD is not a place to bring editing suggestions. Andrew D. (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew D, let's try it this way. Where is the WP:GNG? The article cites only a couple newspaper articles in addition to episodes of the show. Are there GNG sources? Please identify them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Space: 1999 with very limited merge. The article is almost entirely in-universe description, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia per MOS:INUNIVERSE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE bullet #1. The only salvageable out-of-universe encyclopaedic content is the description of Asimov's criticism of the show's use of dark side of the moon. This can easily be merged to the already existing discussion of Asimov's scientific criticisms in the main article. SpinningSpark 20:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One independent reference is there to point the way to GNG. There also does seem to be enough non-primary sourcing to write an article. However most of that is written by the writers of the series, so it is not helping out GNG. A merge is not really appropriate as the target article is already big, and if this content was there it should be slit off into this article. Moonbase Alpha from NASA is probably a different thing. Other independent reference do exist like http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umext.html and https://medium.com/swlh/the-interior-design-of-moonbase-alpha-9c0d96119be9 which could also be counted as reliable. So it looks as if WP:GNG can be met by adding references and removing some in-episode OR material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a few sources, then that's just the first step. What you'd do is to add this to the main article on the show, then if that gets so huge because there's so many sources, then you make a new page. The location is not really notable independently of the show. So of course you'll find something, because sources on the show are likely gonna talk at least a little bit about the location of the show. But that's not enough to justify an entirely independent article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the sources you put forward is acceptable as a RS. The first is a fanboy site with entirely in-universe material, so no use for building an encyclopaedia article in any case. The second appears to be a social media site for designers. Whether that is an acceptable RS depends on whether the author, Federico Bo, gets a pass under WP:SPS as a recognised expert. I don't see any evidence that he is, he seems mostly involved with pushing blockchain currencies. His claims on the Italian designers involved in the Moonbase interior could be entirely his own speculation.
And good God no, I am not proposing a merge of the article in its entirety. As I said above, the only thing worth merging is a sentence or so on Asimov. The rest is in-universe description and should be dumped. My argument for removing the article is not based on its sourcing or notability, it is based on the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and in-universe articles definitely come under "not". If you think you can construct a proper encyclopaedic article you are welcome to do so, but this is not it and has to go. SpinningSpark 09:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Asimov's reception is pretty valid, and that would go into a sentence or two in the reception for the page on the show itself. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Space: 1999 article as a valid search term. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Are all these Space 1999 AfDs occurring because of the recent 30th anniversary release of the series? StrayBolt (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I accidentally combined this DVD Retro Release Notice with this Blu-ray Release, both posted within 2 hours of each other on April 11, 2019. StrayBolt (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Quite a load of cruft for some minor show from the 1970s. User:SpinningSpark has it right. John M Wolfson (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Space: 1999 article. There is no need for this fictional place in an old television program to have its own article. --PhobosIkaros ✉ 17:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Space: 1999. Spinning Spark has done an excellent job above arguing for this position, and I agree entirely. Rorshacma (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Space: 1999. Unless third-party, reliable sources can be located, this does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As a prop it was is used right from the beginning, indeed it a central tenet of the whole program and that included the interior based shots and for a large section of British teenagers it was the business, so it has stand-alone notability. The article itself could be easily trimmed by 20% or more. The people who are voting for delete perhaps don't know the effect this show had when it was aired. The base itself was featured in kids and crafting magazines and it was always on show and in kits. scope_creepTalk 08:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Main setting of a major series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is whether the subject is covered in depth by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Looking, I found that there are quite a lot of books and articles written about this television series, and there is a fair amount to say on the subject of its setting. Unfortunately, this article isn't saying it. Doing the research, I found books (ISBN 9780786455270 p. 93) explaining how the main set was difficult and expensive to light, so it was replaced with an alternative in the second season, with a purported in-universe explanation invented for having it that was never actually confirmed on-screen. Our article, in contrast, misrepresents fiction as fact. It provides that very in-universe explantion, sourced (as most of the article indeed is) to works of fiction, with nary a mention of the reality, which readers will not learn from Wikipedia. The fact, that I came across in another source (ISBN 9780786406005 p. 39), that one of the set props was later re-used in another U.K. science fiction series is entirely missing from our article. And so forth. There's possibly an article to be had here on the set designs and props, a sub-article of Space: 1999#Special effects, design and music about which the non-fiction sources indicate there is more for Wikipedia to say, but most of the content here in the article at hand is outright fiction, regurgitating stories and supplementary fictional works rather than giving readers factual information. Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:FANCRUFT is not a WP:POLICY reason to bring an article to afd. This base was the main setting of a major series. The base was featured in piblications WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Lubbad85 (☎) 12:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not derived, so it doesn't matter how major the series is. Sources will discuss the series, and discuss the setting somewhat, but the setting is not notable outside of the series. It does not have enough sources to pass GNG alone. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Space: 1999 per the well reasoned arguments put forward by SpinningSpark. This isn't a fan website and I myself have helped pare back cruft in entertainment topics I like despite the personal interest I have in them, which keep!voters here don't seem able to do. This topic clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG on its own, and a one or two sentence merge of Asimov's criticism to the main article is the only salvageable piece of this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Death Star has an article and Mos Eisley (cantina) as well. Star Wars is certainly larger than life- howeverWP:FANCRUFT? WP:NOTPAPER so no reason to pare back IMO. WP:FANCRUFT is not a policy here at Wikipedia. Lubbad85 (☎) 12:51, 28 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_April_14&oldid=892444774"