Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 March	22 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Goodwill

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

WP:NPOL. Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:24, 21 March 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? 23:24, 21 March 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? 23:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small town mayor who fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy WP:NPOL as a local politician. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once again, what we have here is not a mayor who's properly sourced as notable, but classic Billy Hathorn: the local obituary that isn't an instant GNG pass all by itself in the absence of any other substantive sourcing the way Billy always thought it was, paired with a mix of primary sourcing and tangential verification of stray facts about the subject's relatives. As usual, this is not how you reference a mayor as notable enough for a Wikipedia article, regardless of the size of the city in question. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a city that has never passed the 15,000 mark, yet Hatorn wanted us to accept all its mayors as default notable. I have created my fair share of articles on mayors, from Mrs. Kaufusi of Provo to Jim Fouts of Warren, but both cities are well over 100,000 people, have large vibrant economies. Provo is the center of a metro area with over 300,000 people, and Kaufusi has gotten coverage as the first female mayor in the city, even more so because of the police chief being ousted for sexual harrassment of employees. While Warren is always in the shadow of its larger southern neighbor Detroit, Fouts has been a leading political figure in that city for decades, and his clash with the king, I mean executive, of Macomb County and the claimed recording the executive has produced have gotten national attention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayor of Minden, Louisiana from 1955 to 1958. Sourcing is not sufficiently nationalized to pass WP:NPOL as a mayor of a city that size. --Enos733 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of the Pitcairn Islands

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

The article is about registration plates which, per its text, do not exist. That being the case, it is inherently non-notable. Sable232 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the parallel Vehicle registration plates of Tokelau AFD, this just isn't an encyclopedia article. The single sentence can be added to Pitcairn Islands. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So really you're saying merge? Alarichall (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't merge; the sole source doesn't look like a WP:RS, so fails WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of Tokelau

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

The article is about registration plates which, per its text, do not exist. That being the case, it is inherently non-notable. Sable232 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The single sentence can be included in Tokelau. Schazjmd (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merege with Tokelau article, as suggested above. It does not make sense to have this article, especially since it is not an independent country. There is no good argument to have every dependency/etc have its own article on every administrative topic. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not merge, as the sole source doesn't appear to be a WP:RS, so fails WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Major:The Film

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

WP:TOOSOON. We're not an IMDB mirror. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (films). A BLP related article with one dead source, that has an apparently unrelated title: "2 NSG men killed, six others injured in Mumbai gunbattles", could likely be speedy deleted. Otr500 (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any suitable sources. I came here excited that somebody had created a biopic on John Major. What a disappointment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W. W. Dumas

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 21 March 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? 22:33, 21 March 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? 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy WP:NPOL as a local politician. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mayor of a city-parish with population of over 400,000. 72.191.54.229 (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note The IP who voted above has been blocked as a probable sockpuppet of banned editor Billy Hathorn....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because the place they were mayor of eventually surpassed an arbitrary population cutoff — the notability test for mayors is the ability to reliably source that they've been the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. The sources here are largely not helping, however: most of them are primary sources that do not support notability at all, such as government documents and raw tables of election results and genealogy records — and even the few that are reliable sources are mostly not about Dumas either, because except for his obituary in the local newspaper (which does not represent an instant free pass of GNG all by itself as the only valid source in play), the others are tangentially verifying stray facts about other people. Regardless of the size of the municipality he was mayor of, Billy Hathorn, this is still not how you source a mayor as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In my honest opinion, despite Bearcat's objections, U.S. mayors of places with 100,000 people or more ought to be inherently notable. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While I don't entirely agree with Mr. Guye, I do believe that there is a fair chance that most mayors of cities with populations 100,000 generally receive enough coverage to pass GNG. I'm leaning towards deleting in this case due to the incredibly poor sourcing and I think its probably best that the a new article be created from scratch if someone does the research and comes up with reliable sources to prove GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Heine

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:31, 21 March 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? 22:31, 21 March 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? 22:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy WP:NPOL as a local politician. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy WP:NPOL Lubbad85 (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nom) with special thanks to Phil Bridger for providing an additional source that demonstrates the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's Boys

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, doesn't even have an entry on RottenTomatoes and I was unable to find any coverage online. The lone piece of coverage appears to be a brief mention in a Michael Jackson biography. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not surprised this doesn't appear on Rotten Tomatoes - this was a one-off TV documentary made by a UK production company and shown on a UK TV station... I know Rotten Tomatoes reviews TV shows as well, but they tend to be American series. The production company is well known in the UK, as is the actor who did the voiceover, and it was shown on a major national TV station, so this has some clout behind it. But this was just a one-off documentary, and it didn't have any lasting notability... it's not a programme that people have been talking about since its transmission. Richard3120 (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an 18-page academic paper about this documentary at doi:10.1080/10350330701637049. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this demonstrates notability, thank you. Because no one has voted delete yet, it is technically fair game for me to withdraw this nomination now. However, since Richard3120 expressed an opinion that to the effect of the film not being notable, I just want to check in to make sure I'm not closing prematurely. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill I have no objection if you want to withdraw the nomination. Richard3120 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aysha Naushad Khan

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

This article was perviously nominated here in 2014, with no consensus. Some T20I women's cricketers from minor cricketing countries don't qualify for inclusion under WP:CRIN, even after the ICC awarding all women's international sides T20I status. So why should this article be included? The matches Khan played were minor, carried no status, the coverage is routine, and the subject does not appear to have played cricket for nearly 3 years. StickyWicket (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP don't know much about cricket or this person, I just googled her and the first things popped up was her wikipedia article, maybe because it is hanging in there for a quiet a while, she doesn't have notability but according to cited sources she meeds WP:GNG but fails WP:RS. Being on wikipedia for quiet a long I suggest keep.SZ1999 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article being the first result on google is absolutely no reason to keep it, nor is the fact its been around for a while. Spike 'em (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SZ1999 is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Striking their comment. Flapjacktastic (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG : Only one of the referenced articles actually covers her in detail, the rest are passing mentions / routine coverage / stats listings. Fails WP:NCRIC too by my reckoning. Spike 'em (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she fails WP:NCRIC but just passes WP:GNG. This article is entirely about her, and I think the three paragraphs about her in this article might also count as significant coverage. The second article definitely addresses her directly. I'm not sure how in detail it needs to be to be considered significant, but for me it's got enough details. These are the only two articles I could find online that had more than a trivial mention of her (and they're also the two articles that were brought up in the previous AfD), so if either of these doesn't count as significant coverage then I'll change my vote to delete unless another source comes up. TripleRoryFan (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spike 'em, well if isn't Daft. This time I'm BlackJack! Give it up Daft. StickyWicket (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the evidence provided by TripleRoryFan. Assuming, arguendo, that the coverage received in the two articles provided by TripleRoryFan is substantive, it still lacks the necessary "multiple" independent and secondary sources required to pass the muster at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The subject also fails WP:NCRIC. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the arguments made by TripleRoryFan. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @TripleRoryFan's comment regarding significancy of the subject's coverage needs to be evaluated further in terms of WP:SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on significant coverage: #1)- is just a note, #2)- "K.R. Nayar, Senior Reporter" = passing mention and is primarily about Dipanki Borcar, #3)- "Jai Prasad V. Rai, Sports Reporter": Bowled 'em over, coverage is GN Media publishing news reporting, "Gulf News Cricket", subtitled She's only 12, but the talented bowler has already caught the eye of coaches and the coaches are "her coaches" so the source, that includes interviews and opinions of her couches, is laced with positive advertising words, so has biased connotations over independent reporting, #4)- "Women's cricket could catch on in the UAE" = very passing mention: "while Aysha Naushadkhan, Petule Nadar & Humaira Tasneem chipped in with 1 wicket apiece.", #5)- CricNepal: Repeat of number 4, #6)- "UAE girls on song against Malaysia and Oman" = two instances of passing mention: "while Aysha Naushadkhan grabbed one to provide the finishing touch to victory.", and "Aysha Naushadkhan 1-7", #7)- "Humaira to lead U-19 team": Two passing mentions, "...and Aysha Naushadkhan (aged 13) is the youngest player in the squad." as well as a listing in the squad, "Aysha Naushadkhan", #8)- "NEPAL THRASHES UAE FOR CONSECUTIVE WIN": brief passing mention, "Thapa was caught by Kyna Vedhasinghe off Aysha Naushadkhan in the fifth ball of the sixth over", #9)- "ACC U-19 Women’s Championship 2010 - Results", Missed any mention of subject, #10)- Gulf News Cricket: "Sharjah honours top performers", Special awards include "Ayesha Naushad Khan" is passing mention, #11)- Gulf News Cricket: "UAE women’s cricket team win GCC championship" with the subtitle; "Subha bags best batswoman and Samiya wins best bowler of the tournament awards", missed any mention of the subject, #12)- dead link, #13)- "UAE women cricketers aim to strike hot at the GCC T20 tournament", missed any mention of subject, #14)- "UAE women beat Qatar to retain GCC T20 title", after Heena Hotchandani and Ayesha Naushad Khan bowled exceptional spells.. Same sentence mentioned twice and passing mention, #15)- "UAE women's cricket team win Gulf Cup": ...with Ayesh Naushad taking three wickets and Aysha Naushad (16) is Passing mention.

Conclusion: While there are references listed the sources are industry specific routine sports coverage that are mostly mundane, not specifically or primarily about the subject (passing mention), with only one coming close. Many sources are routine short-term interest sports coverage, mostly about the UAE team, that does not advance notability. Only the one source provides some actual biographical content that is advertising type and appears biased. As a WP:BLP this reflects more of a pseudo biography. Most sources that mention the subject uses the name as Aysha Naushadkhan.

These sources reflect that while there might be coverage, and they may be acceptable as a reference for article content, they can lack advancing notability. Otr500 (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per my above comments. I also have concerns of a cricket player, failing WP:NCRIC but supposedly passing WP:GNG because of one source, centered specifically on the aspect of playing cricket, as advancing notability. There cannot be a double standard. If the subject is not notable as a cricket player then how in the world can she be otherwise considered notable to pass GNG? As an inquiring mind I would also wonder what happened after the 2015 season? If a considered sports reported "fame" of two seasons in not fleeting then what would constitute enduring notability? Did she quit to fall off the radar from 2016 to 2019 when it appears she turns 19. Otr500 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Otr500, I wondered too why she just vanished off the radar. This could possibly be her, which might explain where she's been for the last few years. But your evaluation of the sources is spot on, just passing and routine. StickyWicket (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When a list is made it is a good thing to try to create new articles. Sometimes the parent article is sufficient. When I considered a merge or redirect I saw the subject was not in the United Arab Emirates women's national cricket team, which is really about the 2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier. This subject at least has more substance and references than those listed in the squad on those two articles (duplicates) because I saw one team member shows a T20I debut date of 7 July 2018, and a last T20I of 14 July 2018. Maybe there is more out there but this article has a lot more than what appears to be a 7 day wonder, or even the rest of those squad members, and still to me just does not have notability for a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otr500 fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Otr500. Good analysis. Would fail WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark White (media personality)

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

Media personality with questionable notability. I looked up his name Markdabeast1 which has been salted on here. From what I can tell he does not have much going for him. Wgolf (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I just found out there was also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark White (model). Wgolf (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also just put a SPI up for this. Looks like there is more going on...Wgolf (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We shouldn't delete this, because it's possible there may be sources that we haven't found. Purplerain209 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With sourced information that does exist, it is possible to write about the subject. Lovelybones34 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced. Lovelybones34 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Lovelybones34 – Prejudger[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 11:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billiard Academy Real Break

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

Likely non-notable cue-sports video game. Lists as "arcade machine", but I could find nothing except some ROM hacks, and some gameplay video on a WP:BEFORE search. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of cue sports-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't actually an article but simply a statement that it exists (WP:ITEXISTS), and there appears to be no present potential for proper article creation/growth. Even the publisher/developer doesn't seem to be notable. Maybe Japanese Wikipedia will create an article on them some day, using Japanese sources, and we can translate. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maurya News

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

Undersourced in tone and failing WP:NWEB. Sheldybett (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like spam.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any evidence that this is a significant news source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed and most-liked YouTube trailers

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

List is nothing more than popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. The list is inadequately sourced (apart from the top few, albeit not corresponding with the sources given) and the rest of it just a linkfarm of YouTube links. This content was removed by myself and one other user from Trailer (promotion) only to be dumped into its own article. WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trailer (promotion) could be a better idea, but not sure about the consequences containing of YouTube links where other sources are available. Sheldybett (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This content was already removed from that article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are plenty of other similar YouTube lists: List of most-viewed YouTube videos, List of most-liked YouTube videos, List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours, etc. How is this any different? There are also numerous articles from reliable sources discussing the most-viewed YouTube trailers, five of which are cited in the article. And the WP:YouTube references are not a link farm, but are references that provide up-to-date data on the number of views and likes. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article. Firstly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because something exists doesn't mean something else should (in my opinion, those articles shouldn't exist either). Notability is not inherited. This article is different because it's a cross-categorisation of both Youtube and movie trailers. We're not a collection of every single statistic in the world. The references to the videos themselves require continual updating and the order of the list is not accurately established by these links therefore WP:SYNTH applies. Ajf773 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. The other YouTube lists cover the key essentials: most-viewed, most-liked, and most-disliked. The other list is of the most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours, which encompasses all online views, not just the ones from the YouTube platform. This one is different because it has an additional qualifier of the video needing to be a trailer. I like the information and think it has a place on Wikipedia, but just not on its own article. I think the information is much more suitable if it was located across the suggested merge to articles. Soulbust (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a list of trailers there. We don't need a list of trailers just for Youtube. Ajf773 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

saparted: is sparted a option we could have List of most-viewed trailer on youtube and List of most-liked YouTube trailers Fanoflionking

You don't even make any sense. Ajf773 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes WP:LISTN but a merge might be appropriate. (I originally !voted delete but self-reverted a minute later, because I was too tired to take a proper look at the sources. Also, someone please keep an eye on these Disney shenanigans.) wumbolo ^^^ 21:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:LISTN how? Ajf773 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The most important criteria is "is this something that can enrich the knowledge of a general audience, or only relevant to fans"? I would not say that a list of trailer views is of general interest to anyone besides a superhero movie buff. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:LISTCRUFT , WP:SYNTH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Unoc (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After the fifth source, it's all just 'cause the number on the site sezso', which is unacceptable sourcing, and the first five are just used to give an illusion of good sourcing where there really isn't one. Trailers are available anywhere, and this is just unsourced SYNTH. Nate • (chatter) 05:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. What does this prove? That a big Hollywood or Bollywood blockbuster has a trailer that is viewed by a lot of people? Well I never. The top entry can be briefly mentioned in the main YouTube article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering that the other article linked below the article already covers the material, of the most viewed videos and trailers in the first 24 hours, keeping this list is redundant.Garlicolive (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a listcruft. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L. Hunt

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

Claim to fame is a few production credits, but none of the sources include non-trivial coverage of the subject. Author appears to be engaged in PR work for this and a few other related persons and films. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and more likely than not made by an associated/paid editor. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Lubbad85 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Porter

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

Does not pass the general notability guideline as there is not significant, independent coverage. The references now in the article do not appear to be independent, and I was unable to find anything other than mentions in my search. Searching is confounded by the fact that this is a common name. In particular, hits for Katherine Anne Porter may create the illusion of notability but they are not the same individual. The article itself lacks substance. Arguably passes WP:ARTIST based on the inclusion of some works within several major collections but I believe that the GNG should govern. Uninvited Company 18:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The subject definitely passes WP:ARTIST #4(d) "The person's work (or works) has: ... (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." This is easily verifiable by searching the collections of the museums listed in the article. The nominator appears to think that this is not enough, but Wikipedia:Notability states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right," ie explicitly stating that it meets EITHER the WP:GNG OR WP:SNG. Someone whose works of art are in at least 6 major museums would probably also meet other criteria of WP:ARTIST, and perhaps also the WP:GNG, if one were to search newspapers, art journals, etc. Such sources could be added to the article, but as the article makes a clear, easily verified claim of notability, it should definitely be kept. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets (nominator must be joking that Porter "arguably meets") WP:NARTIST, works held at:

Museum of Modern Art - "I am an American... Uneasy Dreams", "The City Fell Away", and "Untitled" (as part of The Atelier Project),

Metropolitan Museum of Art - "Untitled, Number 8", "New York Number",

Museum of Fine Arts, Houston - 21 works!,

Worcester Art Museum - "Untitled", "...Armed with a Burning Patience...For A.I. (Amnesty International)", and "A Poet's Cloud",

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art - "Untitled",

Detroit Institute of Arts - "Remembering the Nights",

Colby College Museum of Art - 9 works (most donated by artist),

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco - 7 works,

University Art Museum at University at Albany - "Untitled" (Artelier Project),

Van Abbemuseum - "Untitled", and

North Carolina Museum of Art - "Five Tornadoes and Full Moon";

exhibited at:

Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art - "Instruments of Torture" (appears in Cornell Collects,

Rose Art Museum - "Katherine Porter: Paintings 1969‐1984" (Past Exhibitions: 1985),

Hudson River Museum - Six Painters (pages 42 to 47 of exhibition catalogue, lists lots more exhibitions that can be researched);

written about by John Russell in The New York Times ("Art: Juicy Abstractions By Katherine Porter").

ps. searching is not "confounded by common name", just gsearch "Katherine Porter artist collections" then ditto "exhibitions". pps. i haven't bothered with all the galleries/museums listed in the article (another straight forward search either the gallery/museum own website or gsearch "(museum/gallery name) katherine porter") as i reckon the above is enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG in addition to easily passing WP:ARTIST. Here are three reviews from Artforum: https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/198009/katherine-porter-66819, https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/197906/katherine-porter-67742 and https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/198105/katherine-porter-66354 by Hal Foster, Peter Schjeldahl and Thomas_Lawson ARTnews has a two page review, unfortunately not available online: Staniszewski, Mary Anne. ARTnews. Dec80, Vol. 79 Issue 10, p192-193 Vexations (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep on this bad faith nomination from someone who should know better. UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) your nomination itself shows you know that WP:ARTIST does not require WP:GNG (even though she also meets GNG). If you want to challenge that, take it to the N Talk pages. You have been editing since 2003, and have several hundred !votes at AFD with 76% with consensus. You know better. Sorry to be direct, but I want to very CIVILy ask you to not waste our time here. --Theredproject (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) I just realized you are a Bureaucrat. Which makes this even more confounding. I'm not trying to poke a bear, but are you trying to make a WP:POINT about GNG > ARTIST? Or is this just a poorly researched, poorly judged nom? --Theredproject (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple reviews posted above (NY Times, ArtForum, etc.), holdings in multiple significant art museums, as well as entries in North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary, and Who's Who in American Art. These suggest enough published secondary sources exist, beyond the ones listed above, to make a neutral, encyclopedic article, even if short, and thus the assumption of WP:GNG is warranted (there are likely other print reviews that aren't instantly Googleable). While the article currently reads rather promotional and subjective, Articles for Deletion is not Articles for Improvement, and articles shouldn't be tagged for deletion merely because the current version is sub-optimal (WP:ATD). Note: the artist's full name appears to be Katharine Pavlis Porter, as named in several editions of Who's Who in American Art, the cover of Noon Knives (2002), the 1963 Colorado College commencement program, and as suggested in the contact email at http://katherineporter.net/contact. Some websites and databases give the name "Katharine Page Porter", e.g. Skinner Auctions and even the Getty Union List of Artist Names. However, I beleive this is an error: the only credible art-related "Katharine Page Porter" appears to be a friend of Angna Enters who was an elementary art supervisor in Beverly Hills in the 1940s.[1],[2]. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep time-wasting nomination. In multiple museum collections, passes WP:ARTIST. And the nominator admits as much: "Arguably passes WP:ARTIST". Why waste everyone's time if that is the case?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Stranger in Paradise

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

The subject film doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. The article was added in 2013 by an account apparently created solely for that purpose and which is, by and large, the page's primary editor. No significant edits since shortly after the page was created aside from routine tagging and housekeeping. The article itself seems to be a near verbatim copy/paste of a BroadwayWorld press release. B.Rossow · talk 18:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film has received reviews and coverage from publications including Los Angeles Times [3], The Dissolve [4], Variety [5], TimeOut Dubai [6], BroadwayWorld [7], and LA Weekly [8]. I believe that this passes WP:GNG. MarkZusab (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @MarkZusab:, with much respect, there appears to be more required to establish notability of a film than simply mentions in articles. Only two of those sources (LA Times and The Dissolve) are actual reviews written after the film's release, and they both shredded the film (not that a poor review affects notability, granted). The others, published before its release, are minor announcements about casting (e.g. Variety), regurgitated press releases (e.g. BroadwayWorld), a three-sentence synopsis (TimeOut Dubai) and so on. The majority of the articles suggested don't appear to constitute coverage except insofar as to say that the film exists. Then there's the apparent WP:COPYVIO. Not arguing at all; simply providing a bit more info about the sources you suggested. B.Rossow · talk 13:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to meeting WP:GNG as pointed out by MarkZusab. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my argument, Los Angeles Times, The Dissolve, and LA Weekly are all appropriate reliable sources. There also appears to be a review from Fort Worth Star-Telegram that is simply not available online. It does not matter at all if the reviews are negative, and it is a waste of text to point this out, even as one acknowledges that it does not even matter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable film. Having reviews doesn’t make a film notable. Trillfendi (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Completely false. Reviews are reliable sources that are independent of the subject that provide not just significant coverage, but coverage that directly addresses the subject. See WP:GNG. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NFILM and WP:GNG with significant coverage including four full independent reviews in reliable sources such as The Los Angeles Times. That the reviews are critical is a good indication of independent analysis Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as noted above, the sources cited meet WP:NFILM. Alarichall (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hygger (company)

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

Spam, dodging it's previous G11 history as Hygger by purporting to be about the company this time, while the text is still about the software. Fails WP:NCORP as a company, and WP:NSOFT as software. Cabayi (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources I can find (and those in the article) are blogs and other user-contributed, non-reliable sources, Regards So Why 18:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article. desmay (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Jacob Thomas

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Page was created again after Jacob Thomas, PhD was speedily deleted. This new version has more references and content purporting to demonstrate notability. His successor Lokanath Behera has an article, but that doesn't justify this article's existence (see WP:OSE). Would like to get community input this time. I amsajin keeps trying to post the same content over and over again despite repeated deletions. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable per WP:ANYBIO, he is a recipient of a notable award i.e. President's Police Medal as well as other honours. I am trying to develop the article, please bear with me for a while till I complete the job.--jojo@nthony (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I see you've redirected it to Jacob Thomas (police officer). — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a bit on the article. Guess it is now good enough to stay.--jojo@nthony (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Will Reserve judgement until article is developed. At this time not WP:ANYBIO not WP:GNG. Lubbad85 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree with Lubbad85, the subject has received a major award, President's Police Medal, and another notable one from a regional perspective Manorama NewsMaker of the Year, and that makes him notable per WP:ANYBIO.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep jojo@nthony I guess you are right. He received an award so he fits WP:ANYBIO Lubbad85 (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fair challenge but article now improved. We now have close to WP:SIGCOV in several WP:RS where he is the subject, for example: The New Indian Express [9] [10] The Times of India [11], Mint [12], The Hindu [13]. I haven't checked whether his Indian-language have been reviewed independently to give WP:NAUTHOR. However, his WP:GNG is adequate. Britishfinance (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Basing conclusion on established contributor votes and analysis of the sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Prozialeck

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC are not properly referenced. The notability test for a musician isn't as much about what the article says as it is about how well the article references what it says, but the references here aren't cutting it at all: three of the six are the self-published websites of himself and a colleague, a fourth is a primary source profile on the website of a company with which he has a direct endorsement deal, a fifth is a routine directory entry, and the only source that's fully independent of him is on a freelance music writer's own self-published blog. None of these are reliable sources for the purposes of getting a musician over WP:GNG, and nothing claimed in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sources than this. A musician doesn't automatically get an article on here just because it's possible to provide technical verification that he exists -- a musician gets an article on here when he's the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:NMUSIC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If lack of sources is the problem more can be added. This artist has been regarded as an elite and successful harmonica player among many in the blues community with several charting records. I have written about blues music a lot and I thought he warranted inclusion. I have added several sources since your message. The band he worked with Erin Harpe & The Delta Swingers has an article which mentions him. He has also worked with several Grammy winners and nominees that also have articles. The link to Seydel just has a short bio which Is why I linked to it. Reviews mention his contribution ^[1]. Articles that can back up my claims about and talk about his success ^[2] I'd be happy to look up more sources, there's plenty there, just didn't know how much was needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluesmanRobert38 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that this page has more sources than Erin Harpe & The Delta Swingers which was not deleted despite liking to their own website and youtube account, it's common for people to link to musicians sites — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluesmanRobert38 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is good coverage in the following .......... Positively Naperville, Friday, November 10, 2017 - ‘Harmonica man’ from Naperville is playing blues big time in Boston ............ Bill Copeland Music News, November 3, 2017 Harmonica man Matt Prozialeck shines as member of Erin Harpe & The Delta Swingers ........... and The Chicago Tribune, July 31, 2015 - Blues band gig becomes permanent for Naperville resident by By Sarah Freishtat. There's also multiple mentions in Blues Blast Magazine. I'm satisfied that it makes it. Sadly the article is untidy and needs a fair bit of work.
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He does have a credit with Erin Harpe & the Delta Swingers, as well as a smidgen of coverage with the local newspaper Positvely Naperville. This article in the Chicago Tribune is excellent coverage on just Prozialeck alone. Not enough, however. MidwestSalamander (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above - The article in Positively Naperville is about him and more than a smidgen. It's good coverage. Plus he played in recordings as a band member or is closely associated with notable acts such as Erin Harpe & the Delta Swingers, Matthew Stubbs and GA-20. Notable! Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Performing in all these acts as a session musician does not prove notability, according to WP:MUSICBIO. That guideline requires being a primary member in at least two notable acts. Also, two featured articles is, in my mind, more proof that he doesn't pass GNG than that he does. A redirect to his primary band would be the best choice until more coverage appears. MidwestSalamander (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (strikeout second BluesmanRobert38 !vote) Prozialeck is talked about heavily in this article in Blues Blast Magazine a very respected source on the blues scene here http://www.bluesblastmagazine.com/issue-12-5-february-1-2018/ He is Notable enough to receive this recognition. There is more than enough sources to consider him "Notable". He also has appeared as the primary soloist on two nationally charting albums. He has performed with grammy nominees Charlie Musselwhite, Luther Dickinson, and Matthew Stubbs He is also appearing on two more releases for Karma Chief Records with GA-20 this year. And he was nominated for a Boston Music Award in the Delta Swingers last year. I do not think there is any question he is notable especially since everyone else mentioned here has their own page on this site. User:BluesmanRobert38 —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BluesmanRobert38. This is your third !vote at this AfD. You can only vote once (as you did at the top). Britishfinance (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's good coverage of him in Positively Naperville and also in Blues Blast Magazine. He was also on releases for Vizztone Records which is a label in blues music and has some very notable acts Jhorton4 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (strikeout third BluesmanRobert38 !vote) The page now has 17 sources, more than a lot of band pages that are not up for deletion. There has been vast improvements in the article since I created it and has good information on it that is backed up BluesmanRobert38 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BluesmanRobert38. This is your third !vote at this AfD. You can only vote once (as you did at the top). Britishfinance (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't find any solid RS on this BLP from a proper source outside of minor online sites (of which he is rarely the principal subject). I definately can't find WP:SIGCOV which I think is important for a BLP – there is no material article on this subject (and where he is the subject) from a full WP:RS? I am struggling to see the basis on which this BLP can avoid deletion? It would help if the Keeps could present an RS that would be SIGCOV on him, but none have been presented so far. Otherwise we fall into the unsustainable situation where his WP BLP is the main source of his notability (it is meant to be the other way around). Britishfinance (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series)

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

This is a WP:CFORK of Spider-Man. A merge is not really required for this one. This does not meet WP:SPINOFF. The franchise the character is associated to is a comic book adaption rather than original creation. Though a popular character, there are many adaptions of Spider-Man/Peter Parker, and they don't really have any notable depth. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT should be considered in this case. Even the franchise (trilogy) itself is merged into Spider-Man in film. Therefore, this might also be considered a FORK of Spider-Man in film, since Spider-Man and Peter Parker are alter egos and the protagonists of the plot. Furthermore, there are no stand alone pages of the character Peter Parker himself (redirects to Spider-Man). THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 17:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 17:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 17:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. There is sufficient coverage of this character as a standalone adaptation, which a development history, character arc, and characteristics distinct from other versions. I would note that we had a similar discussion regarding, e.g., Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe), which resulted in a consensus for keeping the standalone article on the character. bd2412 T 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article under discussion is about a fictional character, as portrayed by a specific actor, in three specific films, and not in any other films or in the comic books or anywhere else for that matter. That is much different than an article about a fictional character. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is for an independently notable specific iteration of the character. It has its own fully encapsulated storyline unique to the series. Therefore, it stands as its own article. bd2412 T 13:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline and characteristic uniquenesses doesn't mean it requires a standalone. Look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). This has a mixture of issues and requires more than just a cleanup in terms of its existence. A good example I give is Frodo Baggins. It has a lot of differences between the book and the movie. However, the movie character did not get there own page. The same could be told about Batman in the Dark Knight Trilogy, let alone Bruce Wayne. The fictional notability guideline. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of whether it "requires" a standalone, one has been written, and contains reliable sources specifically addressed to this topic. It meets the WP:GNG, so I see no conflict there. As for Batman, well WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, example 4. bd2412 T 15:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such a hypocrisy since you were the one who brought up Iron Man. Anyways, can you link me the consensus? Plus you must know that just because a topic has reliable sources, doesn't mean it is notable. This also brings to my another argument, the topic is ambiguous. It has a mixture of content which are FORKed from multiple pages. Is the article about the character Peter Parker (personality and character development), Spider Man (villains and costume design, character depiction and real world significance? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep it civil. I brought up Tony Stark because it is clearly directly relevant. The discussion on the MCU character articles is at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#MCU character articles. If you are a glutton for punishment, you could try to have that article deleted, although it is highly popular, getting well over half a million visits since its creation. There is, of course, nothing wrong with creating a Wikipedia article on a discrete topic using, in part, material scattered across other existing Wikipedia articles. bd2412 T 16:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how relevant the topic is. Also, WP:NOBODYREADSIT. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, carry on with your effort, then. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reiterating what I said here, "I support a standalone article for Peter Parker as portrayed in Raimi's films, though I think there could be a better article title since this can seem like it includes post-Raimi incarnations. When it comes to writing this kind of content in various scopes, there will always be some kind of redundancy. This kind of scope allows for a focus on character-centric content, putting aside production and reception details that are not directly pertinent to the character. Doing a search engine test, it appears that the book Make Ours Marvel: Media Convergence and a Comics Universe has a chapter called "Playing Peter Parker" that is devoted to Peter Parker in films (though not just Maguire)." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but either rename or repurpose per Erik. There is simply too much encyclopedic content there to fit into any of the parent articles without making them too long or unduly focused on this iteration of the character. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. - Judging by the comments above, I believe userfication would be the best possible option. Anyone willing to volunteer will be appreciated, for which any action is guaranteed. There is another essay about this type of act which I am unable to recall. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup? Most Wikipedia articles could stand some kind of improvement. There is nothing about this one that is so bad that it should not remain in article space pending further work on the article. bd2412 T 00:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If merging is not an option, then I see no reason to have an article about a fictional character as depicted in three films only, while ignoring the character's depiction in other films dating back to the 1970s; in the hundreds (thousands?) of comic book stories since 1962; in graphic novels; in books, etc. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+ I also agree wholeheartedly with THE NEW ImmortalWizard's astute observations and cogent argument for deletion. - Mark D Worthen PsyD

I am leaning on keep. I feel that many characters are indeed notable on their own. Like the Dark Knight trilogy’s Batman, Hugh’s Wolverine etc. This is no different outside of having his own article so far before they have one. A name change and copy edit of all the work is neededthough. This page has gotten popular with the editors who like to add a little too much cruft. (The only reason why my keep is not 100 percent). Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources concerning this particular iteration in this subset of the franchise and is a valid split article that should remain as the oppose votes are based mainly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)::[reply]
I also disagree. Atlantic306 wrote, "... as the oppose votes are based mainly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT." Really? If we're going to cast aspersions, let's at least ensure that they contain a kernel of truth. I am the editor who originally raised concerns about this article, which I had started to copy edit as part of the Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Backlog elimination drive. It quickly became apparent to me that the article consists of a hodgepodge of content from other articles and a few other sources; it lacks coherence; the writing and organization are poor; and the purpose for the article remains a mystery to me. ~~I hope those of you who are voting to keep the article will actually work on fixing its many failings.~~ - Mark D Worthen PsyD

Merge to general article on Parker. I hold to the one character, one article view. Do we have seperate articles on Clark Kent (Superman film series) or Tony Stark (Ironman film series)?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I was wrong. There is Superman (Salkind films) which functions like this, an article that covers one appearance of the role with one actor, even though the role has been covered by at least 4 actors in live film and at least 3 actors in live TV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Tony Stark article is at Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe), because the character has appeared in many films in the series that were not specifically "Iron Man" films. bd2412 T 01:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some editors are claiming that I don't have any clear arguments and the proposal is based on personal preference. That is pure ignorance and hence I feel the need to extend my comments. Whenever, I nominate for AFD, I don't usually touch on the content, instead focus on the notability of the topic itself. However, this case is really complicated and difficult. The title is "Peter Parker (Spider-Man film series)," that means it is about the fictional character Peter Parker in the Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy. Pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, the content is far more mixed and ambiguous. First of all, I would like to disclaim that I am a huge fan of these Spider-Man films, so that takes away any of the presumption that I dislike the article as a whole. Back to the content, what really is the article focused on? It obviously need a lot of clean up and may not be encyclopedia, but that is not at all my argument for deletion. Let's go section-by-section. The lead seems fine to me, and it is supposed to summarize the whole article, which means I can ignore that for now. Then we come to creation and concept; it start off well by describing the creative initiatives of Parker, only to shift attention towards the actor Toby Maguire, training about his casting, training, future contracts and what not. Then it focuses on Spider-Man, Parker's alter ego; the rest half of the section focuses on the development of the costume of Spider-Man, which is not really about Peter Parker. Then we move to Themes and analysis. It appropriately touches on the characteristics of Peter Parker and character plot, which is absolutely. Then it talks about Raimi's influence, which is fine to. However, then it goes back to Maguire and the films planning and production itself. These could easily be merged to the correct articles. Then, the rest of the article is utterly unnecessary and could easily be removed IMO. You have one entire paragraph devoted to the "Enemies" of Spider-Man, the alter ego of Peter Parker in the fictional world, it is of six paras. Then you have "Fans and Critics", not about the character Peter Parker, but about Maguire's performances and his achievements. This also talks about other Spider Man films and their comparisons, exclusively on the actors' role on Spider-Man, not even Parker. Then you have "Other adaptations", which has little to no connection with Peter Parker or even the trilogy itself (for little I mean not notable). At least, the best adaptions I find being mentioned are that of the films, not the character Parker. Furthermore, there is a so-called consensus reached at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#MCU character articles, which is a whole separated argument. That "consensus" does not work for a number of reasons which I don't want to bring up too much here. TL;DR: the topic of the article is unambiguous and it is an unacceptable content fork of various other topics, Spider-Man, Spider-Man in film, all three of the films themselves, Tobey Macguire and probably others I missed. Cheers. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How can something be a "content fork" if it combines content from multiple articles? Wikipedia:Content forking says, "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage". Consider the typical Wikipedia reader who is not, like you, "a huge fan of these Spider-Man films". Maybe they know nothing at all of the comic book history, or of any other film versions of the character. If they are interested in learning about the character of Peter Parker as portrayed in the Sam Raimi film series, they should have a single article to read where all that information is in one place. This includes the detail of how the character's costume was designed, and how fans responded to the actor's performance, since the performance becomes inseparable from the perception of the character. bd2412 T 16:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) I anticipated the response. As I've explained, this article fails to have a reasonable topic judging from its content. For the title itself, there isn't much of a detail to have a spin off article. Yes, it is okay, to content fork from different articles into one, as long as the topic is concrete, well-established and notable enough. Notability doesn't always depend on the interest of readers, and this article is certainly not convenient enough. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have a possible compromise to suggest. In this case I think a reasonable alternative may be to move this to Spider-Man (Sam Raimi film series), and expand it into an article on the trilogy of films as a whole, of which the character of Peter Parker is a primary component. bd2412 T 17:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That might work, and could potentially be a proper content forking from Spider-Man in film and the films themselves. I am not really sure if this kind of conclusions occur in AFD though. That needs a separate discussion. Now that I think of it, spin off of Raimi series seems reasonable since Spider-Man is increasing in films. I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises, but they can only recommend to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Nonetheless, at the moment that would be a better option. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        If this discussion closes without a consensus (it seems to be headed in that direction), then I will file a request to move this article to Spider-Man (Sam Raimi film series) under this rationale. bd2412 T 17:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Very well. Just make sure it doesn't become a fan page under the pretence of having reader's interests. Also make sure it's weighed properly, one of the growing concerns regarding encyclopedic content. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments and 'not broken'. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per BD2412. There is a lot of GNG on this specific subject (per article). These three films were huge. Comparison with Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is also valid. Article is way too big to merge with the general Spider-Man article. Given the subject is specific to its portrayal in three specific films, can't see the WP:CFORK issue. Britishfinance (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kin Fables

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

Relist following a no-consensus closure, because the original discussion ended as a debate exclusively between me as nominator and the person who approved it at AFC, with virtually nobody else weighing in at all one way or the other.
The problem here remains that this doesn't have a strong claim to passing WP:NFILM (it won craft awards at minor film festivals, not major awards for the purposes of NFILM #3), and the sourcing isn't solid enough to get it over WP:GNG in lieu: the referencing is 8/9 to primary sources, university student media and Q&A interviews in which the filmmakers are speaking about themselves, and even the interviews are entirely on non-notable blogs with the exception of one from the local morning show of a television station in their own hometown. The only source here that actually gets them off the starting blocks is #8, the Montreal Gazette -- but that's still their hometown newspaper, not evidence of expanding coverage, and even if you dismiss that problem it still takes more than just one GNG-worthy source for a topic to pass GNG.
The other keep rationale given in the first discussion was that this isn't just a film, but a multimedia project with musical and graphic novel components too -- but nothing stated in the article passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:NMUSIC either, so that's still not a notability freebie that would exempt it from having to have much more reliable source coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no prejudice to a future nomination does not imply 24 hours after the end of a three week listing. I haven't changed my mind about the long sections of prose in the articles that are being unfairly dismissed as just Q&A so this comment still applies: clearly passes WP:GNG with a substantial piece in the Montreal Gazette which is most certainly not a local hometown newspaper but a major regional source and a national reliable source. Reference one has three paragraphs of prose before the interview, which is admissable as coverage as articles including interviews are not summarily dismissed on that basis if they have valid extra content apart from the interview. Reference four from The Concordian has seven paragraphs in prose about the project before and mixed in with the interview and is clearly substantial coverage, university newspapers are generally reliable sources especially as they do not have the commercial pressure applied to them. Reference nine has six paragraphs of prose directly about the project before the interview section and is clearly substantial coverage. The Montreal Gazette piece documents the two main awards that the films have won so the awards are being reported on in reliable sources and are therefore notable awards according to the nominators rationale. Also it is not just a three film project it also included an album and written work, and I don't see anything advert like in the tone. The article was more or less abandoned till I published it and the project lost all momentum after the premature death of one of the brothers who created the project so there has been no publicity drive. In conclusion the article passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained the first time, and was correct about, the question of whether coverage is "local" or "national" for the purposes of getting a person over WP:GNG is not a question of the publication's distribution range, it is a question of the physical distance between the publication's office and the article topic's house. Even The New York Times regularly covers people in contexts of purely local interest that don't make those people nationally notable just because they got a piece of local-interest coverage in The New York Times — we look at the context of what the publication is covering the person for, and the publication's distribution range does not automatically make them more special than they would be if they lived in a smaller city, but otherwise got the exact same article written about them in the exact same context in that smaller city's less famous local newspaper instead.

Student newspapers, similarly, are not notability-making sources on the grounds that they "do not have the commercial pressure applied to them"; they are non-notability-making sources on the grounds that they do not serve a general interest audience. If student newspapers could singlehandedly make people notable, we would have to keep an article about everybody who was ever president of a campus religious or political club. So a student newspaper can be used as supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but are not GNG builders in and of themselves.

Q&A interviews can also be used as supplementary referencing for stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but do not count toward the initial matter of making a person notable if they are the best sources on offer. You've also failed to address my point that almost all of the Q&A interviews here are from blogs, and the only one that is actually from a real established media outlet is from a local television station in, again, the subjects' home town.

My nomination statement addressed the reason why "this also included an album and written work" is not a notability claim: nothing stated in the article gets the project over WP:AUTHOR or WP:NMUSIC either. And the question of whether a film award is notable enough to get it over WP:NFILM, again, is not just a question of "any award that leads the subject's local hometown paper to write a human interest piece about them because of it" — it is a question of awards that consistently generate coverage in a broad range of sources not limited to the subject's own hometown: the Oscars, the Canadian Screen Awards, the BAFTAs, and the top tier of internationally famous film festivals (TIFF, Berlin, Cannes, Sundance). It does not automatically cover off just every minor film festival that gives out any awards at all.

In other words, all you've done here is repeat the exact same keep rationale as the first time, while completely failing to respond to anything I said about why it wasn't a solid one. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at the references The Montreal Gazette, Montreal Morning Television are regional media not local, Beautiful Bizarre Magazine is a quarterly arts publication in print as well as online with a world circulation of two million, The Concordian is a university newspaper, My Modern Met has a professional staff shown here, Earmilk does not seem to be a blog, MyMysticSons is not much good as it seems to be a pr company but overall there are enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Also a number of the articles have lengthy prose sections as well as interviews including the writer's reviews of the film so they are in part secondary sources and GNG is clear that excerpts such as six paragraphs in one of these cases are acceptable and the entire article does not have to qualify, in fact the topic of the article can be about something else, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already pointed out above several times, the question of whether coverage is "local" or "regional" or "national", for the purposes of getting a topic over GNG in lieu of having to pass an SNG, is not a question of the publication's distribution range. If a person lives in Montreal, then coverage coming from Montreal is local coverage regardless of whether the outlet has wider distribution or not. A person who owns a restaurant in the Plateau is not instantly getting over GNG just because a food critic reviewed him in the Gazette, for example — the context of what it's covering the restaurateur for is still of local, not nationalized interest, so the fact that the Gazette has a wider than just local readership does not render that food review into "more than local" coverage for the purposes of GNG. The question of whether coverage is "local" or "national", for the purposes of getting a topic over GNG, does not attach to where the paper gets read — it attaches to the context of what the paper is covering the person for.

And university newspapers do not help get a topic over GNG — if they haven't already gotten over GNG on much stronger sources before the university newspaper even comes up, then the university newspaper does not help. As I already stated, if university newspapers counted toward GNG, we would have to keep an article about everybody who was ever president of a student club.

And the difference between a blog and a reliable source media outlet hinges on significantly more than just whether it has named staff or not. The problem with the Earmilk source is that it's a short and unsubstantive blurb, and has nothing to do with whether Earmilk is a blog or not. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Association of Art Galleries

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

Article on an association that represents art galleries in Ontario Canada. They represent lots of notable galleries, but we know that notability is not inherited. They do give out an award that is sometimes reported on, but an industry award given by the article subject seems only weakly notable. The sourcing in the article is poor and mostly primary. I'm unable to find significant independent reliabale sources that would allow me to easily establish notability. The article seems to be a promotional vehicle and listing of the non-profit and its members (you can't fault them for it) more than anything.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to find external coverage of organisations of this kind, but that doesn't demonstrate that its not notable. The article actually consists mostly of a useful list of art galleries, and I'd like it kept to preserve that. There is regular coverage of their awards and its publications are quite notable.Bigwig7 (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, well written and sourced, an interesting page, and per Bigwig7. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. A significant organization with many members, publications etc. A Google Books search shows plenty of sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links for that claim? I see only trivial sources in google books that mention the name.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide snippets:

... the Ontario Association of Art Galleries Directory includes contact information for 457 key individuals in 183 art galleries and organizations throughout Ontario...
... formation of the Ontario Association of Art Galleries resulted from a meeting held in August 1968. The roots of the organization, however, go back to 1947, when representatives ...
... received the 2009 Ontario Association of Art Galleries Award for exhibition of the year. Hassan's works ...
... This book came out of a collaboration between York University in Toronto, the Ontario Association of Art Galleries, and...

JSTOR gives 11 hits. The online profile is about what you would expect from a trade association like this: important to the members, not of much interest to the general public. But "dull" does not mean "not notable". Aymatth2 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for a discussion about a similar organization, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporary Art Galleries Association Vexations (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion on Aymatth2's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 17:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burda (surname)

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

100% original research despite numerous footnotes. The refs are either for similarly sounding names or to primary sourtces, or to tangential facts Staszek Lem (talk)

Delete Looks like a clear cut case of 100% fresh WP:OR, the article uses databases of immigrants to draw conclusions about the origin of a surname, and doesn't back up anything else with citations. SWL36 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It has failed to meet the burda of proof that it is notable. (I am so going to pun hell.) If there were anything salvageable (which seems unlikely), it could go in Burda, which I've reclassified from a dab page to a surname one. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publiq

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

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Publiq – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines. アサンキ 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I was also unable to find any mainstream coverage to signal notability. I also think we need a better way of stopping these cryptocurrencies making their way onto Wikipedia to begin with. Also WP:NOT42 applies to PROD. Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Maestas

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

Small town mayor who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Half of the sources in this article are primary, one doesn't even mention him. The rest is routine coverage of failed primary campaigns. GPL93 (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mayor of Española, New Mexico, 2010 population of 10,495. Served as President of the New Mexico Municipal League, President of the National League of Cities Hispanic Elected Local Officials, and on the board of the National League of Cities. --Enos733 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors of small towns are not automatically deemed notable just because they exist, but this is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage — and serving as a president or a board member of an organization is still not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to get over NPOL #2 on media coverage. To get him over the bar for those other reasons in lieu of his mayoralty itself, you still have to be able to source them to media coverage about his work in those roles, not just to his staff profiles on the organizations' own self-published websites about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any nationalized coverage of the subject that would make the subject more notable than most small town mayors. Thought there might be something about his presidency of the New Mexico Municipal League or the National League of Cities Hispanic Elected Local Officials, but found nothing except for confirmation the subject served in those positions. --Enos733 (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G7 (author requested deletion).(non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Berry (American musician)

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

No evidence this guy meets WP:NMUSICIAN, it's a heaping pile of promo and sourced to interviews and hyper local sources and in fact all the claims of significance (ie. "eclectic and talented artist") come from interviews and puff pieces and otherwise unreliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Promo language needs to be removed, but it looks like this guy is locally notable as can be seen from the sources cited. Not WP:GARAGEBAND and has been around for some time. In the gray zone for notability, so definitely not a strong keep either. — Stevey7788 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locally notable? Says who? The toledo paper pieces are solicited by the people they write about, scroll down to the bottom where they state this. Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thank you all for taking the time to look at my article and for your constructive input. While I don't know how to respond to the terms 'puff piece' and 'heaping pile', I can say that since this is my first article, I only ask for constructive help in improving my writing and sourcing skills though this article and any others I might write in the future. I've removed any text that may be construed as 'promo'. I've removed the reference and article text from the Toledo Blade article that I now see did not meet Wiki's criteria. Thank you for that. I tried to include articles from as wide array of sources and geographic areas as possible for this artist. In this case, London, England, Toledo, Ohio, and Sarasota, Florida. In my opinion, 4500 miles would not qualify as 'hyper local'. In fact, the review in 'PROG' magazine, a well respected and long established publication out of the UK, wasn't either a 'puff piece' or a 'heaping pile' - in fact, the article clearly states, in their opinion, that this guy's voice is 'weak' but with harmonies 'it works'. Thanks again for all your input. - Kkb1960 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only piece in here that could be considered decent coverage is this review. The rest are: a hyper local paper/blog and an interview so not independent coverage, a piece which makes not a single mention of the subject, not remotely a useful or valid source to establish notability, a student paper with a passing mention/listing, not even remotely about the subject, it's about his son, it's hyper local, an interview, press release. None of these do anything to support the article in any form, notability or otherwise. I'd also ask Kkb1960 what your affiliation to Berry given there's a fair amount of information in this article unsupported by sources. Praxidicae (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your constructive criticism. I am not affiliated other than a fan of his music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkb1960 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy & Vyjay

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

Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill travel bloggers don't automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles. — Stevey7788 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete'. No evidence of notability whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, article seems to be created by the subject. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Google search turns up a lot of results for Sandy and Vyjay. Notability, however, is a different issue. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP is not a publicity platform for travel bloggers. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam by posted by COI accounts. Also not notable. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Absolutely promotional. Even if there was enough information to prove GNG, the article would have to be completly re-written. Even the first sentence "Sandy & Vyjay are a husband and wife couple who have turned their passion into a profession" is unambiguously promotional. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Thong (disambiguation) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thong (footballer)

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

Disambiguation page created due to mistaken page moves which have since been reverted. Almost all Thai people have nicknames, and are referred to by them in informal contexts, in much the same way given names are used in English. But it is implausible, in most cases, that anyone would try to look up a person by nickname alone. We don't have a David (footballer) disambiguation page and expect David Beckham, David Platt (footballer) and others to be listed there. The same would apply here. G7 declined by RHaworth, so bringing to AfD. Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - nom's arguments are unconvincing. If a person is commonly known by a certain nickname and the article says so, the latter is a valid candidate for disambig. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how better to explain this than to reiterate the parallel with given names in English. The two mentioned Thongchais are no more known by "Thong" as David Beckham is known by "David". --Paul_012 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Footballers named David are at List of people named David#Athletes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ with Thong (disambiguation) per WP:INCOMPDAB. The resulting redirect would be a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thongchai now that it has been created. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge. The list of people named Johnny is at Johnny, not Johnny (disambiguation); the list of people named Chuck is at Chuck, not Chuck (disambiguation). The list of people who use the nickname Thong should not be included in Thong (disambiguation), but should be included in an article called Thong (nickname) or something (to disambiguate from Thong (surname) and Thong), but that article should only be created if the stand-alone list notability criteria is met. Leviv ich 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thong (disambiguation) per WP:INCOMPDAB. People known by a nickname are commonly included with lists ofgiven nameholders. older ≠ wiser 09:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thong (disambiguation) per WP:INCOMPDAB. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nom): I'm in agreement with Levivich in that while the name may or may not warrant a name-list WP:set index article, it does not warrant inclusion on the main disambiguation page, since readers will not be searching for the persons by this name alone. Merging into Thong (disambiguation) would be a gross violation of the WP:NAMELIST section of the WP:Disambiguation guideline, which states: "Articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it." This is not the case for either subject here. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Both footballers are known as "Thong", so it is reasonable for someone to use "Thong" to try to find them, which is what the disambiguation page is for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guideline uses "reasonably well known", and gives the following example:
    We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is only listed at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article. This is even more widespread for first names—many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named "Herb", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed.
    No one would expect to find either footballer referred to by an unqualified "Thong". --Paul_012 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Abraham and Herb are common names that are covered by their respective name SIAs, so people named Abraham or Herb should not be individually listed at the disambiguation pages. Similarly, Thong Khon isn't and shouldn't be listed at Thong (disambiguation) because it's covered by Thong (surname). There isn't a nickname page for Thong, so it needs to be covered by the disambiguation itself. If it is only these two footballers who are known as Thong, then those footballers should be listed at the disambiguation. If it's a nickname for all people named Thongchai, then the disambiguation should link to Thongchai, where these footballers are listed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't Thong an (obvious) hypocorism of Thongchai, like John/Jonathan, Tom/Thomas? I imagine there are a lot of people in the world with the name Thongchai who go by Thong. Wouldn't creating the redirects Thong Sukkoki -> Thongchai Sukkoki and Thong Rathchai -> Thongchai Rathchai solve the search problem? Leviv ich 17:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be fine with redirecting Thong (footballer) to Thongchai and adding Thongchai to Thong (disambiguation). I didn't see that Thongchai existed when I made my original !vote, but that logic makes sense to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Tavix, you didn't see it because it didn't exist when you made your original !vote :-) Glad it was created and I agree with your logic as well. Leviv ich 17:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for checking the history for me! :) I've added Thongchai to Thong (disambiguation) now. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thong per above. Worth noting the disambig page does not have (disambiguation) in the title. Not that that should be relevant to this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Portland Ballpark

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

Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON as Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Since there's not even an expansion franchise in Portland, I think it's hard to justify an article on a ballpark that may or may not be built in a city that may or may not have a MLB franchise at some point in the future. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. See these articles: [14], [15]. Way too speculative at the moment. — Stevey7788 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails both CRYSTAL and GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are other articles for proposed stadiums such as Oakland Ballpark, Rays Ballpark, and Ybor Stadium. SportsFan007 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

Comment @SportsFan007: What are your thoughts on the difference here being that Portland does not have a franchise whereas Oakland and Tampa Bay are established franchises? Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was plenty of nattional coverage when the ballpark was announced but I have seen little coverage in the ~half year since. Would need more coverage over time to show lasting notability. Ideally this would include it actually starting to be built rather than merely proposed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stadium is not yet built, so this article is too soon.TH1980 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AUTO1.com

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

Promotional content and lack of notability. Sources cited are self-published (official website, press releases). A brief mention by Reuters does not count. — Stevey7788 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest redirecting to AUTO1 Group. — Stevey7788 (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect is a good idea, although the target has notability issues as well . Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to AUTO1 Group. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, speedy delete as corporate spamming attempt. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI Request Whoever is well versed in WP:COI, please process the editors of both AUTO1.com and AUTO1 Group. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no request and this appears to be nothing more than a large corporate spam attempt, as such I've filed an SPI. Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G11 content created by a confirmed sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crowdsourcing. Anything worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdsolving

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

A coined term, no notable uses cited. Alredy previously deleted forsomething invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally PoliceSheep99 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a google search shows that this term is widely used and appears in the websites of many organisations, so this article isn’t just one person’s attempt to foist a neologism in the world. By its nature it appears mostly in blogs, corporate websites etc. and I don’t see any scholarly refs or newspapers of record. The basic issue for me is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary so my preferred outcome would be to keep this, tag it for copying to Wiktionary, and delete it after it’s made its way there. Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crowdsourcing. Plenty of coverage in recent years, many google scholar and books hits. wumbolo ^^^ 22:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crowdsourcing; don't see anything to merge. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find a source for this such as this. Merger is a possibibility but there are multiple targets including The Wisdom of Crowds; Collective intelligence; Collective_problem_solving; Group decision-making and many more. Andrew D. (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Academy of Manila

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

I recently put this article up for PROD which was declined with the note (deprod; secondary school). Being a secondary school does not make the subject automatically notable and GNG and WP:CORP apply. The article lacks any reliable independent sources and I have not been able to find any. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot find any independent sources with significant coverage on Google, other than possibly one academic paper on gamified teaching, which I cannot read. --Danski454 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- I take "K to 12 " to refer to kindergarten to year 12, i.e. age 16/17. We normally allow articles on secondary schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further evaluation on the basis of meeting WP:NSCHOOL.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't even find insignificant independent coverage. Not inherently notable for being a secondary school. Schazjmd (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the school is notable enough. Even the history section sounds like a personal essay. --Hiwilms (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terri O'Sullivan

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

Fails WP:BIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ste Richardsson. Pontificalibus 10:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was created to advertise its subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect Agreed as article stood at time of nom, but there are sources, including the two BBC interviews used here and other pieces from In Mind, La Republica, BBC World and a couple of other international sources. Subject meets minimum notability criteria and assuming WP:GOODFAITH of the original editor I can offer to reduce the puffery/advertising to a stub to work on, if other editors are in agreement. EDIT comment: actually there wasn't much ad to remove. Cropped image and edited text, removed extraneous refs. Mramoeba (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are some sources that mention her in the context of her work with XJW Friends, so I would support a redirect to there. However I'm not seeing the sufficient in-depth coverage about her in reliable sources needed to support a seperate article. I'm not sure the "in-mind" source can be used to establish notability either, it being a profile of one of their authors and so not being independent for that purpose. --Pontificalibus 08:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense, with a view to recreating if further sources become available. I think the BBC sources are used there, although the refs are formatted in a way which means you can't tell at first glance. Mramoeba (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviews do not add to notability. This article is too heavily sourced to primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 10:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Mramoeba (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the very limited coverage (BBC, La Republica etc) occurred around the end of July 2017. It's essentially the same story played out over a week or two, and based on the BBC coverage. There is no breadth of coverage over time, even in relation to the very limited number of sources. Fails GNG, but may meet WP:PSEUDO.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Due to the low participation, no prejudice to renominating this in a month or so. Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Education Corporation

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

Seems to be a case of WP:INHERITORG, where the ceo is a notable person. This seems to be a company that owns a few colleges, but none of the colleges under it seem to be notable either, and they have dubious articles of their own. Daiyusha (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Education Corporation owns several brands of for-profit colleges, and as a whole are notable in size. In total, IEC owns more than 35 campus locations. One source reports IEC's annual revenues at $600 million, with 3000 employees. ^[1] In addition, IEC is notable because one of its brands received public attention and attention from US government organizations, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from 2001-2007. ^[2] CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interface: A Journal for and about Social Movements

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

Article was depproded with the rationale "I think it may fail NJOURNAL but pas GNG based on coverage linked."

I disagree, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets NJ#1: significant impact on the field (of social movement studies), listed as one of the major journals in the field in this book and www.omicsonline.org/social-movement-journals-conferences-list.php this (blacklisted) page. It was deemed important enough to receive coverage from International Sociological Association two years after its launch ([16]). It may not be indexed in top indexes yet, for whatever reasons (perhaps being 'just' ~10 years old is not sufficient for those dinosaur-like entities?), but the point is it is already well established in its subfield (also, search on books/scholar/plain google reveals plenty of citations to it, as further proof it is actually part of many debates, and not some obscure 'no real impact' outlet - through not sure how objectively it relates to meeting NJ#2 without a proper citation index ranking). PS. This should be listed as the 3rd nom, this journal survived two prior AfDs, see Talk:Interface: A Journal for and about Social Movements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OMICS is, of course, a spectacularly unreliable source. The mention in the book is just in-passing. The ISA coverage was written by a member of the editorial collective, hence not independent. Previous AfDs are irrelevant (I don't know why they don't pop up here, usually that is done automatically), but I note that they were both closed "no consensus" at a time when our criteria were interpreted in a much less stringent way. I don't see anything in GScholar that makes me change my mind either. 10 years is ample time to be included in at least some abstracting and indexing services, but this journal is not even in a single non-selective one. In short, this completely fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: They don't pop up because they're located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interface: a journal for and about social movements and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interface: a journal for and about social movements (2nd nomination) (notice the lowercase). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I value your view a lot, but in this particular way, speaking as a social movement scholar, I do think that for what is worth, my experience as a professional in this area leads me to repeat that NJ#1 is met. People in the field are aware of this journal, it has some impact. I am all for pruning journals that want to use Wiki as advertising, or otherwise are non-entities, but this is not a case here. PS. I've contacted the journal editor about why they are not indexed, and he sent me the following explanation: "It's not indexed because we're not a commercial journal (many indexes only consider journals published by specific commercial publishers; the others like the Directory of Open-Access Journals still have submission requirements which are too onerous in terms of time and administrative demands for a journal without paid staff)." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, two things here. 1/ I'm perfectly willing to believe you when you say that this journal has impact. However, the word of a WP editor is not enough, we need sources for that. 2/ The journal editor is completely wrong. I don't know of any index that does not include non-commercial journals. Of course, commercial publishers employ people who's job it is to fill out the applications to databases for their journals, so they know exactly what they are doing and I appreciate that this may be more difficult for a journal that doesn't have such staff available. The issue remains that whatever the reason for this, indexing doesn't provide any evidence for notability either. Basically, all we have is your personal evaluation and I'm afraid that that is not enough. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty Well, I know that editor's personal opinion has little weight on Wikipedia, but I'll note that I am a professional sociologist familiar with social movement studies field. Not I dispute that this is enough. And I also think it shouldn't be that difficult to get this journal indexed, and it should be a priority for getting better publications it (on personal level, I will NOT publish in that journal, because my career depends on publications in indexed outlets... doesn't matter that people in my field consider this publication reliable, my university administration doesn't care about it, so, shrug). But I disagree that there are no other sources. The book source I provided mentions the journal is seen in the field as comparable to indexed journals like Mobilization or SMS. And it's not like either of those has in-depth coverage of any sort, now, is it? They are notable because they are indexed. But being indexed is not everything, per NJ#1. As for the ISA coverage, yes, it is an academic type of press release, but it's not like ISA will advertise any journal. They do it for free, AFAIK, and they do it only for journals they consider notable. So it should not be disregarded just for 'being written by the editor', ISA newsletter won't accept such submissions from any editor, there is some selectivity in play here too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I said earlier, borderline. The objections in previous afds were in large part that the publisher was OMICS, which has been listed as a predatory journal publisher. They've disputed that, and I think the status is that they're trying to get a viable model, and are not actually predatory. Their publishing model in fact seems somewhat appropriate for this sort of specialized academic/advocacy publication, which would not fit into a regular academic publisher's portfolio. The journal doesn't quite meet our usual standards, but the very nature of our standards is that they are only our usual, not invarible standards. There's a reasonable case here for keeping. It's an appropriate exception. (Innfact, I thinkfor all journals likely to be cited in WP, we should be inclusive if in any doubt -- the articles can be informative to our readers). DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete--I do not see any reasonable case for keeping. Entirely non-indexed journal, which's hardly any spectacularly cited as compared to the general standards in these areas. Was mentioned by a conflicted individual over an ISA blog post in a blatantly spammy manner. Nothing comes close to making the cut. ∯WBG^converse 19:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ABC Radio Grandstand. Despite the low participation in this debate, there seems to be reasonable agreement that notability (especially for a stand-alone article) is lacking. Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Thurtell

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

Unreferenced BLP, but no slanderous content. More of a WP:NBIO concern, really - the only things that stands out is that she was (presumably, this is not worded very clearly) part of the team that won a relatively major Australian journalistic award, the Walkley Awards. But this is unreferenced, the Walkey webste does not mention her name ([17]), the award was to the "ABC Radio Newcastle Team" and as such WP:NOTINHERITED is an issue. Even AGF that she was part of the team, it is likely such a team is well over a dozen people, it's not like co-winning a Nobel Prize. I don't think even if verified that would be sufficient to make her notable. And this is of course on top of the 'unreferenced BLP' issue, through this technicality can be fixed with a bit of effort, presumably. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep Notability seems to mostly come from the SMH article about her leaving Grandstand, with an article about a different journo describing her in passing as a "trailblazer" for women in sports broadcasting, and the Walkley for covering the Newcastle storms (shared between 20 people). These references have been added to the article. Spacepine (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to ABC Radio Grandstand, which would benefit from a bit more information about each presenter, from where the subject is missing at the moment. Merge in one or two due weight sentences. Not notable in their own right, but does deserve some content in the appropriate place. Aoziwe (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 05:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Tire Wholesale

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

Unsourced promotional article that reads like a press release – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 19:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google News search results turn up plenty of reliable independent sources that focus on the company and demonstrate some notability. The article will need more sources but it can be improved. Appears to meet WP:NORG. — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I agree with the nom's promotional content currently, I don't think it's that egregious so as to warrant WP:TNT, and searches did turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Stevey7788 and Onel5969: if you found sources, you've got to list them here, so people can evaluate them. I can't in good faith close this as keep with no known sources other than a press release.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: Tire Business; Rubber and Plastic News;Tire Business; Tire Business; Modern Tire Dealers Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – This is based totally on the number of locations, in excess of 1,000 separate locations. Typically any franchise or wholly owned corporation with this number of store locations is deemed notable (an example is a wholly company owed convenience store called Wawa, Pennsylvania here in the States.

On the other hand, I can understand the nomination here at AFD. There is no National or International independent news coverage. In additional there is virtually no local independent news attention. The only area of significant exposure of the company is through Trade magazine. For, many they will claim this is third party coverage. However, I take their articles with tongue in cheek in that if you spend enough advertising dollars with the magazine they will proclaim your company as the second coming.

With all this said I still go with a Weak Keep based on size and at worst a Merge/Redirect to TBC Corporation the parent company. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Mannis

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

Likely WP:TOOSOON, doesn't appear to have any significant independent coverage in reliable sources, existing coverage is of minimal depth and mostly just in local news publications. The subject was the winner of the "KAABOO discovery tour", which appears to be a Southern California local talent discovery contest, and thus would seem to fall short of WP:ANYBIO. In addition to the provided sources, I was able to find a brief mention here, but all together I think this still falls short of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for an aspiring comedian who fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and E.M.Gregory. --mikeu ^talk 22:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant press coverage, found a publication on CBS8 about winning a tour or something. Lapablo (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the initial editor of the article contacted me about this deletion proposal on my talk page, and is making edits to attempt to demonstrate the subject's notability. They should be commenting here shortly. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like User:Romanstuff has made some significant changes to the article. Relisting to give people a chance to evaluate if those changes are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on additional sources provided one source is a professional database entry (not independent), and the other is an interview in a local paper about the subject's then-upcoming performance in the KAABOO contest. These sources do not change my vote (well, nom), as I don't believe that they help the subject meet any notability guideline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on additional sources provided The edits still don't address concerns expressed above. --mikeu ^talk 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Lubbad85 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Austria–Russia relations. There appear to be consensus that a stand-alone article currently is not warranted and that most of the current content is SYNTH/OR. Per WP:ATD, restoring the redirect to Austria–Russia relations seems to be the best solution. Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian influence operations in Austria

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

A contested PROD in 2010 by the article creator Gazpr. However, they also turned the page to a redirect to Austria–Russia relations, it seem an action of self blanking.

The prod reason was :

The article as written is classic WP:COATRACK material. It presents information on Gazprom business in Austria, and attempts to portray this as "Russian influence operations". There are other issues such as WP:SYN, WP:OR and the like which are still unresolved after a month, and given that there is also potential WP:BLP violating material in the article, it is best that this be deleted and if the article creator wants to start again, he should do so with WP:NPOV in mind.

While the nominator User:Russavia was blocked as sockmaster and other issues. No other significant editors for this article.

For the article itself, it seem OR. Matthew hk (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A sidenote. In Austria–Russia relations#Assassination of Umar Israilov in Vienna it seem it was a c&p. Either from Austria–Russia relations to Russian influence operations in Austria or in other direction. Will have look in page history if i have time. Matthew hk (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Matthew hk, what exactly do you aim to achieve with this nomination? Deletion of the page history? Removal of the redirect? Or both? Seeing as the article creator and only significant contributor blanked the page, I'd suggest G7 (speedy delete, then restore redirect) for the former and RfD for the latter. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Good content can go to Austria–Russia relations. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way to deep into WP:SYN / WP:OR terrority, making it a solid WP:TNT candidate. This author Gazpr (long gone), has had other POV-articles removed/redirected (e.g. Russian influence operations, Russian influence operations in Poland). I would have no problem with a list-type article of suspected Russian activity but this is not such an article (and it should be in the Russian-Austria article). This author has other outstanding POV articles which also need to be Redirected/Deleted (e.g. Russian influence operations in Canada). Britishfinance (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be easy to close this as delete right now, but I'm going to relist it, largely because User:Alpha3031 never got an answer to their question. I'm not seeing any solid policy-based arguments to delete this. On 13 March, this was a redirect. The nom removed the redirect, reverted the article back to a previous state (which apparently fails WP:SYNTH), and then immediately nominated it. Why not just leave it as the harmless redirect as a WP:ATD? The goal here seems to be a full history delete, for which we generally require stronger arguments than just plain WP:SYNTH.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RoySmith: I note Alpha3031's question was not answered but does it matter? This material is almost a decade old and nobody touched it in the interim. Even by the creator's own admission (which I agree with), it is just too WP:SYN / WP:OR to be used in any substantative way. The individual references are now over a decade old and it is more likely an editor will find them in other ways, then uncover them in a Redirected version of this article? Either way, this is an AfD delete or Alpha3031's G7 delete? Am I missing something? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained my reasons in my relist statement. But, what also bothers me is that people seem to be reading intent into the redirect which isn't obvious. You talk about, the creator's own admission [...] it is just too WP:SYN / WP:OR to be used in any substantative way. All I can see in the logs is that it was redirected. I don't see any statement about why, so your statement about their intentions is just speculation. Like you said, this has been around for many years. If it takes another week to resolve these questions, what harm is done? Please note, I'm not arguing either way (and have no opinion). I just didn't feel that the existing discussion had reached a policy-based consensus, so I'm giving the discussion more time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:. Sorry, I misread the opening quotebox above as being from the author; however, I do believe that several editors above (and myself included) have expressed the same concern. Is WP:SYN / WP:OR not considered policy? Regardless, no harm in re-listing it anyway. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN and WP:OR are indeed policy, but so is WP:ATD, which says a redirect is preferable to deletion. We've got an article which had been redirected. The nom came along, undid the redirect, and then complained about the content which had previously been hidden by the redirect. That seemed like a pretty odd thing to do.
Looking at this another way, there's an argument above that after the deletion, the redirect should be re-created. That's essentially the same as requesting that the previous history be WP:REVDEL'd. I'm quite sure that such a request would be refused as failing WP:CRD.
So, from my point of view trying to close this, the logical thing seemed to be to restore the redirect, but I knew that would just be WP:DRV-bait. Having people look at this for another week seemed like the preferable course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: thanks for that. Britishfinance (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group

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

Article PRODded with reason "Drummed up puff piece created by COI editor. No independent references. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG". Article dePRODded by IP (apparently the article creator) stating "My COI: I was a student of A/Prof Mobbs and NSURG. I did not receive any payment from NSURG and I am not an employer of NSURG by any means. The reason of writing up this article is because I feel NSURG is a research group that focuses on Spinal Neurosurgical Research which has provided multiple research opportunities for students/doctors and other individuals, hence deserving a mention in Wikipedia. NSURG is a non-profit organisation which advertising does not help in any means." However, it's still a puff piece and still has no independent references. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. The COI would maybe be okay in this case if the article wasn't so promotional. Either way, the sources don't appear to make NeuroSpine notable.Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NORG and WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any appropriate independent material. The subject does seem to have some non routine recognition in their field but it would be essentially OR to demonstrate that with the available sources. Aoziwe (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

State of Maryland v. Hardutt Singh

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Local corruption trial ending in a not guilty verdict. BLP problems made it. The article says there was no physical proof of a bribe. So why are publicizing a crime that didn't happen. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because the defendant was acquitted, there are WP:BLP problems with keeping the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. There are other cases on Wikipedia where the defendant was acquitted but these cases are still important based on other circumstances and media coverage. The Casey Anthony case is an example of this. In the DC area Hardutt's case was a big deal and continues to be because of problems with the metro, since they no longer have a consistent construction company contract. All information in this article is public record so it does not contradict WP:BLP. --BOTI4EVER1 (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2019 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOTI4EVER (talk • contribs)
Delete Fellow “DC area” resident here... this case is the least of the Metro’s gigantic problems. Wikipedia is not the Washington Post. This issue is of regional importance, if that. Trillfendi (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Ackal

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

Non-notable politician. Fails WP:GNG. Sources include a Find a Grave page, a list of members of the Louisiana House of Representatives, another Find a Grave page, a mention in an annual political book containing hundreds of non-notable politicians, a mention in a politican's memoir, election results for his opponent, a deadlink to the Louisiana Department of State's website, a quote from a newspaper, and an article on a road sign being named for him. Penale52 (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State legislators are notable per WP:POLITICIAN. A Google Books search provides enough to confirm this person's service a state representative. Dead links are a maintenance issue. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN by a mile. All state legislators are notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL, however it so poorly sourced it might be best to WP:TNT it and start from scratch with reliable sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL as a former member of the Louisiana House of Representatives. --Enos733 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I agree, a slam-dunk pass of WP:NPOL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and flag for refimprove. State legislators get a clean pass WP:NPOL #1, and do receive the reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — just because the creator didn't dig hard enough to actually find and use it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This does need referencing improvement, yes, but the base notability claim to qualify for an article most certainly is there. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pike Hall Jr.

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

Non-notable politician. Fails WP:GNG. Sources include: A note by the article's creator on the suffix of Mr. Hall and his family, an Ancestry.com search, his father's Find A Grave page, two obituaries, a list of members of the Louisiana House of Representatives, a brief mention in a political retrospective for 2007-2008, a newsletter, and an article from 1964 on his election to a school board. Penale52 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NPOL as a state supreme court justice. Article needs to be seriously redone, so maybe WP:TNT it and start from the beginning? Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL as and Associate Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court. --Enos733 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a clear pass of WP:NPOL and also WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep State supreme court justices are automatically notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and flag for refimprove. Yes, the article needs improvement — it's referenced in exactly classic Billy Hathorn fashion — but this person does have a stronger notability claim than usual for Billy Hathorn creations: state supreme court justices are notable enough for articles, so long as the claim that they served on the supreme court is verifiable as true. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Pickett (judge)

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

Non-notable judge. Fails WP:GNG. Sources include: A deadlink to a site from the Louisiana Department of State, a brief mention in a museum's website, her father's obituary, a deadlink to what I am assuming was a list of members of the Louisiana House of Representatives, and the same source used twice, which is merely election results. Penale52 (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; a circuit court judge is notable. 72.191.54.229 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrators The above vote is most likely the work of banned editor Billy Hathorn....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable local judge....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when an articles spends more time on other family members offices than the individual in question they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think there could be a case for arguing that Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal judges meet WP:JUDGE as "judges who have held ... sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" - although they are elected to one of five circuits, they do sit in other circuits when needed [18]. Apart from that, there is significant coverage of this judge in The Times (Shreveport, Louisiana) (eg [19], [20], [21]) and Town Talk (Alexandria, Louisiana) (eg [22], [23], and one of her cases was reported in Mississippi [24]. The quality of the article or the existing sources is not a reason to delete it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thiessen

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they and their work exist, but need to be the subject of enough media attention (reviews of their work, etc.) to clear WP:GNG -- but the only references being cited here are a user-generated wiki site and a single news article in a smalltown community pennysaver. This is not enough to make a writer notable enough for a Wikipedia article: the news article is okay, but not enough all by itself, and the wiki contributes nothing whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came to the subject's article through another page I watch. It seems that the author is an expert in the field of Mennonite Low German and has created works to that end. This seems to meet AUTHOR. The documentation, or lack thereof, is not a reason to delete an article. If it is lacking references, that merits a {{cleanup}} template (or similar). Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to divorce notability from referenceability: by definition, referenceability is what the concept of notability measures. There is no notability claim so "inherently" notable that the "need" to maintain an article about them justifies the use of poor quality sources because good ones don't exist — the quality of the sourcing is what the entire concept of notability is. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more sources, however, the comments below contain numerous unfounded assumptions. GAMEO is NOT a wiki. The article cited is from 1989. Nor is The Carillon a "pennysaver." It's a long-established subscription-based newspaper. The article also links to already-existing articles about Jack Thiessen in both the German and Low German wikipedia pages. Neverthless, I will add more sources.

Firstly, GAMEO is a Wiki, which can be plainly verified just by looking at it: it looks exactly like Wikipedia, just with a different logo in the top corner, and it explicitly states about itself that it's powered by MediaWiki, and can be edited by anybody who sets up an account on it. And I don't know where you're getting the idea that "pennysaver" and "subscription based newspaper" are two mutually exclusive things: "pennysaver" is simply a term that means a newspaper published in a small town or city neighbourhood, but not widely distributed enough to make a person notable just because they have some coverage in it. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fear we may be weighing into semantics here and perhaps a bit off topic. Nevertheless. Yes, I take your point that GAMEO does use Wiki technology, but as you can see at the bottom of the article, the articles are taken from an actual published encyclopedia, The Mennonite Encyclopedia published by Herald Press. After consulting this publication I have update the citation. As for the term "pennysaver," it is by definition a free newspaper that focuses on publishing advertisements. So, yes, The Carillon is a small town paper, but it is not a pennysaver. I take your point, however, that this one citation is insufficient to warrant the Jack Thiessen article. I trust that new references I have added have proven Jack Thiessen's notability.

Pennysavers do not only publish advertisements, but most certainly do also publish real but locally targeted news content. Yes, they may be advertising-heavy, but the word's meaning does not inherently imply that they're advertising-exclusive. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the word "exclusive" or "only". I said pennysavers "focus" on publishing ads, which is true. That is their primary goal, which is why they are able to give them out for free, and is why the articles that do appear in them would be considered less credible. In this context, however, the term "pennysaver" was misapplied to a traditional newspaper that in no sense fits that definition. Anyway, perhaps this discussion can return to the subject of Jack Thiessen.

Keep WP:HEYMANN article creator has improved page during this discussion, and I have added a little to the upgrade. Notable lexicographer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the recent improvements to the article some more
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still any debate? Jack Thiessen is a notable contributer to Plautdietsch literature and lexicography and this is well established in numerous legitimate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mennowiki (talk • contribs) 01:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bear (song)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two (song), I do not see this meeting the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. There is one source in the article, and it is a notable source, but I cannot find other notable such sources. Notable sources appear to be the only way this can come close to being notable, as the single did not chart or receive notable awards. Additionally, even if multiple notable sources did exist, I'd be hard-pressed to see it as appropriate, by the aforementioned notability guidelines as well as my own judgment, for this to be its own article rather than merged into Hospice (The Antlers album). Green green greenred 08:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to assess since "bear" and "antlers" are both common terms which generally do not refer to this song. But, I am unable to find anything beyond the Pitchfork review. Didn't chart and I don't see significant coverage. And for that reason, I'm out. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TalksAndMore (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Carotta

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

I dont believe this is a notable person. Correct me if I am wrong. I don't believe it passes basic notability. Might need a TNT refresh. It does have some notability. So happy to withdraw if this it the case. TalksAndMore (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please withdraw actually. I didn't see the 2nd nomination. Thanks --TalksAndMore (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K&C Video

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Aoziwe with the following rationale "I too am not convinced of the notability of the subject. However, the subject may well be considered iconic by some people and they may well be able to dig up sufficient IRS, etc. Accordingly, I think before this one is deleted, it should go to AfD for a broader discussion". Fair enough - can anyone find anything to salvage this? WP:BEFORE produces a big fat zero (maybe the company name is mispelled?). The only link in the article goes to a forum, not even a subthread. At this point this could even be a WP:HOAX, through probably it is not, given it was created by an established and unblocked editor. But I very much doubt the company is notable. PS. If this is deleted, I'd suggest speedy deletion of Category:K&C Video which wouldn't survive a CfD even if this company was notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what search you are using, but a standard google search produces dozens of hits, including non English ones. I am not saying any of them are notabilty worthy though. Definitely not a hoax. Aoziwe (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree that the category should go regardless. I suspect it was created to hold all the VHS production or distribution tape releases by the company, that never had their own articles written or have since been deleted? Aoziwe (talk)
Comment I had a look on Trove for Australian newspapers that may ahe made a comment on this, but I found nothing. (Perhaps there is poor coverage of this time period though). Because of this I did not contest the prod. Don't count any significance as to me creating the page though, as it was done on behalf of an IP editor, when AFC standards were minimal. It just had to have a working reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax (found an ebay ad for a "rare" K&C videotape), but doesn't seem to be notable. If it had any real impact in its day, I would have expected some mention of it in a source I found on Ozploitation: Ryan , Mark David (2009) Whither culture? Australian horror films and the limitations of cultural policy or at least as a franchise filter on Best of/worst of Ozploitation movies. Schazjmd (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment holding off on !voting yet. The organisations' tape releases seem to be somewhat of collectors' items on sale sites, so I am a little surprised that they do not get written up somewhere. I have found the following weak mentions of uncertain reliability:

but nowhere near enough for notability. I am not too surprised TROVE is no help. TROVE to date is mainly much older listings and the subject here is preWWW. Aoziwe (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As per my comments above. The subject looks as though it should be notable from what can be found, but there is nothing to allow any real attempt at core and in-depth. Aoziwe (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Adair

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

Unsuccessful political candidate who does not appear to be notable for anything else. Grahame (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No having significant role in political position but a candidate - fails WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, several sentences come off WP:PROMO Bkissin (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — but this offers neither credible evidence that she had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, nor evidence that her candidacy received the unusual explosion of press coverage it would take to make her candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Queried speedy delete :: see Talk:Julian (actor). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k and AlanE119: See here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability issues not changed since previous AfD discussion. Still fails WP:BASIC without significant coverage by independent reliable secondary sources. References are interviews, repackaged press releases and a trivial mention or two. Still fails WP:PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. As for the contested speedy, reliable secondary sources need to support the claim this person is a "major player" in the industry, and porn nominations no longer count towards notability per WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amended comment: Now that PORNBIO has just be deprecated, it should also be stated that any potential claims of passing WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT are not supported by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not have significant coverage in non-niche reliable sources and also has not won a major award as scene related awards are considered to be of a lower standard Atlantic306 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails the Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Sfeir

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

Just some banker. Notabiity not established. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 10:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 10:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 10:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To those who control vast amounts of money shall come vast amounts of honours and awards! If we can see some references added to the article (and not just to this discussion, as so often happens) to enable us to verify this vast list of alleged awards, I'll add my !vote as a keep, as he'll then clearly meet WP:NBIO/WP:ANYBIO. (It won't change my view of bankers, though) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Appears to be a significant figure for Lebanon, but text lacking refs, and many of the External links that in theory could be considered for citations, are interviews.David notMD (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does 'Knight Commander of the Pontifical Order of Pope Saint Sylvester' mean Order_of_St._Sylvester? I that a big enough deal by itself? --valereee (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the one Michael Corleone got? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As indicated above, I must hold to my promise to !vote keep, base on the number of significant awards this banker (not intentional as rhyming slang) has received, per WP:ANYBIO. Thanks for adding the references, JoanneNaoum. In return for my !vote, would you now please go and improve the way you have presented the citations please - they could be a lot more useful than they are if you were only to use the drop-down templates effectively in either of our two editing tools and add info like website name, date of publication, author of news article, date retrieved, etc. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer yes valereee It is the same
Keep Thank you for the vote! I improved the presentation of the citations Nick Moyes
Keep Thank you for the keep vote! David notMD I added all references to all the sections — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneNaoum (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aalolam. This was incorrectly closed, article has been merged to existing article with different spelling of the name. Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alolam

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

This article regarding a Malayalam film of 1982 appears to be referring to the same film as "Aalolam". Menjobleeko11 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Menjobleeko11: I agree that they appear to be about the same topic, but Afd may not be the right place for this discussion - have you tried to WP:Merge it? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination and just boldly merging the plot summary into Aalolam, which looks like a win-win. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I have boldly done this, as recommended by Elmidae. Alarichall (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. de Winton and J. C. Thring

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/H. de Winton and J. C. Thring

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

Article for two persons. Move any relevant cited material to individual articles Henry de Winton or John Charles Thring Grover cleveland (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (without leaving redirect) relevant content to the articles on the two individuals. My guess is that their rules were very important as precursors to Association Football rules, but we have a full article on the subject at Cambridge Rules. Apart from their involvement in this, the two are largely NN, though being Archdeacon of Brecon may be on the fringes of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a redirect obviously. I don't see much worth merging from here. John Charles Thring is better developed than this. and Cambridge rules already covers (at length) the 1848 content relevant to Winton (and Winton already contains everything mergeable from this particular article relevant to him). Thus - as the content is already at the (multitude) of relevant targets, a redirect here doesn't make much sense - delete. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Icewhiz, no need to redirect. Giant Snowman 13:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for a joint article on the two men when they have individual articles and the only notable thing they did together is already covered at a more appropriate place...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thikka Regithe

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

Film that apparently has been long listed as upcoming (page is from 2016) and no indication it has ever come out, all I can find for refs are things like "will it ever come out?" Wgolf (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass WP:NFILM as a non-notable unreleased film that has doubts whether it will ever be released as it may have been shelved Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NFILM. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Because of the very low participation, no prejudice to a renomination in a month or so. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deko

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

Sources are unreliable, passing mentions, or not independent (interviews). The RIAA doesn't credit Deko with a gold or platinum album. Having worked on works others get the credit for is not an indication of notability. Huon (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Having worked on works others get the credit for is not an indication of notability." He does get credit as a music producer. And Billboard is a legitimate source. I think the bio is somewhat inflated but doesn't warrant deletion. CensoredDog (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he gets credit as a producer, but the "certifications and awards" section doesn't list his certifications or awards, but certifications that someone else got. That doesn't help establish that Deko is notable. Huon (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced content about their partnership and redirect to OG Parker. Billboard describes him and OG Parker as "multi-platinum producers" who received a Grammy nom, but Parker seems to be the more notable half of the duo. There doesn't seem to be much coverage of Deko beyond the Billboard piece. --Michig (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DC-International

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting bit of history of recording media, sources are not difficult to find although this is a topic from the 1960s. See [25] and references for a start. —Kusma (t·c) 09:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close Discussion, this deletion request is invalid because the nominator did so when the article was three hours old in in clear violation [26] of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy #7. Markvs88 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are sources... Billboard reported the DC-International cassette's introduction in 1965 [27], its battle with Philips' compact cassette in 1966 [28], and its demise in 1967 [29]. It's very likely that the UK's Record Retailer (now Music Week) also reported on the cassette's development. Richard3120 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Kusma. Ekki01 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submachine (series)

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

Fails WP:GNG: the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The current sources include 2 interviews (1 self-published, 1 on a defunct unremarkable game site), a rather short article on The Gameshelf (another defunct unremarkable game site) and a couple links to Jay Is Games (which per WP:VG/RS cannot be used to demonstrate notability). I looked for sources using the WPVG custom Google searches and found only more Jay Is Games coverage plus a whole lot of false positives for the word "submachine". Woodroar (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was a notable subject 10 years ago, but today the newest game is 3 years old, and in a year from now it will no longer be playable online because Flash will be discontinued. (For anyone who can prove me wrong, please do so.) Georgia guy (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that notability is not temporary. MarkZusab (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear notable. Further, having Jay Is Games be your main claim to fame is not a good sign. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Komoju

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

Reads like an advertisement, fails WP:NCORP JMHamo (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @JMHamo: Adjusted following JMHamo's notification. Removed all content potentially reading like an advertisement and added information on competitors and on relevance. Komoju, now should fully comply to WP:NCORP, please reconsider deleting this page. Thanks Nando Lo Zio (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Need more reliable secondary sources. 2 of the sources now are from another Wikipedia page and a blog respectively. Gr88scott (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Selective merge and redirect to new section Degica#KomojuSolutions, after culling the poor sources. Sourcing doesn't suggest this warrants a standalone article, and the redirect would work just fine. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to merge to now. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tim. Very promotional and I don't see standalone notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Delete Sources do not pass WP:ORGCRIT. ~~However, I see that the main company's article is at AFD as well. If that article ends up being deleted, I'm fine with this one being deleted too.~~ Jmertel23 (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post City Magazines

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

Article about a publisher of community newspapers at the neighbourhood level, completely unreferenced to any reliable source coverage for the purposes of establishing notability per WP:NCORP. The closest thing there was to "referencing" here at all was a series of WP:ELNO-violating offlinks to each individual title's own self-published website, but the notability test for media outlets is not that their own web presence metaverifies itself; rather, the notability test requires the company to be the subject of media coverage it didn't publish itself. But even on a deep ProQuest search, I can't find the coverage it would take; all I'm getting is glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things or people, not anything that's substantively about this company. There's also a direct conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a user named "Postemployee". Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Blackburn

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:20, 21 March 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? 00:21, 21 March 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? 00:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable politician. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local-only mayor that fails WP:NPOL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interim mayors are even less notable than regular mayors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bossier City is large enough that a mayor (interim or otherwise) might get over the bar if the article were really well-referenced, but it is not large enough to hand him an automatic inclusion freebie just because he existed as a mayor — and this is not really well-referenced, but depends two-thirds on primary sources and one-third on local media coverage that isn't even fully cited enough for us to even identify what it was. (Small-town city councillors, for example, have not received "significant press coverage" for the purposes of NPOL #2 just because you can reference their vote totals to a raw table of election results, which is what I suspect the Shreveport Journal citation might be given the context of what it's being used to footnote.) Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ewald Max Hoyer

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:15, 21 March 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? 00:16, 21 March 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? 00:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG and definitely doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of small cities which are not even the largest in their metro area are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG and definitely doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Lubbad85 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bossier City is large enough that a mayor might be able to clear the bar if the article were really well-referenced, but it is not large enough to hand every mayor an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as a mayor — and this article is not really well-referenced, being cited entirely to primary sources and Find-a-Grave entries with not even one piece of real media coverage being cited at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Guin

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

County level official who fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Despite the length and detail the article is almost entirely made up on non-reliable sources including: obituaries of people in local newspapers who are not the subject of the article (Sources 8,10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 26, 31, 32, 33, & 34); his own obit (1); dead links to online searches (3 & 4); original research and personal notes from the article's since-banned author (2 & 22); Local Newspaper articles that are both unlinked and untitled so we can't even verify that they even existed (11, 13, 17, & 28); Census records that do nothing more than prove that Guinn did, indeed, exist (5); a dead link about a public high school (6); a link to an E-yearbook site (7); a self-cited work by the article author in the North Louisiana History (16); an article about his administrative assistant (19); PDF's of a lawsuit's (20, 23 & 27); a general fact check about water fluoridation on the John Birch Society's website (24); Some sort of local recorded history about Shreveport's debate over water fluoridation that mentions Guinn 3 total times in a 4 page span out of 182 total pages in the document (25); a dead link to what appears to have been a list of Baptist Deacons in Shreveport, LA (29); a dead link to the flyer for a banquet (30). While the article is detailed and in-depth there's not really anything about Guin that indicates notability, and the sources used in the article don't do anything to establish that he was significant enough to meet GNG. GPL93 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created by banned user user:Billy Hathorn and there is no notable coverage of the subject in reliable sources. SWL36 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.bluesblastmagazine.com/issue-12-5-february-1-2018/

[2] ttps://www.positivelynaperville.com/2017/11/10/harmonica-man-naperville-playing-blues-big-time-boston/79945

[3] ttps://www.zoominfo.com/c/international-education-corporation/101188782

[4] ttps://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2007-10-17-0710170001-story.html

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]