Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 April	28 April >

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 and redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters#Master Shake. Apparently there is no specific notability guideline for fictional characters, other than Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) which for notability purposes refers back to GNG. Only the delete arguments are making guideline-based arguments on notability here, the keep cam has left the guideline completely unaddressed (there is no evidence in the guideline that "from a notable show" alone makes the character notable). Thus delete & redirect it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Master Shake

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

Frylock, Meatwad, and Carl Brutananadilewski have been sent to AFD, so I thought it strange that Master Shake wasn't being sent here too. Like those pages, the character has little relevancy outside of the show itself. Also, the last deletion debate seemed to agree with Delete and Redirect, yet the page is still here? Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I made a mistake and set this up for the 4th debate. I had thought this page had been sent to AFD 3 times, but it was only send twice. I don't know how to fix this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Harizotoh9 - If you wish to withdraw it, simply follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Withdrawing a nomination. Personally, looking at the prior keep !votes, none seem based in policy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then Redirect for the same reason as the other articles. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Keep based on arguments on the AFDs of the other main characters' pages. A notable character from a very notable show. The page does need a bit of rewriting to add more sources, but it should stay. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does need some cleaning but a complete deletion isn't necessary. The last AfD for this article did not conclusively agree upon Delete and Redirect; in fact the last AfD debate was pretty much a unanimous keep, and the article has even been cleaned up quite well since then. Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Grapesoda22. Text cleaning does not confer notability on a subject, nor encyclopaedic value. -The Gnome (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, as being a main character on a notable program is not a valid rationale for keeping. In prior AfD's virtually none of the keep !votes are based on policy, as is this case here. In light of recent closures of other AfD's, delete and redirect seems to be merited.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep votes not based on policy is a real issue. People seem very confused on the guidelines for notability, and often just vote because they think the subject is important, or because they like it. If enough people do that, then the AFD is declared "no consensus", and the page stays. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per practice adopted for the articles on Frylock, Meatwad, and Carl Brutananadilewski. None of these characters meets the criteria for independent notability. Wikipedia is not a fictional-characters' random catalogue. -The Gnome (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grapesoda22 and others. If needed, the article can be moved to a draft space for cleanup. IceWalrus236 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draja Mickaharic

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

This man is a minor author and there is no evidence that this article passes WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or that he has ever received WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a short fiction book written by someone who knew him and a WP:BEFORE search I did turned up no other information on the man except where you can buy some of his books. For 13 years this article has had no actual sources and it is time it be deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails GNG. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO for a self-published psychic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Ehrlich

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

Died way too young to amass enough credits to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. The subject is an actress who had only three film roles, all of which were uncredited parts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldnt rely on IMDB but there is nothing I see there that meets WP:Notability. I agree three uncredited roles do not come anywhere meeting notability requirements. Possible candidate for speedy deletion.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NACTRESS since she only had three uncredited film roles. Wikipedia is also not a WP:MEMORIAL. I would agree with a speedy deletion as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She did not actually have only 3 film roles - or at least, articles about her at the time said that she appeared in Operator 13 and Naughty Marietta. While she may not meet WP:NACTOR, I am checking the amount of coverage to see if she meets WP:GNG. The article is written in the style of an obituary, but that is not a reason for deletion - it could easily be edited. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be curious as to where all this information on her was sourced? I don't see any references there that divulge that much biographical information. I would still doubt she meets the notability guidelines for any subject but I would be curious to know what area the author thinks she is relevant for a encyclopedic entry for? I see one gossip mention and 3 articles on the accident. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. -- Dane ^talk 02:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have added more sources, and some additional information. All of the information in the article can be sourced to articles in newspapers and journals. However, it is clear that before her death, there were only passing mentions. There was significant coverage of her death, but, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SUSTAINED, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." So she does not meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ACTOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. Perhaps later it won't. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Costa (filmmaker)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker and articles about eight of his films, representing his own conflict of interest attempts to promote himself and his work in an advertorialized manner. He does not appear to have been the original creator of the BLP itself, although he and his other confirmed sockpuppets have been the primary followup editors of it -- but he created virtually all of the film articles himself, and has sourced all of the articles almost entirely to his own self-published content about himself: even in the BLP, the few genuinely independent sources not self-published by Costa to his own website contain no content about him at all, and are being used solely to source strictly tangential content about the overall themes of Portuguese cinema in general that has no bearing whatsoever on Costa's notability or lack thereof. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody without a conflict of interest can write the articles neutrally and reference them properly, but Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for people to write about themselves or self-cite their notability to their own self-published content in lieu of real reliable source coverage and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator. All of these film articles are the fruit of a poisoned WP:COI tree and should be swiftly and vigorously uprooted. There is no place for dishonest self-published work to gain free advertising on Wikipedia and it should not be rewarded with continued hosting. The filmmaker's article has also been tainted by this corruption and should be uprooted as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Portuguese article has reliable sources from Público ([1], [2]) and observador ([3]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we overlooked the COI problems in the BLP on the basis of the existence of these sources, what reliable sources salvage the films? Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don"t think the films are notables, therefore I'd like to have separate AfD. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as per nom and Newshunter12. Self-promotion should not be tolerated.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:NOTPROMO is policy. No prejudice against later recreation if notability can be supported and an article written by editors compliant with policy, guidelines, and terms of use. Bakazaka (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text suffers from exceptionally fawning prose about a subject whose lack of Wikinotability it attempts to overcome through citation overkill (e.g. almost a dozen references to support the phrase "sober, musical and poetic narratives, interesting cinephiles and suitable for common audiences"). As things stand, better delete and start over. -The Gnome (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. Speedy close due to overwhelming consensus to redirect (with no other votes for any other action). WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Easter bombings

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

Only one entry qualifies. The World War II raid occurred before Sri Lanka existed and is not even referred to as an "Easter bombing", regardless of country, as far as I can find. I suggested a redirect to 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings to User:WWGB (who reverted my edit) as an alternative, but have received no response. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings, with the addition of a hatnote there informing readers of Easter Sunday Raid. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and consider speedy close. There is nothing much to discuss here. Reh man 02:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with hatnote per WWGB. RobDuch (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect hatnote will be enough on the existing page. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shanaya Makani

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

Actress who looks like she falls under too soon. Looks like so far just one film. For now probably a redirect to Suno Sasurji Until more notability is found. Wgolf (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's a case of WP:TOOSOON with only one notable production at this stage of her career, may well be notable in the future Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG. I would also note the editor who created this article was banned for advertising and sockpuppetry a mere 10 days after creating the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Relations

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Some current sources are 404-not found, some are personal websites and remaining don't say much. Seems like Wikipedia is being used as a tool for their own Public Relations. Dial911 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:PROMO and is thinly veiled free advertising for this un-notable company. There is a fake controversy section that is used to bulk up the article, but one listing literally says there was no controversy. They also list every single city but one that they have offices in, which is sure convenient for potential clients. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George F. Graham

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

Non-Notable Politician who fails WP:NPOL. This is a local level politician who's received local news coverage, but this individual has not held a high level office (i.e. state senate or above). Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to need a wikipedia article. Also, "Gail", slap a surname on it, as I am pretty sure there is more than one "Gail" in the world, and they're not all married to this bloke. Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Officeholders at the county level of government are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they can clear the inclusion bar if they can be sourced well enough to be credibly considered more notable than most other county councillors — namely, by showing coverage that nationalizes significantly beyond just what every county councillor can always show — but they are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because there are a couple of pieces of purely local media coverage of the election campaign itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2019
Delete Fails WP:NPOL - local politician who doesn't have broader recognition. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOL. --Tataral (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Jolivet

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

Deleted in September 2017 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivier Jolivet. Does not appear to be any more notable now. Edwardx (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG because it is about a WP:Run-of-the-mill business executive, and there is no demonstration of notability in sources provided or that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search I did. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure to meet WP:GNG, with a strong whiff of WP:UPE/WP:PROMO. Interviews where the subject can say what they want do not count toward notability, and remaining coverage is either self-reported or actually about employers and their projects rather than the subject. Bakazaka (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ashley C. Ford

The result was Snowball keep. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure if this really meets WP:NOTABILITY. Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. --Tataral (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to see some more citations from local news sources. If she is notable and from NYC there should be a number of local articles in NY Post, NY Times, NY Daily News, NY Magazine etc.. if she is on the 30 under 30 in media on Forbes. If those citations can be established then possibly the article can be justified but if not then a delete.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She seems to have some noteworthy coverage, but article needs to be expanded I feel.★Trekker (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sufficient sources exist to prove notability and expand the article further. I encourage a google search. Apparently this woman is relevant in every demographic from Glamour to The Guardian. Trillfendi (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trillfendi: I don't understand "relevant in every demographic". Can you reword this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article isn’t great but notability seems to be established well beyond question. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep the article isn’t great but notability seems to be established well beyond question. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~Keep the article isn’t great but notability seems to be established well beyond question. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep Ashley C. Ford is a notable queer podcaster who has a long career ahead of her. To the main folx who worked on this article so far (looks like Sweet Kate (talk) and Koavf (talk) ) I would suggest adding content about the shows that she has worked on and what she has done on them, as well as her connections to other notable folx, movements, etc.. I will make folx on @wikilgbt and @WikiWomeninRed aware of this article so that they can help. RachelWex (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @RachelWex: ~~The article doesn't even mention podcasting--where are you getting this information?~~ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article does mention podcasting: Ford is the host of Brooklyn-based television program and podcast 112BK. The sources from the New York Times and PBS Newshour also discuss her podcasting work. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's stupid: I just misstyped the search in my browser. Either way, simply having a podcast doesn't make you notable but would have to be established with sources, of course. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is more than adequate to establish notability. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Megs (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO as seen in the comments by XOR'easter and Trillfendi. Recent improvements to the article further demonstrate notability. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. There are several reliable independent sources that establish her notability. --Nonmodernist (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistani Russian

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

Unsalvageable original research Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it’s not a great article but it isn’t OR as a source is provided. Whether it’s notable or not I’m less sure. Mccapra (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not reliable and does not mention the subject of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the source is about borrowed words between Uzbek and Russian, not about a Russian dialect. SpinningSpark 22:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is terrible, needs total rewriting, but the subject definitely is notable. I will work on adding sources to the article. There are many examples of WP pages for "pidgin" languages or dialectical variances, so I think this article just needs some major rework. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget that we need academic sources stating that the subject of the article exists. I doubt there are any, and I am pretty sure the subject of the article does not exist, but if you can find them, fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed, added one significant academic source from Goethe-Institut. Skirts⁸⁹ 12:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I am not at all convinced. First, the source is an opinion piece of somebody who does not have any academic credibility. Second, and more importantly, it does not claim an existence of a separate Uzbekistani Russian dislect. It says Russian in Uzbekistan use some words which describe local reality (such as aryk) which may be less clear if used in Russia. This does not make it a dialect, and in fact I know all of these words even though I have no relation to Uzbekistan.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The three recently added sources are really groping at straws now. Besides being poor quality sources, they do nothing more than verify that Russian is spoken in Uzbekistan. The word dialect is not even mentioned in any of them. At the moment, there is a complete failure to even verify existence, let alone anything else. SpinningSpark 17:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does no justice to what they’re trying to prove. This doesn’t even scratch the dimension of what a language article is supposed to be. Trillfendi (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is obviously the correct solution: redirect to Russian dialects and incorporate any sourced material there. Very simple. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We must first accept that Uzbekistani Russian is a thing before we should do that. There is, so far, no convincing sourced material to incorporate. SpinningSpark 20:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per SpinningSpark. With no proof that this dialect even exists, this article seems like a WP:HOAX. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Karasyova

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

A not-notable Russian person. Known only for participation in the reality show Dom-2.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 23:30, 13 April 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 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is some coverage in Russian language sources, however, she is known for participation in a single notable show. This is probably the case of WP:One event. Probably "delete" because the sources do not clarify much about her role beyond telling that she was one of actresses on the show. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT and a failure to meet WP:GNG with sustained WP:SIGCOV of her career or life. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Bartlett Jr.

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

Biography of a county councillor, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for politicians at the local level of office. This is essentially written like a thinly veiled rewrite of his "meet your councillor" blurb on the council's own self-published website, rather than like an actual encyclopedia article, and is referenced to just one news article in a small community hyperlocal and the internal meeting minutes of a directly affiliated board of directors. But every county councillor in every county always gets some coverage in the local media, so one piece of local coverage is not enough to get a county councillor over the bar all by itself, and the other reference is a primary source that does not count as support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails NPOL as well as GNG. The subject isn't notable, otherwise we'd have a few million articles on random local activists. Skirts⁸⁹ 16:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL as well as WP:GNG - nothing notable here. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NPOL. -- Dane ^talk 02:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Just a WP:Run-of-the-mill local politician. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Cheeseman

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a television director, not properly sourced as clearing our notability criteria for television directors. This has been flagged for referencing since 2009 without improvement, the claim that she won a Primetime Emmy is unverified even by her IMDb page let alone any actual reliable sources, and the one thing listed under external links that is technically a reliable source is not coverage about her, but coverage about a very general issue that just briefly soundbites her personal opinion on it. So, as always, this could be recreated if somebody were willing to tackle writing and referencing it properly, but a decade in this state is not okay if nobody's even trying to improve it at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few passing mentions in RS, but nothing substantial. The Primetime Emmy seems to be entirely false, as Cheeseman doesn't even list it on her own website. Nanophosis (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Changing vote as BAFTA win means subject passes GNG. My original vote was due to the absence of substantial coverage, only brief mentions in otherwise unrelated articles, as I didn't see any potential for improvement from stub class. Nanophosis (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BAFTA award is a major award. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A BAFTA win has to be reliably sourced before it translates into grounds to keep an article. I could get an article about me kept by claiming to have won a BAFTA, if just saying the word BAFTA exempted me from actually having to prove that I was telling the truth. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Duffbeerforme, winning a BAFTA strongly suggests notability as it is a significant feat within the field. Article needs work but I think we should spare it for now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have sourced the BAFTA to BAFTA's own website, as RS as they come. PamD 22:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG WP:ANYBIO Award winner and widely recognized contribution. WP:ATD was WP:BEFORE done? Lubbad85 (☎) 15:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nanophosis Subject does list the major award on personal website Lubbad85 (☎) 15:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lubbad85 I may be missing something, but I still don't see a mention of winning a Primetime Emmy there (which is what I was talking about, not the BAFTA). I will strike that bit if I'm proven wrong, which could very much be the case. Nanophosis (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on the Emmy. I thought you did not see the BAFTA. The BAFTA is a significant award. I do not think she needs an Emmy to be GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 17:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I edited the Emmy claim out of the article, so it was easy to miss. I'm going to strike and vote for weak keep, as the BAFTA makes her notable. Cheers, Nanophosis (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article already moved.. Tone 16:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of connecticut

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

The text appears to be a direct copy of parts of the Wikipedia page Credentialism and educational inflation and is not related to the title of the page. Logophile59 (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logophile59, this is a student editor's sandbox that they moved to mainspace out of what appears to be some sort of confusion. If it's ok with you, I'd like to move this back to their sandbox, and try to help them sort out their confusion. Guettarda (talk)/User:Ian (Wiki Ed) 15:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes total sense. If I run across something else like this, is there a better way to deal with it than AfD, i.e. a way to flag it for a more experienced person to look at without starting the AfD process? Logophile59 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure - the easiest thing to do is to ping one of us: User:Ian (Wiki Ed), User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) or User:Elysia (Wiki Ed). You can also leave a note at the education noticeboard. Student editors in classes we support should also have a template on their user page and talk page indicating that they're students. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close as irrelevant - the page has been moved back to the sandbox? Neonchameleon (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Whaley

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

Still not notable, mostly minor roles and virtually no coverage of this Mike Whaley. Praxidicae (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Only one non- self published source and not even passing mentions in any other RS as far as I can tell. Nanophosis (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline G4 territory. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. The WP:SIGCOV is just not there. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity City Hotel

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

This article is an unsourced essay on the history of the street in which the hotel stands, not the hotel itself. There are two refs from reliable independent sources but they have nothing to do with the body of the article. Based on those two reviews alone, I don’t think this business is notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In terms of WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT, there is only limited coverage of the subject available. If we exclude all of the hotel reviews from the news sources, the only coverage (of which the subject is the primary topic) that I can find are these types of profit notices. Which are fairly typical types of coverage expected for similar businesses, and do not in themselves establish notability. Per the nominator, the bulk of the content seems to be attempting to assert notability based on loose connections with unrelated subjects (like the street on which the hotel sits, or the person/people after which the street is named, or that the fire brigade or other businesses which previously occupied parts of the building). This is problematic based on WP:INHERITORG and related guidelines. In short, despite (or perhaps because of) my attempts to improve the quality of this article, I do not see how the subject is any more notable than the 800 other hotels in Dublin.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, just one of many hotels in Dublin. This one is not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and Guliolopez. I would also note that the account which created this article made no other edits on a different topic, which implies it had the singular purpose of promoting this hotel without justification over the many other similar hotels in Dublin. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject lacks notability per WP:NBUILDING. The article was created by a kamikaze account, which never helps. -The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Bolton

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

City councillor and long-standing activist, but without the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Frickeg (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor local politician. No serious or sustained reporting at higher levels or more broadly. Fails NPOLITICIAN. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is probably just as notable as City of Yarra Councillor Stephen Jolly (politician) whose mostly been reported on at the local government level until he stood in the state election last year. The article on Jolly went through an AfD process too and the decision on that was to keep. Geelongite (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments aren't valid at AfD as we're discussing if this particular individual is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor local politician, and the sourcing doesn't seem to support an article - lots of political coverage where she's only mentioned, nothing on her specifically. SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL as well as WP:GNG - nothing notable here. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG because its subject lacks WP:SIGCOV of her career or life. She is just a local politician. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Let's say it's a case of jumping the gun. -The Gnome (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kawasan Perindustrian Bangi LRT station

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

I was not able to find any evidence that the station is under construction or even planned. The article is unsourced. Our Wikipedia article about the line does not list the station. Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article about Parent line. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The creator has been CU blocked in the meanwhile, and I actually think it is a hoax. Other creations have been speedy deleted as hoaxes, some were deleted multiple times.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, my !vote can be counted as a Delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks extremely fishy. No trace found of the existence or planned existence of this station. Pichpich (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Setia Alam LRT station

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

I was not able to find any evidence that the station was even proposed, not talking about construction started. The LRT line is indeed under construction, and our Wikipedia article about the line does not list the station. Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article about Parent line. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The creator has been CU blocked in the meanwhile, and I actually think it is a hoax. Other creations have been speedy deleted as hoaxes, some were deleted multiple times.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, my !vote can be counted as a Delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Don't see anything notable about this station as 1) It is merely a paragraph long, and 2) It hasn't even been built yet. Down for a deletion, but a merger into a parent article would also suit it. Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5, if a redirect is needed then someone can add it. Nightfury 09:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This seems like a WP:HOAX, and other similar articles created by the same editor have recently been deleted as hoaxes. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the subject is a non-notable construction project set for the future. The creator of the article was banned the other day for using & abusing multiple accounts. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shine of India

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

The only reliable source from 2016 tells you about the audition of the shows, no information about production and air date http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/govinda-raveena-reunite-for-a-brand-new-dance-reality-show/1/587547.htm and there is no further development after that. Looks like an article based on a rumor or an announced show which never started production. Sid95Q (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pure promo violation, not even aired yet. Fails WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 16:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Channel V India went to an automated video format before the show premiered, so show simply never premiered; usually I'd emphasize that articles about reality shows shouldn't be created before premiere, but this one likely was good-faith started before the network killed all their original programming efforts out of thin air, thus this is just an example of a suddenly orphaned article completely forgotten about after it happened. Nate • (chatter) 03:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG.-MA Javadi (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough quantity of sources, has not aired as mentioned above. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Fantasia

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

Non-Notable Politician who fails WP:NPOL Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NPOL? I see plenty of articles about her in the Internet. It seems like she received major press attention.Also the presence of this article will help to counter WP:Systemic bias Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 08:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politicians at the county level of office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, or even because they get the purely local media coverage that every county politician always gets because covering local politics is local media's job — to clear the notability bar for her own article, she would need to be able to show nationalizing coverage that expands well beyond what's simply expected for a county freeholder to be able to show. And as important as it is to counter systemic bias, we do not do that by creating special lowered notability standards whereby members of equity groups get into Wikipedia just for being county or city councillors while only straight white men actually have to clear a conventional notability standard — we do it by working to identify the women or people of colour or LGBTs who do clear our existing notability standards but are getting overlooked. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL as well as WP:GNG. Totally non-notable subject. Skirts⁸⁹ 16:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL as well as WP:GNG - nothing notable here. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politicians do not get auto-notability, they require significant coverage in sources outside of the local area.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Just a typical local politician, with typical local coverage. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. It might also be relevant to note that the nominator's only contributions to Wikipedia have been to try to get this article deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mika McKinnon

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

This person is not notable and should be removed. Her current position at "Project ESPRESSO" is not significant. None of the other "Project ESPRESSO" participants, including the Principal Investigator and Deputy Principal Investigator, have Wikipedia pages. "Project ESPRESSO" itself does not have a Wikipedia page. Her occasional consulting with television programs does not warrant inclusion. She does not have significant publications. Both television shoes that she is "currently...science advisor" to are cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unconciousobserver2 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Keep: She is science consultant for at least two active shows, continues to write pieces for a number of magazines, and is a reasonably high profile science communicator. The language in the complaint seems unnecessarily antagonistic and suggests that the request for deletion is motivated by her gender. Robert McNees (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with the anon editor at top. McKinnon's notability is not based on ESPRESSO but on the fact that she is a well known science communicator whose expertise on geophysics is regularly consulted by other science communicators such as myself (36k Twitter followers is perhaps not super famous, but many of them are scientists themselves). The fact that the Stargate shows (not "shoes", learn to spell!) are no longer on the air doesn't make the people associated with them less notable (I don't think Shatner's page is going to be up for deletion any time soon...). I find her Wikipedia page a useful reference. JonathanMcDowell (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The appropriate statute relevant to this discussion is WP:ACADEMIC. McKinnon clearly meets criterion 7 ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.") due to her roles as science communicator. --Astronomy additions (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: None of the clear-cut reasons for deletion apply here: not one event fame, nor self-promoting, nor gossipy. The article's tone is calm and it is unsensational and well-sourced. The notability standard is very subjective and it makes sense to err on the side of inclusion. More relevant is that this is exactly the kind of article I'd hope to find when looking for background on an author, investigator, or speaker. --ota (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite apart from her substantial impact as a journalist, technical advisor, and communicator, she's been profiled by at least four independent sources (and I just added a fifth). These sort of spurious (and anonymous) notability challenges seem to be ignoring WP:SIGCOV, the basic criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources, something she obviously meets. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets general notability criteria, as described above. Lots of secondary sources available. Spyder212 (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Might I suggest snow keep at this point? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cow vigilante violence in India

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

WP:POVFORK of Cow protection movement, an article which concerns all activisim and violence related to this subject prior 2014. This issue has been receiving more attention since 2014 and this is why Cow vigilante violence in_India_since_2014 was created per consensus on talk page. But anything before 2014 already exists at Cow protection movement. ML^talk 03:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect to either Cow vigilante violence in_India_since_2014 or Cow protection movement. Already covered in either of these articles. Suggestion to delete this article and rename Cow vigilante violence in_India_since_2014 to this title.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 08:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article talks of the violence and I fear that may overburden the cow protection article. I would recommend renaming it to include the time period, however. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsrikanth05: Other article is just 55k bytes and Cow vigilante violence in India was created after cutting and pasting from that article in violation of WP:COPYVIO. What happened has happened, at best it will just increase to 100k bytes which is still lower than the requirement of WP:CFORKING which is done after gaining consensus than overriding the existing consensus against a POVFORK. ML^talk 13:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a violation of copyright, as the source is mentioned in the edit summary here [4]. Soarwakes (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and WP:POVFORK. --RaviC (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I know terms like "cow vigilante" has only been used for the phenomenon occurring since 2014, for which an article already exists. Its page title was chosen after due discussion. So, I don't see why this new article has been created. There are 8 citations in the lead of the present article, none of which use a term like "cow vigilante". So this seems like a piece of WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References only after 27th one cover the events after 2014, but references 1 to 26 cover the events before 2014. It is not just 8 r4eferences as you claimed. Soarwakes (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Please provide a quotation from a reliable source for cow-related uses of terms "vigilante" or "vigilantism" for the period before 2014. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article mentions Holi Riot, that is vigilantism. Then article mentions about cow protection societies, those are organised group of vigilantes in 1800s section. Even in 1900s sections most violences are by vigilantes. This article hardly makes any mention of Govt punishment of people for cow slaughter, so it is about vigilante violence. Soarwakes (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said is precisely what is called WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article on events after 2014 Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 is standing since long, but there were many incidents of Cow vigilante violence in India before than that dating back to centuries. This article covers it. It is spinned off from Cow protection movement, but the parent article is too big and the child article is big enough to merit its own article. Soarwakes (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The subject is almost identical to other ones about India and cows. A subsequent merge (of whatever can be salvaged as unique) or a redirect (to Cow protection movement) would not be amiss. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of world records in indoor rowing

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is only a single authoritative source for this information; the listing maintained by Concept2 at https://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/racing/records/world. This list is just a data dump from there, with trivial format changes.

It's also out of date, and hopelessly unmaintainable. Just doing some spot checks of the Lightweight Women:

Luanne Suplick's 60 minute record has apparently been overturned (discussion on c2 blog). Nobody picked up on that and corrected the article.

Anna Lewis's 30 minute record was beaten in 2019 by Lorraine Walker. Nobody picked up on that.

Asmaa Al Zohairy's 4 minute record is beaten by four different entries in various age groups over the span from 2016 to 2019. Again, nobody noticed.

So, for the three entries that I looked at, all three are wrong. In theory, I suppose it's possible that this could be kept up to date, but the sheer volume of data makes it a practical impossibility, so fails WP:V. We add no value by presenting this information; the Concept2 site does a better job and is authoritative on keeping it up to date. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be advertisement for a particular brand of rowing machine, no third-party sources establishing why indoor rowing on machines from other manufacturers doesn't count. Reywas92^Talk 02:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be fair, that part is true. There simply isn't any brand competition at serious rowing training facilities, worldwide. But the real problem in my mind is the fact that this is an unmaintained, and unmaintainable, data dump. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:LISTN. The only source listing this information in this collective format is the company that makes these machines, not independent reliable sources. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of state trunkline highways in Michigan serving parks

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

There is no cited premise for the scope of the list. In short, the only thing tying these together is that some highways provide access to state or national parks. However, there aren't any sources for any systematic scheme by the state for highways connected to state parks. Unlike List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions where the majority of the entries on the list don't have independent articles because such articles would be too short to be sustainable, the entries on this list are all GAs (or an FA).

TLDR: at best, this could be a category, but at worst, it shouldn't exist at all. Imzadi 1979 → 01:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly specific categorization, there is nothing distinguishing about these roads other than what is nearby or reliable sources that treat this as a unified topic. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rs chen 7754 21:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Reywas92. This article completely fails WP:LISTN. I don't see any independently established premise for this article's scope. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is actually a valid list-article, consisting of summary descriptions about numerous highways which each have separate individual articles. There is substantial, reliable sourcing. I.e. this meets wp:GNG and it is also appropriate as a list-article complementing a category (see wp:CLNT). I don't see any valid reasoning suggested above about why this should not be kept; the above discussion seems like "I don't like it" reasoning to me. Also it seems complementary to other coverage of highways in the state, including List of state trunkline highways in Michigan (overlaps, scope-wise, but has different level of detail). --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does this end? Should we create a list, one for each county in Michigan (83)? Should we create a list for all of the state highways that provide access to schools? stadiums? ferries? etc. --Rs chen 7754 22:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Nonsense, there is no rampage of list-article creation. This seems like a sensible collection, although it is definitely surprising to me, that so many of these highways were created/devoted to address access into parks in Michigan. This seems well focused and well-developed list-article. I don't get the antipathy and I think fear-mongering about "where does this end" is silly. --Doncram (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the sourcing for the scope? The individual highways pass GNG, but where are the "reliable sources independent of the subject[s]" collecting them together in such a fashion? I can find outside sources that collect all of the state highways together, but none that collect them on this basis. Imzadi 1979 → 00:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Sure, it could be tagged for more coverage about the scope, being trunk highways serving parks, which is a surprising-to-me large topic. Since the list-article exists and was created by one or more persons, it appears to me that the scope/topic is valid. --Doncram (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I object to the deletion nominator's aggressive behavior related to this AFD. At the related article. At the related article, List of state trunkline highways in Michigan, they have twice deleted a "See also" link to the AFD topic list-article. With nonsensical edit summaries. With what appears to be a will to edit war and get their effing way. I don't know why they dislike the AFD topic list-article, or what their problem is otherwise, but it is my humble opinion (and I do speak from long experience with AFDs), that it is a terrible idea for deletion nominators to pull stunts like they are doing. Either to delete all incoming links or to edit down the subject article while the AFD is happening. If they "win" the AFD then yes, of course inbound links to the article would get deleted, and yes the content would get deleted. But for the AFD process to work properly, the community needs to see the AFD topic article and to see it in context, including how it is connected to and from other articles. The community is not helped by editors' trying to shortcut or subvert the process. To User:Imzadi1979, could you please now reconsider your action and restore the connection which you have twice deleted. Offhand, I tend to think this behavior indicates that the list-article should be Kept, although perhaps tagged for more development, and the idea of deletion should be put off for, say, a year. I don't like bullying, and I don't think it should be rewarded, and I think the general interest of the community would be served by closing this down and having all parties walk away for a good long time. --Doncram (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Two big additional problems are at work.
  1. M-93 predates Hartwick Pines State Park by six years, 1919 vs. 1927. M-109 and M-209 predate Sleeping Bear Dunes by decades, 1929 ("1920s") vs. 1970. M-201 doesn't connect to Leelanau State Park, and it was created in 1949 when the park wasn't created until 1964. Others on the list may have postdated the parks adjacent to the highways, but we really need some sourcing on this concept, which doesn't really exist.
  2. The other issue is that this list is way incomplete. Most state parks in Michigan are adjacent to some state highway. US 41 is next to JW Wells State Park, Van Riper State Park, Baraga State Park and Fort Wilkins State Park. M-26 passes Twin Lakes State Park, and M-107 ran into Porcupine Mountains State Park. US 2 is next to Bewabic State Park. US 23 is next to Tawas Point State Park, Harrisonville State Park, Sturgeon Point State Park, Rockport State Park, Thompson's Harbor State Park, PH Hoeft State Park, Cheboygan State Park and Old Mill Creek State Park. M-124 and M-106 intersect next to Walter J. Hayes State Park. That's just a sampling, and I could name a lot more without mentioning Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, the other highways in Sleeping Bear Dunes, the Keweenaw National Historic Park or Battle of the River Raisin National Battlefield.
- So in short, the list doesn't have sourcing to establish that Michigan has any systematic scheme, like Utah did with a specific range of highway numbers, and it is under inclusive by omitting basically every other state or national park. Imzadi 1979 → 00:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, thank you Imzadi for restoring the inbound link, coming from List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. --Doncram (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unneeded listcruft. These type of articles should only exist if they cover highways that do not have independent articles such as State highways serving Virginia state institutions. Dough4872 00:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So it is established that there are a number of similar list-articles covering state highways linking to parks or to other types of places (including List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions and State highways serving Virginia state institutions). Here, there are a surprising-to-me 16 state highways serving parks in Michigan. This kind of makes sense to me, because parks only function if they are accessible to the public, and often/usually there are not otherwise roadways into park-suitable wild areas. Sure, it would be good to develop more about the co-evolution of parks and highways in the state, with sources, but this is a natural topic. I and many readers of the great biography The Power Broker by Robert A. Caro happen to be more familiar with the co-evolution of parks and highways around New York City, spurred by Robert Moses, e.g. Robert Moses State Park (Long Island) and others which only came to exist as real parks with the development of parkways to them. But that co-evolution happened in Michigan and elsewhere is obvious, too.

Also there are factual issues of omissions suggested by Imzadi, but these could be addressed by editing in the article, and/or by Talk page discussion. Expanding the list-article to cover more would seem to make it even more obviously noteworthy. --Doncram (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it also seems to me that, nation-wide, there would be merit to systematic coverage, e.g. in a nation-wide list-article (Highways in the United States serving parks and institutions (currently a red-link)) and perhaps Category:Highways in the United States serving parks and institutions. Because these seem obvious-to-me natural topics, and there may exist more substantial or accessible coverage at the national level, and there is efficiency in covering them all together. --Doncram (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense, there is no rampage of list-article creation." --Rs chen 7754 18:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No one saying there was such an issue of too many, so I guess you are agreeing with me and you support more similar list-articles? Thanks. And, yes, there's List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions by the way too, and maybe there could/should be more, all unified by a nation-level list and a category system.

The Trailblazers: Brief History of the Direct Federal Highway Construction Program is one pretty good historical source on development of Federal highway building technology and the needs to serve national forests (presumably with more practical focus/design) and national parks (with more focus on scenic fitting), with mention of other types (former post roads, other).

--Doncram (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am not agreeing with you, but I see no further point to discussing the matter with you. --Rs chen 7754 00:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia appears to have a special numbering for highways that serve state institutions, specifically numbering them in the 300s, though I'm not sure that's a notable list topic either. Michigan however does not distinguish its highways in any way, and this is no different than a list of highways that serve state forests or state game areas or casinos. I don't see any inclusion criteria for this list, which has not only state parks but also national lakeshores and places that don't even appear to be parks at all, like the Garden Peninsula and former state parks. If there are no reliable sources that discuss highways that go to parks, etc., there should not be a Wikipedia article on it since WP:LISTN is not satisfied. The article on national highways is utterly irrelevant. Reywas92^Talk 06:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per the deletion nomination's suggestion, there is merit in having a Michigan state category of these, so I went ahead and created Category:State highways in Michigan serving parks, which now contains 14 members. Perhaps more should be added. Also there are 2 highways covered in the list-articles which do not have separate articles. This also supports keeping the list-article. By reasoning of essay (or guideline?) wp:CLNT, it is very reasonable to have complementary coverage in list-articles and categories and navigation templates; the list-article can include references and photos and maps and coordinates and descriptions which can't be conveyed at the category or in a navigation template, and it can cover red-link items or items not deemed to need separate articles (also, by the way, heading off creation of separate articles for the more marginal items). --Doncram (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about circular reasoning! You creation of a category for these does not mean the article automatically stays along with it. I also oppose the category, which contains some of the same original research as the article. For example, M-201 (Michigan highway) runs through the village of Northport but does not actually "serve" the nearby Leelanau State Park, rather it is one of a few roads that connect to another road that leads to the state park. State parks (and national parks) across the country are naturally located near roads across the country, and unless reliable sources find this to be remarkable, I see no reason why we should be coming up with our own such categorization and listing. Do we need to categorize Interstate 94 and Interstate 40 because they go to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and Petrified Forest National Park, respectively? What's the difference between Michigan parks "served by" Michigan highways vs. U.S. highways? Do we need a category and list saying U.S. Route 23 in Michigan goes through Hoeft State Park too? The incompleteness of this article shows how arbitrary and mundane it is that – WOW – people take roads to get places! M-119 (Michigan highway) goes to Petoskey State Park and M-123 (Michigan highway) goes through Tahquamenon Falls State Park, but I don't see any sources that find them worth comparing together in contrast to all the highways that go all other sorts of places. Reywas92^Talk 06:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and ~~Partial Merge~~ Unfortunately, the only place that appears to talk about these roads in this particular form is right here on Wikipedia, and every almost every road has its own article, so no content will be deleted. That being said, M-143 and M-213 do not have content elsewhere. I don't see any suitable merge candidates and there's not much content to merge anyways, but I would strongly encourage this content to be moved somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: M-143 (Michigan highway) covers the previous iteration in the history section of the article. M-213 (1960 Michigan highway) redirects to the history section of M-20 (Michigan highway), which was the designation of the highway that replaced it. Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Imzadi1979: Cheers for pointing those out, I will admit I didn't look all that closely. The M-143 historical blurb is fine on the current page, and I've slightly rewritten the M-20 article to talk about M-213 a little bit more clearly, so a delete is now completely proper. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and the category. This is listcruft. Serving state parks is not a defining feature of these highways. In my area, Iowa used to have highways that branched off of another state highway and they'd end at the front gate to state parks. There was nothing systematic about how they were numbered, some were even renumbered randomly; the state treated them the same as all other state highways. These highways among others were forcibly deleted from the state highway system in 2003, which is a defining feature for a list article. Sorry if I sound like I'm rambling. –Fredddie ™ 15:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Lasica

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

This seems to be some random journalist. I don't see much evidence that he's notable. This article seems to function mostly as a resume. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs work. His book Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation is actually what passes GNG. I would support a merge if someone decides to write an article about his book. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Book Darknet was widely reviewed and discussed, carries him past WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Space: 1999. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Transporter

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

Pure WP:FANCRUFT material. This is fine material for a Fan Wiki, but not Wikipedia. Note that the references are to the show itself. The vehicle is not independently notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a very popular toy back in the 1970s. There's sure to be coverage from the time. --Michig (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space:_1999#Special_effects,_design_and_music as it is mentioned there and serves as a valid redirect target. First of all, I find it puzzling that Michig, an admin who I respect a lot, used a combination of WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES all in one (before WP:COMMONSENSE is pulled up, the "Popular" statement is subjective for that to be a common sense either)! Second, I don't see enough evidence like the nominator, that it is independently notable of Space 1999, nor there is any significant coverage of it to be found, making it fail WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for sources online for something from a 1970s TV series that was also a popular toy in the 1970s available as both a Dinky die-cast model and an Airfix kit [5] (I remember because my brother and some of my friends had it) - it's not surprising you can't find much online, although there's some decent coverage here, which also confirms the popularity of the Dinky model. It's still popular today ([6]). I would suggest that a thorough review of 1970s sources would be needed to build the article up as much as is possible. If there is still not enough for a standalone article, a merge might then be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michig Great findings of the book coverage! Sadly, it still does not show how much independently notable it is, and I feel a mini section at design section I proposed a merge to can be expanded properly with this source alone. I would agree with you on thorough review of 1970s sources, which is why opening this AfD was a good thing in my opinion as notabilty requires verifiable evidence. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major feature of a major series. And a toy produced in huge numbers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely you can find RS for this? And enough to satisfy notability outside of the series? Why can't you just add a line or two about how there was a toy produced for the main ship in the main Space 1999 article? That would seem to make more sense than an entire article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a toy from the 70s, major feature imperative to understanding the series, could be better sourced but passes GNG DrewieStewie (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to find sources to prove it passes GNG. Right now I'm leaning towards merge, as you could cover this as a toy in like 2-3 sentences in the main article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Space: 1999 article as a valid search term. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per above and adding more RS. It appears outside of the TV series. StrayBolt (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Space: 1999 per SuperMarioMan. Aoba47 (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on Space: 1999. Spyder212 (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on Space: 1999. This topic clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG on its own and a redirect and a few sentences in the main article about the toy being popular will suffice. This isn't a fan website and keep!voters appear to be too wrapped up in fond childhood memories to follow policy. I have great sympathy for them, as I would be upset if "someone" messed with my fond memories too, but that shouldn't guide this AfD. If significant print sources from the 70's are found about the toy at a later time, I would not oppose re-creating the article, which would be easy since nothing is being deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changed my vote to Redirect per the above. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space: 1999 per above arguments. The sources on this are woefully inadequately for establishing independent notability. Many of the ones currently in this article barely talk about the ship, don't even mention the ship by name, or are not about the ship at all. And there really isn't anything more substantial out there that is sufficiently in-depth to justify this being a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space: 1999 as a more appropriate target. -- Dane ^talk 02:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Cíger

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Fails #2 by 52 games (148 games inc. playoffs in Slovak Extraliga, 200 needed.) He is still active and playing in Slovak 1. Liga and he is 28 so there is a chance he may get over the mark in future but it's no guarentee of that. Tay87 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV of his career, which is so far WP:ROUTINE per WP:NHOCKEY player. The possibility of him becoming notable in the future is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL and irrelevant to the status of the article now. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lacks the coverage to meet the GNG and fails to meet any standards of WP:NHOCKEY.Sandals1 (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Earth Zambia. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Chama

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

Whilst the winner of a national beauty pageant (non-notable competition - also see WP:1EVENT), did not place in the international pageant. Has no other significant achievements. Fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Earth Zambia. Valid search term per WP:ATD-R. Per source searches, only known for one event at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT and a failure to pass WP:GNG. She's just not notable and one event doesn't change that, which is why the article says almost nothing. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Earth Zambia As per North America.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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