Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 January	14 January >

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. Sandstein 08:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John DeFazio

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

Massive work of puffery. A search turns up a few sources, but the question of notability is very cloudy here due to the massive promotion going on. The vast majority of sources I checked were glancing or trivial mentions; at least half of the sources mentioned are about other topics. The quality of other sources provided does not establish notability as far as I can see. (FWIW, an earlier version of the page pretty much establishes this as an autobiography by the original page creator.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amazing really.... People around here seem to think they can just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. None of these sources prove notability. This is a resume. Trillfendi (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The page needs to be re-written.Mgbo120 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination was withdrawn and the 'delete' vote was changed into 'keep'. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meighan Desmond

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

A non notable actress. There are no refs in the article. An external link to her imdb profile exists but the website says little to support notability. WP:Before showing nothing I can see. Tagged for notability since last year and more cites since 2012. Szzuk (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find nothing to support notability. She comes close for WP:ENT, but subjectively not close enough. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep After some reading, I am now happy that she had a 'significant role'(recurring characters) in three notable tv shows and change WP:ENT. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep. IMHO, she qualifies via WP:ENT, as she has appeared in four 'notable' TV series (at least, these TV series are 'notable' enough to have their own Wikipedia pages). There are also numerous links to her page from other Wikipedia pages. Do we really want to see all of these become red-linked?? Ross Finlayson (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Appeared" is meaningless, especially since there were only a few appearances on those shows: four times out of 134 episodes? Seven times out of 111 episodes?

Do we really want to see all of these become red-linked?? Delete the name, problem solved. --Calton | Talk 14:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She certainly meets WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in several notable shows. I have added a reference - a book about Hercules: The Legendary Journeys - which has a chapter about her in the role of Discord (not all of it is accessible on Google Books, but I have added citations to the visible information). There is also a book about Shortland Street [1], which has no preview on Google Books - does anyone have access to it? I think it's likely that there is coverage in New Zealand newspapers and magazines, too, but for this period, they are not online, as far as I am aware. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RebeccaGreen. Sheldybett (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The refs added since the start of the AfD are sufficient to satisfy gng. I'd withdraw if there wasn't a delete vote. Szzuk (talk) 09:45, 15 January 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 userfy. The article has been userfied to User:Corowitz/TaharQa and Tunde Ra Aleem. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TaharQa and Tunde Ra Aleem

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

Unable to locate reliable sources for the subjects. Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Bsherr (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~leaning DELETE.~~ WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Claim to fame is their relationship with Jimi Hendricks "Hendrix recorded the songs with his friends Taharqa and Tunde Ra Aleem, twin brothers then known as Albert and Arthur Allen, R&B artists who sang backing vocals on many of his albums. They met in the early 1960s when Hendrix was touring in a backing band. The three shared a flat in Park West Village in Manhattan for a year." (Hendrix's missing Mojo found and licked into shape [Edition 2] Kenber, Billy. The Times; London (UK) [London (UK)]03 Dec 2011: 25. ). Proquest news archive, paywalled [2]. Article is about a postumous album that includes a song written by the Allen brothers, "Mojo Man." I added an article about the somg and album the Baltimore Afro-American to the page. Tehre's also a 2016 article in the Amsterdam News that mentions them (The original Black Panther Party-the Fair Play Committee celebrates 50 years Anonymous. New York Amsterdam News; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]10 Nov 2016: 36.), and an obit (Celebrating the physical life of Tunde' Ra Aleem Anonymous. New York Amsterdam News; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]11 Sep 2014: 45. ). But not much else. I've searched under both names. I'm just not seeing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find sources from the NY Post, Daily Mail, Red Bull Radio and so forth. They go by many names. They easily meet the Wikipedia requirements for notability because they released two albums on Atlantic Records and have been credited on multiple platinum and gold Jimi Hendrix records. They have been in two movies and are featured in numerous Jimi Hendrix bios. I also was able to link several Jimi Hendrix albums where the Aleems were credited as background singers. Many of these albums went Gold and Platinum. Corowitz
- I appreciate the improvements. I think I'd be willing to withdraw the nomination at this point. I would suggest that the article be updated to include their ensemble name in the lede, additional to the other issues identified in the cleanup templates. @E.M.Gregory: I would need E.M.Gregory to agree, though. --Bsherr (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can go along with that, or perhaps USERFY. I do appreciate the efforts being made to source this, despite the difficulties of mid-career name changes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple comments but no !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dratify needs to be rewritten in the userspace.Mgbo120 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. I took a close look, and am not persuaded of notability, although it is possible that a diligent and careful editor might be able to establish that notability exists. What is clear is that the article is a MEMORIAL ESSAY with a great deal of text unsupported by sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Kellyman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR JMHamo (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough significant roles (particularly Solo and Les Mis), enough coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: enough coverage in WP:RS, not just routine listings, to satisfy notability. PamD 09:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG but more work required to keep the page clean.Mgbo120 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough Loved150 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 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) Szzuk (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IK Ogbonna

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

Subject not notable. Awards won are not essentially important ones. Mahveotm (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to have some sources. More work required.Mgbo120 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as although the article needs rewriting the subject himself does pass WP:NACTOR with significant contributions to his art including over one hundred film appearances, there is national news coverage in the article but it needs additional refs but it should be kept and improved Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per keep votes above. HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough. Keep and improve.Tamsier (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I could also have described this as "keep", but it's clear that this article isn't getting deleted. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air Flight 2708

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

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing I can see make this particularly noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, nobody killed, it didnt hit anything important and the aircraft was repairable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep. Per WP:GNG and also WP:AIRCRASH (the incident involved serious damage to the aircraft). 12 injured and lots of coverage, the latest from this year. Easy keep, what is the nom thinking? You need to do more than just say "not notable" when there's coverage from reliable sources already cited in the article. FOARP (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serious damage to the aircraft - are you sure the report calls it "Slightly Damaged", other than an engine change some penetrating marks on the left wing flaps, most of the coverage are news reports which would be expected but doesnt indicate any long term notability. The injuries were not serious some were just scratces and bruises. Clearly not an "easy" keep. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An engine fire is pretty obviously serious damage. Can the plane fly with it? No. Serious? yes. Plus we have sustained coverage over two years, serious findings of wrong-doing etc. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per WP:EVENT and the Asahi Shimbun article from 2018 cited in the article. I don't have strong feelings on whether the ongoing coverage is sufficiently substantial, but I certainly would not have considered nominating the article for deletion had I simply happened upon it. Dekimasuよ! 20:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since there were no fatalities and (apparently) no significant process/procedure changes as a result of the incident, it all comes down to whether the damage to the aircraft was serious or not. I lean towards keep, because an engine fire seems pretty serious to me, even though this one wasn't as bad because of the timing of the incident (caught before takeoff rather than after). PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it qualifies as a significant process/procedure change, bu the FAA did issue an airwothiness directive as a result of the accident requesting inspection of turbofans of the same model as that in which the fire occurred, see p. 56 of the JTSB report. FOARP (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: The document you posted also has some other actions that could point towards a Keep result - on pg. 57, it is mentioned that the engine manufacturer made changes to their manufacturing and inspection process, and the airline made some noticeable changes to their evacuation diagrams and procedures. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely newsworthy and no lasting impact on regulation.Charles (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Barely newsworthy", but covered by news reports over a period of years? FOARP (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing AIRCRASH. A blip of news just after the accident and then one article when the final report came out a couple of years later don't constitute significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also consider deleting the similar Singapore Airlines Flight 368. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Engine fire, minor injuries during deplaning. Doesn't pass the WP:AIRCRASH essay. Coverage seems to be limited to around the event itself and (much less) around the investigation report - so not WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage two years after the event isn't continued coverage? An engine fire isn't significant damage? FOARP (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Engine fires are routine aviation incidents (though usually in flight, not during takeoff) - e.g. the Australian regulator had some 40 (IFSD + engine failures) events in 2008-2002.[3] (number used to be much higher - was curious what the modern incidence rate was). If the sole followup reporting is the obligatory air safety investigation report (and not much reporting thereof) - it is not continuing coverage in my mind. If you had this incident mentioned along side other incidents, or other coverage - I would be possibly swayed.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — Coverage is too inconsistent to be considered continued. The engine fire is indeed minor in comparison to notable incidents and the injuries not too serious (thankfully). Perhaps some future evaluation/reflection beyond the routine investigative work will be made, establishing a claim of notability. But as of now, that is not the case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Editor has been blocked INDEF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how this is different from British Airways Flight 2276 other than in the availabilty of English-language sources. Deletion will only increase systemic bias. Continued coverage includes the investigation and crew awards. --Pontificalibus 08:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relevant essay says "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry." We could argue about whether it was serious damage or not, but "the FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating inspection of engines of the type involved in the fire" means that there was a change to regulations resulting from the accident. (I also see that this accident is mentioned as an example of what could be prevented if there was prognostics and health management [4].) RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring inspections of similar engines after an incident does not look like a change in regulation, only an enforcement of it.Charles (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see significant coverage at all. Trillfendi (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:GNG, WP:AIRCRASH, WP:GEOSCOPE.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Pontificalibus. The event received ongoing coverage thanks to those news sources. I would say notability is a borderline call. SportingFlyer talk 08:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of other articles on similar incidents are kept by the Wiki, and this particular incident has been used in some of the said articles as a point of discussion.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somebody messed up but nobody killed, it did not hit anything important and the aircraft was repairable. The Banner talk 00:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems fairly routine coverage and not a significant incident. Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only does it pass WP:GNG, but when the FAA mandate as a result of this incident, it also passes WP:AIRCRASH. Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic is clearly notable and it's vital for Korean economyMgbo120 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the incident, while not major, not routine either. There was enough damage, evacuation via slides, 12 hospitalized, to just make it. MB 01:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Frackas

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

Non-notable porn producer with extraordinary claims not supported by independent sources. The article's references are company press releases. Award nominations do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. An independent search for reliable sources yielded trivial coverage, failing WP:BIO. Prod contested by article's creator. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Gene93k and suspicious of WP:CONFLICT, the article and other related to itself are the only contributions of the user.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topic fails WP:GNG entirelyMgbo120 (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:BASIC and no first placed awards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delte non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 19 January 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) 00:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Lax

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

Endorsed prod was contested on the basis that the subject is “likely” notabile. We shouldn’t go by likely or not likely and go by what we see in the article. Based on the article as it is written now, there is nothing notable about David Lax. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC. I cannot find any third-party sources regarding the subject. Jmertel23 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the notion that we need to limit our evaluation of notability to material currently included in the article. A Google Scholar search suggests a pass of WP:PROF#C1; he’s the first author of several publications cited >100 times. He’s the co-author of a book, and I haven’t looked for reviews which would pass WP:AUTHOR, but I don’t think it’s relevant given the pass of WP:PROF. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Policy clearly states, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep appears to be in line with WP:PROF#C1 but more work is requiredMgbo120 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Google Scholar is showing five publications with over 100 citations each, one with over 2000. I think that's enough for WP:PROF#C1. However it's a bit of a red flag that I could only find one published review of his two books (not enough for notability via WP:AUTHOR). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beriev Be-2500

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

This has just been converted to a redirect (twice) as "not notable". I can see no prior discussion to justify this, and it's certainly contentious. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason given of 'This is an unbuilt dead project, as such it has to pass GNG and doesn't.' is no reason to blank an article. We have many articles on unbuilt projects that still meet GNG. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andy Dingley: Point of order: the article was never blanked, and I'd appreciate it if you'd strike that misleading claim. It was redirected to the general subject matter. We do have many articles on unbuilt projects that still meet GNG - heck, I've written quite a few of them. That WP:OTHERSTUFF meets GNG. This doesn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked and redirected it here.

Not even a merge and redirect, the overall GEV article still had an unexplained photo of the Be-2500, and now a broken link to this article. The text content related to this topic had gone from the WP corpus. So, I see 'blanking' as a perfectly reasonable description. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search does not show much of substantive media coverage of concept, mainly sourced to company. Reywas92^Talk 01:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of independent reliable sources found by these searches and these books have some coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes WP:GNG. The topic is encyclopedic and good for future inventionsMgbo120 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgbo120: Did you really mean delete there? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:corrected. I meant to type "keep". Was a mistake dear. Thanks for reaching outMgbo120 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there of GNG meeting for this unbuilt project? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one has enough refrerences. Only because it is (yet) an unbuild project, is no reason to delet it. We have a great number of equal projects on wikipedia Boeing Truss-Braced Wing, Bell X-16,... Halbrahm aber voll (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm pretty sure there is enough precedence to keep this article afloat. No reason to delete all articles that are like this. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 09:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody's suggesting deleting all articles like that. "I'm pretty sure" is not a valid argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to redirect. This was redirected twice to a valid topic for this unbuilt project and the most recent time it was restored by a random IP on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This was not built and never will *be* built so we don't follow the "it's an aircraft, it's notable" standard. It has to clearly pass GNG - and as far as I can tell it does not. There was a brief burst of company-sourced interest in this and then - unlike the OTHERSTUFF the IP cited - it died away to nothing. The references in there now are GlobalSecurity (questionable reliability), Beriev (primary source), and Seaplane International, which is the one that is a start at GNG but.. If anyone can find and add additional third-party reliable sources that aren't regurgitations of Beriev's promotion at the time, then I'll happily change to Keep - in fact, find one reference in AvLeak and add it and I'll change on the spot - but barring that, this can be covered in the article it has been redirected to, twice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found such sources above. I would prefer not to add any to the article as it's over 40 years since I passed my A level in Russian, so I'd prefer to leave it to someone with a bit more fluency, but the sources clearly exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and NOT redirect Redirect this article is a bypassing of an articles for deletion discussion. "Died away to nothing" is no reason to justify a deleting nor a redirection. We have a lot of other unbuilt project who never ever will *be* built. And no one seriously comes up with the proposal to delete or redirect them. These are not isolated cases but established wikipedia standard.... Bell D-188A, Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar, Silbervogel or if whe stay by the Ekranoplan TTS-IS, Boeing Pelican. And BTW~i add this to the article: *Soviet and Russian Ekranoplans, Sergey Komissarov and Yefim Gordon, Ian Allan Publishing Midland, Pages 192 - 199. ISBN:978-1-85780-332-7

Selgis (talk) 09:02, 20 January 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 19:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Ostuni

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

Non-notable youtuber, no independent coverage and the deletion log here at itwiki is probably relevant for whether or not there are decent sources in Italian. Praxidicae (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search did not turn up any reliable sources. Clearly promotional (ex: "very famous"). Subject fails WP:GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Italian article has been deleted and salted. --Kbabej (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've written the same article on Lombard Wikipedia and I can confirm the lack of reliable sources. By the way, for an Italian public he may be notable, because he's the Italian-speaking youtuber with most subscriber. I think the article is not promotional, Italian school has a very poor English language learning system and so the "very famous" may be just a poor language form. --Sciking (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 18 January 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 19:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xavi Simons

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

Admittedly WP:NFOOTY is not really my forte but I see no evidence this person meets it nor have they received coverage that would otherwise indicate notability. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as the player has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, at the age of 15 this article is obviously way WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:26, 16 January 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 08:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iggy Suarez

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

Article deleted by PROD in 2012, then recreated in 2015. Subject wasn't notable then and isn't now. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. All sources are of the WP:ROUTINE variety, no significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBASE. subject participated in a major international competition as a member of a national team.--TM 17:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Namiba, my understanding of WP:BASEBALL consensus is that the World Baseball Classic qualification is not a major international competition. Main WBC only. Am I wrong? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable as a minor league player or manager.. the WBC qualifiers do not qualify as a major international tournament. Spanneraol (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who says? WP:NBASE specifically list the WBC as a major international event. I see no reason why qualifiers would not be included.--TM 21:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The qualification is not actually the tournament... by definition it is a qualification tournament.. a separate thing... and involves many nations that dont make the tournament and have no chance of making it.. opening it up to all of them is really silly.. as those players are not going to get the level of coverage that WP:BASE is talking about. Spanneraol (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, the qualifying tournament is still part of the WBC. It is not a separate event from the WBC but a facet of it that occurs prior to the main tournament.--00:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for athletes. Reywas92^Talk 01:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass GNG. The WBC qualifier isn't part of the WBC any more than Olympic qualifiers are part of the Olympics. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NBASE. WBC qualifiers are not part of the tournament itself, but a chance to perform your way into the tournament, much like trying out for a team does not mean that you were a member of said team. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete not even close to being notable, but so are so many footballers we have articles on. We need to reconsider our absurdly low notability guidelines for athletes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer R. Niebyl

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

WP:BLP of a physician and medical writer, not properly sourced to any evidence that she passes our notability standards for physicians or writers. As always, the notability test for people is not just the ability to nominally verify that they and their work exist, but the references here are exclusively to her own primary source profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with. To be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, however, what she needs is reliable source coverage in media sources that are independent of her, which haven't been shown here at all — people get Wikipedia articles by having media do journalism about them, not by having staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)" as an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine, formerly the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, as stated in the article. She would also meet other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, but she only needs one. I have found and added a biography published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, as part of their Giants in Obstetrics and Gynecology Series. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF as argued above. (I am not convinced that the organizations of which she is past president [5] or Fellow [6] are "major" enough/sufficiently exclusive about who they make Fellows to count, but they are at least in the "eh, doesn't hurt" category.) The underlying theme of that guideline is that scholars and academics can be noteworthy through their work even without gobs of media coverage, which seems to be the case here. The article could stand a good de-CV-ization, but I don't think it warrants deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she may actually meet WP:PROF #1. 1 and 2 referenced in the article are independent RS which refer to her as a "giant" or "legend" in her field. Not sure on citation rates in her field, but she's first or second author on several papers or books which have a couple hundred citations each. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 19:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional hardball

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

I Prod'ed this as WP:NOTDICT; the tag was removed with the irrelevant rationale; 'meets notabity guidelines'. It is still a dictionary definition, and I believe that the underlying principle is way older than 2004, as claimed. TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, including academic source; concept has gotten attention in political science and law scholarship. Neutrality^talk 16:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the nomination rationale. This is a definition of a term.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)≤[reply]

No, it's an explanation of a concept. This is not a dictionary definition any more than our articles on (to take a few random examples) procedural democracy, political mobilization, rule of law, etc. are dictionary definitions. Neutrality^talk 16:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - much like the page Whataboutism, this is a slogan. I agree it seems likely that this combination of words has been used in history classrooms for years to describe in particular court-packing. This usage note deserves a wiktionary page. The text in the article is good, it deserves to be kept. Should it be merged to a larger article (Constitutional Crisis#Tactics, for example), or should it feed the google knowledge engine an infobox and blurb? I don't know. Others will perhaps have stronger opinions. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the article is named after a buzzword (which is probably a non-notable neologism). The general topic regarding political norms in the United States is surely notable. I don't see a good merge target, so perhaps this should be renamed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My gut said "delete," but after looking around a bit, this seems to be a thing:
- Tushnet, Mark V. (2004). "Constitutional Hardball". The John Marshall Law Review. ISSN 0270-854X.
- Balkin, Jack (2008). "Constitutional Hardball and Constitutional Crises". Faculty Scholarship Series.
- Bernstein, David E. (2018). "Constitutional Hardball Yes, Asymmetric Not so Much". Social Science Research Network. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- Fishkin, Joseph; Pozen, David E. (2018). "Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball". Columbia Law Review. 118 (3).

The article goes well past WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like WP:BEFORE has not been performed, a quick look in Google Books shows plenty of sources [7], ditto in Google Scholar - [8]. Should easily pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment. Keeping it will be wise also.

If you just click on the Article Search Google Books link and Scholar, you will find a whole library full of books and scholarly articles dealing with this subject. And this is also regularly part of the discourse in common news sources. These are at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on.

Exceeds WP:GNG. Already way more than a dictionary definition.

It should inform all of us whether this exercise should continue.

No doubt the article and sourcing can be improved. But that is part of the normal editing process, and no reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the NOM had done a WP:BEFORE they would have noticed. Searching Google for a definition, the first entries for the subject come from the law schools at Yale, Georgetown, Columbia and Harvard. Other WP:RS quote those law discussions. Simply put, its a thing which the article covers, supported by sources. I'll go further. This is an example of a frivolous AfD. I think the NOM should be penalized for wasting our time. Trackinfo (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is no process to penalize frivolous nominators who ignore the WP:BEFORE, but there should be. Trackinfo (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about for those who ignore WP:AGF? TJRC (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I assume TJRC meant that comment as a sarcastic personal attack against me, there actually is a point to be made. Editors who are adjudicated as having violated WP:AGF can have their editing privileges removed. There is no enforcement against editors who abuse WP:BEFORE. I am not referring to the Nominator of this ill founded AfD, but there are some who are serial abusers of creating *fDs without performing WP:BEFORE and I do think there should be a point system to adjudicate abuse so those editors should lose their *fD nominating privileges. Trackinfo (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we all WP:AGF because it is required. Moreover, the implicit threats to those who transgress is a mere Whataboutism diversion. I trust we will be WP:Civil and comment on the edits and article, not on each other.

The article should not be deleted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Especially not with so many viable merge targets. Given WP:NOTPAPER and all, maybe a page like WP:RULEZ#hardballerZ would be a good !place to fortify and re-constitute wiki-praxis. What do you think, 13? ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's nothing new about this – see What America can learn from the fall of the Roman republic, for example. We don't need a recentist baseball metaphor for this when there are plenty of other pages already, including:

Abuse of process

Corruption

End justifies the means

Letter and spirit of the law

Andrew D. (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big encyclopaedia. Almost 5.8 million articles. WP:Not paper. As your list suggests, there is some overlap, but they are not synonymous. No reason to merge, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that sufficient coverage exists, though in non-English language sources, and the coverage can be used to expand this article substantially. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanremo Music Festival 2019

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

WP:CRYSTAL. I would have ordinarily redirected it as Whispering, Elmidae and Praxidicae did before me, but they have been reverted at every turn. My choice would be to restore the redirect until the event has happened but sysop protect it until then. SITH (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This event is notable and almost certain to take place (in about three weeks). It could certainly be built out more already--for comparison, see the Italian, German, or French versions of this page. I think that it is a convenience to readers to have this page created already. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Lucifero4

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as previously done, until there is a) sufficient content available to potentially support an article (that is the stub criterion that all of these "upcoming event in 2023" fragments keep violating), and b) sufficient sourcing for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep This is a major cultural event, taking place in less than a month. We have articles on future Olympic Games and Football World Cups that are far less certain to take place. With all due respect, the silliest delete nomination I've seen in all my years at WP. Jeppiz (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just take a look at the Italian version of this page. Plenty of informations and extensive coverage. Even if it would not happen, it would still be notable. 151.74.244.146 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 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 08:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Cline

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

Delete I hate to say it, but I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for notability. Craig was well-known and well-loved, judging by the comments, but without proper references, topic fails WP:BIO. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no convincing claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Railway Market – Central and Eastern European Review

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

No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: couldn't find any coverage about this publication online. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 13:29, 16 January 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. ~ GB fan 14:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Caudell

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Only the unreliable IMDb is used, which isn't by itself enough to warrant an article, and any other sources found are subpar and/or don't go into much depth on him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to have only had minor roles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that is all terrifically minor but as far as I'm concerned should add up to notability, even though by a thin margin. Weak keep, with thanks to E.M. Gregory's work. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY the Hal Erickson book I just added, after Drmies made his comment, puts it over the top. Minor roles, minor attention paid, plus minor attention paid to singer-songwriter career. It is useful to readers to be able to identify minor actors in films.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though the Hal Erickson book offers a fair amount of depth, Courier-Tribune gives less than a cumulative paragraph on him (not enough for WP:SIGCOV), and I can't really assess the Globe and Mail citation as it requires a login. Could you perhaps find something more accessible? One citation with significant coverage by itself isn't enough and it's hard to measure citations that need logins. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added source as requested by Nom. A book. More books and magazine and newspaper stories show up in searches. And, of course, paywalled sources are legitimate sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The additions do help. I'm not saying paywalled sources are bad, only that it's harder to assess their depth. Anyway, Days of Our Lives: A Complete History of the Long-Running Soap Opera only contains a very minor mention of him, but I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupie goes into much more detail and might be just enough for this page to be worth keeping unless anybody has objections over its credibility. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:29, 13 January 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 19:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot (Spanish American independence)

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

Unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~I'm also going to nominate~~ Patriot Governments (Spanish American independence) needs to be renamed, but to what? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 16 January 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 19:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mattilo

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

Non-notable musician, promotional article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement by the article's creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON for the kind of sources you would expect for a biographical article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising for a 17-year-old musician. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, offered or found. The "media outlets" mentioned in the article are a blog and what appear to be two paid publicity sites. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and other rationale above. Too soon, promotional, no reliable sources. Eagleash (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not MySpace.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK1. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital addict

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

non WP:MEDRS compliant, WP:SYNTH, important issue, new article proposed E.3 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's rationale consists of "This article is bad. We should have a better article on this topic." However, deletion is not cleanup. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with the above statement. I have attempted thorough cleanup by citing previously uncited statements that were unable to be cited on the page I made digital media use and mental health. I hope more can come across from this page but I can’t see it yet. In my opinion there are three options 1. Keeping both pages and cleaning up both
2. Keeping this page and improving it with the citations and text on the other page which is much more policy compliant, with careful consideration of the title. 3. Deleting this page and moving all useable content to the other. Thanks to everyone. —E.3 (talk) 01:32, 14 January 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) 00:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skipp A. H. Williamson

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

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

No real claim to fame here. Sources are either listings or casual mentions. Being a businesswoman isn't enough to pass the bar of WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This person was named 3rd most influential management consultant in Australia by the Australian Financial Review, the country's leading business news paper. She is one of the leading business people in the country and owns a global consulting firm. Compared to others on Wikipedia, she ought to measure up quite well. I would say.

Against deletion. New but motivated (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable: a profile as "success story", one of top 50 LGBTI business executives in Australia, The most influential consultants in Australia revealed (one of 5), etc. Not just passing mentions. Possibly Fellowship of Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering is in itself a notability claim too. PamD 10:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on article title: if kept, rename to Skipp Williamson as sources, even including formal ones like fellowship list, don't use her middle initials. Would have moved it myself except for ongoing AfD. PamD 10:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For info: on going to create the redirect from the natural title of Skipp Williamson I found there that an article at that title had been created in Dec 2015, speedied A7, moved to userspace as User:Donaldeval/Skipp Williamsonat user's request, deleted at user's request, user then blocked; page was re-created in March 2016 and March 2017 and deleted each time as "(G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Mamadoutadioukone) in violation of ban or block (TW))". I know nothing about that blocked user, and can't see whether this article is a re-creation of that ... but the "success story" ref is October 2017, so this is clearly NOT an exact copy, at least, of the deleted version. PamD 10:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree w the renaming suggestion.

New but motivated (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable in Australian context. one of the bigger employers in the industry Rmarsden (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just enough IRS to satisfy WP:NEXIST to get over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fit in any more acronyms? ;) Rmarsden (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Doctor

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

This page is about what appears to be a piece of fanfiction, albeit one with a famous actor. The references fall far short of RS guidelines, and a Google search doesn't throw out anything more reliable. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate reaction from one originator

Not fan fiction

It is not clear what is meant by 'fanfiction' (or 'fan fiction'?). The Dr Who meme is fiction of course, but this was a serious attempt to contribute to contemporary drama in a meaningful way. I will ask the author and the community concerned to dig deeper into the references and respond here - the article (as it stands) was published shortly after the completion of the first performance(s).

It is important in the local history

The development and production of this dramatic work was at the behest of, and with the support of, an extensive local community in Liverpool. It is an important factor in their recent history and dramatic efforts. It gained wider interest as will be evidenced and it was the beginning of a project that will continue.

It is an important shared matter for different groups

This work stands at the intersection of at least four perspectives: the core Dr Who fan base, those interested in Dr Who spin-offs, the Ken Campbell fan base, the community of local actors in Liverpool that supported and realised it, and it also demonstrates an idea that actual recorded material from deceased performers can be used to perpetuate their work and inspire future work. There is of course an argument that it could be incorporated into some other (better-known?) corpus of Wikipedia work, but this reviewer's view is that it is better to let it stand alone and be cross-referenced from other places.

I will revert with further comments when I have heard from other sources AndyB (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding: please bear in mind that any arguments in support of keeping the article need to be based on WP:GNG, in particular with regard to having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnotable radio episode that hasn't attracted much mainstream notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no useable sources found that cover this. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 16 January 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 08:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darell (rapper)

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

Lack of sources that are not passing mentions or personal social media posts. Notability as an artist nowhere near sufficiently documented (including, as far as I can determine, Spanish-language sources). Does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my source review below. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

"Anuel AA Reveals He and J.Lo Will Feature on the Second Remix of "Te Boté"". Remezcla. 2018-07-18. Retrieved 2019-01-14. - Only listed as collaborator, nothing else. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suarez, Gary. "With Help From Bad Bunny, Nicky Jam And Ozuna, A Latin Trap Single Does Mainstream Numbers". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-01-14. two very brief mentions. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suarez, Gary. "With New Remixes By Anuel AA And Jennifer Lopez, 'Te Boté' Reigns Supreme". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-01-14. Briefly mentioned, to state that the verse that he provided is absent from the hit that the article discusses. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"'Te Bote (Remix)' Tops Google's Most-Searched Spanish Lyrics in 2018". Billboard. Retrieved 2019-01-10. - simply listed as collaborator. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Isgro

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

Local mayor whose only claim to fame is telling David Hogg to "eat it". Local coverage of this one event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isgro is now vice-chair of the Maine Republican Party and a multi-term mayor of one of Maine's largest cities. Those are his "claims to fame". The incident with David Hogg contributes to his notability but its existence is not reason to delete his article.--TM 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being vice-chair of a state political party chapter, nor being mayor of a city with a population of just 16K, constitutes an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — and no, the fact that the state is small enough that a population of 16K is enough to make it one of the state's 15 largest cities does not automatically make him special, as the notability standards for mayors do not test for the city's ranking in an ordinal list of city sizes either. The notability test for smalltown mayors hinges entirely on the ability to reliably source enough genuinely substantive content about him to make him a special case over and above most other smalltown mayors — but that hasn't been shown here at all, and nothing that has been shown here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to pass that test. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does Isgro's notability rise "over and above" most people in a similar office? Of course. Both the controversy around David Hogg and his subsequent election as vice chair of the Maine Republican Party mark Isgro as substantially more notable than Maine mayors of cities twice the size of Waterville. But more importantly, this case raises questions of who and what Wikipedia is for. As mayor of one of the largest cities in the state and vice chair of Maine's GOP, Isgro is an inherently important figure in the Maine political landscape. Failing to include him in Wikipedia would deprive readers interested in Maine politics of important information.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The controversy around David Hogg" just makes him a WP:BLP1E, and being vice-chair of a state political party counts for exactly jackspit against our notability criteria in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about his work in that role to get him over WP:GNG for it. Our job here is not to keep articles about people who can't be properly sourced as notable just because one random anonymous internet person thinks they're important — our job is to follow the media coverage, create articles about people who get enough media coverage to pass our notability standards, and not create articles about people who don't. The depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage in media is what tells us whether a person is actually "important" enough to have a Wikipedia article or not — nobody is ever so critically important for us to have an article about that we waive the sourcing requirements on the grounds that their importance somehow outweighs their inadequate sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – looks like a BLP1E situation. He is not notable other than for his reportedly inappropriate statements about David Hogg. Being the mayor of a small town does not usually constitute an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia automatically, like Bearcat stated. Fails first criteria of WP:GNG and fails criteria two of WP:NPOL. CookieMonster755 ✉ 06:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because Waterville's last mayor ended up becoming governor does not make the office itself notable. Laurier Raymond and other mayors of Lewiston, despite their own "foot-in-mouth" moments, do not pass notability for those events. Normally, party insiders and apparatchiks don't meet notability standards. And despite being one of the "largest cities in the state" (and in that case, everything is relative), Waterville is not a city of global prominence where a mayor would be globally known (See Rudy Guiliani, John Tory, Rob Ford, etc.) Bkissin (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the notability standards for mayors aren't as dependent on global city status as the notability standards for city councillors are. They do still require more substance and sourcing than this, certainly, but they aren't limited to cities of global prominence. Cities far outside that range can have articles about their mayors if we can write and source articles with some actual meat to them, even in cities where the city councillors aren't getting in the door. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, most of his coverage leans towards it being a WP:BLP1E situation. GPL93 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CookieMonster755. --Enos733 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete supper fail of any reasonable notability test. Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 19 January 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 08:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Strategic Counsel

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

The lead relates to a Canadian organisation. The bulk of the article is about an Australian organisation with which it should not be confused. A quick inspection of the revision history suggests that the only reference ever present since the article's creation in 2005 has been the Canadian organisation's website. A WP:BEFORE search turned up some LinkedIn profiles, but nothing WP:RS about either organisation. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to be clear, from its creation in 2005 the article was always only about the Canadian company until just 12 days ago, when somebody added the Australian lobbying firm as brand new content that was never in the article before this year — but neither topic has the proper sourcing to support its notability per WP:CORP or WP:ORG, as the Canadian company cites no sources at all (and has never previously had any sources in it before) while the Australian firm cites only its own self-published primary sourcing. And I can't find solid sourcing on a ProQuest search to repair the Canadian company's notability, either — I get a lot of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things (mainly political or social stories in which SC happens to have done some polling), but I can't find adequate coverage about SC as a subject. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually find the correct kind of sourcing to give one or the other of them much more depth than just a brief statement that it exists, but neither of these topics is cutting it under our notability and sourcing criteria as they actually stand. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 16 January 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 08:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One wet weather races

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

Unnecessary article; could as well create List of Formula One windy weather races if this will stay. The whole article consists of a paragraph and a table which only emboldens the rainy races' name. This page gives no substantial information. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This would seem to fall under WP:NOTSTATS, but I am not an "expert" in this subject. What I can glean from the content is that this is (apparently) a formal declaration made within the sport ("officially declared by race director as wet weather race") that has consequences for how the cars are outfitted (and I don't know what else), so it would seem that it is objectively verifiable. But I don't know what is gained by marking a history of how many and which races were held under this condition. Formula One#Race mentions "wet conditions" and links to this list but does not explain further. I don't know if the nom is being facetious with "windy weather races", but if that's also a possible declaration made by the "race director" then an overview in the parent article of all of the different such race conditions and their consequences would seem like the best way to cover this. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A wet race is definitely a thing within F1: declaration of a race as wet changes the regulations about which tyres can or must be used. Some F1 drivers are specifically known for their skill in the wet; they're called 'rainmasters'; among active drivers, the multi-World Champions Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel, and relative newcomer Max Verstappen. It is not uncommon for one part of the track to be dry (tyres overheat and degrade) and another part wet (driving on a skidpan with zero visibility).

There is no such thing as a windy race.

I have no strong opinion on whether or not this article passes WP:GNG in its current form; but IMO it would pass GNG (under a better title, e.g. Formula One wet weather races) if it included a discussion of the topic in general, which should be easy to source. Narky Blert (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A wet weather race is very important parameter of F1. Race. It is important for statistics, race conditions. Wet weather also changing the regulation of race. Some of the drivers are real specialist for wet races. Windy races has no real influence for motor racing, but rain so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brankom (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure trivia. People have to start remembering that Wikipedia is a general purpose wikipedia and not a fansite for motorsports enthusiasts (let alone F1 specific fans). Whatever is worth mentioning about wet weather racing can be mentioned in the general article on Formula One.T v x1 20:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with the points raised by Narky Blert. The page would pass under a better title, but would also require elaboration, perhaps summarising the significance of the difference of wet conditions in Formula One. Clearly it is more significant than a 'windy race', and there is certainly something to be said about drivers known for their wet-weather ability. I think this may be an example where expanding or improving the article could render it worthy of keeping. Formulaonewiki (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous comment, I thought I might elaborate on potential additional sections which could make this article worthy of keeping:

Wet-weather conditions: Explain the difference this has (the use of wet tyres, how this removes need to run mandatory tyre, potential strategy implications etc.)
List of wet weather races by circuit/Grand Prix: Are there circuits that have been wet-weather races more often than others? Perhaps a table with the most frequent wet-weather races would provide more insight than just the big table of all wet-weather races on its own.
Notable wet-weather races/performances: Some wet-weather races are obviously not particularly interesting and can be rather processional, but there have been several races made particularly unique due to the wet-weather such as Japan 1976, Spain 1996, Italy 2008, Silverstone 2008 or Canada 2011 where the weather has significantly impacted the race result or produced a memorable performance from some drivers, or in the case of Japan '76 where Lauda retired due to the conditions despite contesting the WDC with Hunt.
Rainmasters: Perhaps a brief section with a link to Rainmaster, which mentions Formula One drivers who have been described as a 'rainmaster' for their ability to drive in wet-weather conditions such as Gilles Villeneuve, Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, Lewis Hamilton etc.

Formulaonewiki (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it would "pass" under a different title and with expansion, then it passes currently, because we don't delete pages for fixable reasons. See WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 as this is a recreation of a previously deleted article under a different name. Refer: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rain affected Formula One Grands Prix --Falcadore (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we're going to "speedy delete" something four days into a discussion on the basis of a ten-year old AFD. postdlf (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm struggling to see this as anything but trivia Spiderone 18:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia and original research. Ajf773 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that if this article were to be deleted, it should be as part of a mass discussion that includes similar railway station articles. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halvad railway station

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

I am not seeing enough independent coverage of this station to merit an article. All I personally find is railway timetables. — $f r +$ 17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep all railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy? Or just because other were kept in the past, because others were kept in the past etc. The Banner talk 00:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Relevant policy here would be WP:NBUILD (infrastructure). There's also the essay, WP:STATION. All of which basically sums to "go with WP:GNG". I am unqualified to judge notability here, but at the very least this should be a redirect to Viramgam–Maliya Miyana section or some other suitable article. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus, which is the primary deciding policy, wisely decided long ago that all rail stations are notable. This way thousands of editors don't waste time and energy fleshing out and debating the retention of articles on the tens of thousands of stations when editors efforts are much better spent on creating new articles and improving existing ones. For this and most stations, it's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist. An article for such a station serving a town of over 60,000 (which this one does) in the UK or US would never even be considered for deletion even if there was zero coverage in the article. Is this a case of systemic bias? Oakshade (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping railway stations because they exist is indeed a systematic bias. The Banner talk 12:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the thousands of other similar article on rail stations speaks to the consensus. Ths issue could be addressed by RFC, but picking off this one is not appropriate. MB 02:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My understanding is that railway stations are inherently notable .... but I agree with the above there should be some sort of RFC on it

(SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a perfect example - "Keep because schools are notbale as per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" → RFC takes place → Everyone more or less voted to do away with the essay → Schools are no longer inherently notable (so it can easily be changed).

Anyway keep. –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 20 January 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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haal E Kangaal

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

Fails WP:NFO. Director is notable for winning award for another film, but this film on its own doesnt meet notability criteria. Daiyusha (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability factor added, as in the films world premier in a major art house film festival in Austria. Guddi1111 (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant reliable sources coverage such as a full independent review in The Hindu newspaper shown here thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. The article was promotional as heck but I've trimmed it down and removed any weasel words, peacock terms and POV content (diff). SITH (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 13 January 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 08:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kilcoo Camp

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

There is no notability per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kilcoo hosts Camp Awakening (established as a "camp within a camp") which has received substantial amounts of significant coverage in reliable sources: 1 2 3. "Camp Awakening" basically is Kilcoo so coverage of one is coverage of the other. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no mention of "Camp Awakening" in the article and it appears the "Camp Awakening" is an entirely separate organization which places the participating boys at Kilcoo and the girls in a different place. As such, this organization fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that Camp Awakening isn't mentioned in the article - the standard for deletion is what the article could be, not what it is. FOARP (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "Camp Awakening" "basically is Kilcoo" and "coverage of one is coverage of the other" and therefore Kilcoo should be notable because Camp Awakening is notable. But the only references you provide to support what you say actually don't say anything of the sort. Camp Awakening is an entirely different organization - different people, different website. There is nothing in the Kilcoo article about this Camp and nothing in the Kilcoo website either. Notwitstanding that notability is not inherited, you are reaching a conclusion not supported from the cited sources. On its own merits, Kilcoo Camp fails the tests for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This reference calls Camp Awakening a "Camp within a camp" at Camp Kilcoo that "shares the facilities with mainstream campers" - i.e., they're the same thing. The separate camp you refer to is the girl's camp, which started involvement with Camp Awakening a number of years after the boy's camp. This reference states that "The program is divided into a boys camp and a girls camp — seven kids in each — with the boys staged out of Kilcoo Camp in Minden". The television coverage on Roger's TV linked above begins with a shot of the "Camp Kilcoo" sign and covers the camp. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we actually had an article about Camp Awakening, then this could be mentioned in and redirected there. But they're not the same thing for the purposes of establishing that Camp Kilcoo is notable enough for an article — Kilcoo is a camp facility, while Awakening is an organization that organizes a camping event held at Camp Kilcoo. But notability is not inherited, so the fact that a potentially more notable organization uses Kilcoo as a venue is not a notability freebie that exempts Kilcoo from having to have reliable source coverage about Kilcoo. This is the same as the reason why the camp facility where I used to do Boy Scouts camp in the summer is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because the Boy Scouts themselves are — the camp isn't itself the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear a Wikipedia notability standard, and just because the camp's events included regional Boy Scout camp week doesn't make them the same thing as the Boy Scouts themselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 15 January 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 Balkan Insight. There's a suggestion to merge this into Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (which in turn is just a redirect to Balkan Insight), but I don't see any real consensus to do so. I'll leave the history intact under the redirect so if somebody wants to mine this for material to merge, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Censorship About War Crimes

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

This is not an organisation. It's a campaign run by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and all the references are to its publications. It duplicates information in the articles Association of Court Reporters, TV Justice and Radio Justice . Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: relies totally on WP:SPS to establish notability. SITH (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network is probably notable, though that article also relies on its own publications, but the four articles about its activities should be merged into it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for lack of notability and per WP:TNT. Not independently notable of Balkan Insight; way too much promotion going on. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination in few weeks or months if the sources posted by FOARP are not enough for the nominator. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colos (rapper)

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

No references to reliable sources in the history of this article. No claim of notability. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This appears to be significant coverage of Colos in German, this is an interview but appears to have a brief bio, I'm not sure what kind of publication this is but it doesn't appear to be self-published and does appear to be significant coverage. Really we need some input from German speakers since the references that might show notability appear to be all (?) in German. FOARP (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tugger: The Jeep 4x4 Who Wanted to Fly

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

Notability. Two reviews in local publications, if that is the scale of available refs, is an argument for lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP WP:AUD is 1) only for organisations, 2) a guideline, 3) completely illogical garbage that should be deleted since, according to what it says, coverage in the media of Andorra is "national" and therefore good but coverage in the London media may be "local" and therefore insufficient. The relevant standard is WP:NFILM which two reviews meets, regardless of whether they are "local" (whatever this means) or not. I also see no sign here that the nom has done WP:BEFORE and I'm inclined to think they haven't because of the bit about "if that is the scale of the refs". FOARP (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. Given the cast, there's surprisingly little media attention. But the small American sources, combined with this capsule review in the South African media, are probably sufficient to clear the bar. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Pelofsky

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

Sources are either non-main-stream sites, interviews, local gossip, or not relevant to the subject. Created by an SPA fan. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER after WP:BEFORE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the sourcing is not ideal,a s pointed out. However she does have some kind of presence as a news search turns up many mentions. Not ideal, but I think she may meet GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to me source-able but not notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Ignatius University Centre, Antwerp

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

fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 13:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the past educational history and the currently significant activities of this educational center make it notable and worthy of retention. Jzsj (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ow, the university will be notable. But this just a think tank according to the article. It may be related to the university, but it is not part of it. The Banner talk 00:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The activities of the centre are not significant at all in terms of volume or in terms of their relevance to Wikipedia's readers. See the list of items posted below. The activities listed in the article seek to puff up what is clearly a small and non-notable operation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be the successor to nl:Universitaire Faculteiten Sint-Ignatius Antwerpen after its merger with the University of Antwerp. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The organisation itself added this to that Dutch article in 2010:

Leden van de Sociëteit van Jezus en van de vroegere UFSIA richtten een nieuw academisch centrum in dat de traditie van Ufsia verderzet, zonder zelf een universiteit te zijn: het Universitair Centrum Sint-Ignatius Antwerpen (UCSIA vzw). Het is een onafhankelijke vereniging zonder winstgevend doel die opgericht werd met het doel in de Antwerpse regio de traditie verder te zetten van een Jezuïtisch universitair project dat is toegespitst op thema's die bijzonder gestalte geven aan de christelijke levensvisie en op die manier dienstig is aan het geloof en cultuur en bijdraagt tot een rechtvaardiger samenleving.

Members of the Society of Jesus and of the former UFSIA set up a new academic center that continues the tradition of Ufsia, without being a university itself: the University Center Sint-Ignatius Antwerp (UCSIA vzw). It is an independent non-profit organization founded with the aim to continue the tradition in the Antwerp region of a Jesuit University project that focuses on themes that give special meaning to the Christian vision of life and in this way serves the faith and culture and contributes to a fairer society.

- So, at best it is a spin off.The Banner talk 11:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the meat of the article is in the first two sections, which contains a total of two sources. The third section, which does contains a large number of references, is just a list of the non-notable, routine activities of the article subject. That kind of information belongs on their web site and not here; it is promotion of the activities of the centre, rather than encyclopedic info. In addition, the lede description of the centre as "trying to keep alive" the old spirit and so on, is clearly memorializing and promotional in nature. I was going to say merge to the University of Antwerp, but that article already contains the information in the first two sections. Thus, this article brings to the encyclopedia nothing valuable, save a listing of its regular, non-notsbale academic activities. So, delete.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize the seminar section's listing of non-notable items:

In 2003 UCSIA convened a seminar
in 2005 the Centre organized a seminar
In 2006 held a two-day workshop
in 2007-8 they subsidized four visiting scholars
in 2008 they held a conference
in 2009 they focused on "The Redemptive Power of Humor in Religion", whatever that is. Not encyclopedic.
in 2011 they sponsored a scholar to produce a book
in 2012 a book had coeditors from the centre, and also another book on Sports Governance, Development and Corporate Responsibility
in 2013 another book had coeditors form the centre
in 2014 a seminar was held
in 2015 and 2016, more coeditors (not publishing, mind you) of a couple books
in 2016 they brough an author in to lecture, and ran a workshop
a number of conferneces we co-sponsored, but that does not indicate that the conferences happened at the centre.

In sum, a very paltry list of routine academic, non-notable activities. As is evident, there is not much going on there to merit its notability as a centre... A "centre" that can only manage this many activities in thirteen years is pretty much a defunct centre.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither a spin off nor unsuccessful. Instead, like most centres of this type if it carefully thought out, before funding is secured. The idea that it has not achieved anything is nonsensical, just because the article doesn't have the content, and cant be proven unless an extensive conversation take place to determine if they have been successful. scope_creep^Talk 13:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Zhenghua

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

Primary notability seems to be his claim to have founded a payment service about which we do not have an article . The refs are essentially PR DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi What is your reason for nominating this article for deletion? He is the founder and former CEO of Baidu Wallet and Finance and current CEO of UnPAY. see this article. MrInfo2012 Talk 05:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Zhang is the founder and CEO of UNPay at 30 years old. This company has international presence in payment system/ digital transaction industry. He is listed 40 Under 40 in Fortune. He has many other executive/ management roles in work experience.

SWP13 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to UnPAY, a horrible spammy article by the same page creator. Who I imagine is being paid.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please decide about this article ASAP. TheLongTone Please talk about this article because Zhang is one of the young entrepreneurs of China and we don't have any page about him. I try to remove advertising element of UnPAY. MrInfo2012 Talk 05:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at the sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.businessinsider.sg/UnPAY-in-talks-with-dubai-government-to-build-cashless-city/			About his product, not him.	✘ No
https://www.prunderground.com/UnPAY-supports-haier-laundrys-overseas-ventures-with-holistic-payment-solutions-2/00134728/			About his product, not him, quotes him once.	✘ No
https://t.sina.com.hk/news/article/20181107/0/2/40/UnPAY-and-President-of-Lithuania-In-Talks-on-Possible-Fintech-Cooperation-9400725.html	It's a press release.	Maybe yes for verifying stats but not notability.	All press releases will cover their topic in depth.	✘ No
https://t.sina.com.hk/news/article/20181107/0/2/40/UnPAY-and-President-of-Lithuania-In-Talks-on-Possible-Fintech-Cooperation-9400725.html	It's a press release.	Maybe yes for verifying stats but not notability.	All press releases will cover their topic in depth.	✘ No
http://fortune.com/2018/11/28/alipay-baidu-wallet-finance-UnPAY-digital-payments/			? It covers him a lot, but it's all in the context of his product.	? Unknown
http://tech.qq.com/a/20180912/104402.htm		It's listcruft opinion piece on a site which, as far as I can see, has no editorial oversight.	He's a small subsection of the list.	✘ No
http://iof.hexun.com/2015-01-17/172484209.html		? Unfamiliar with publication.	Mentions him once, about winning an award which doesn't appear to be notable per GNG.	✘ No
https://www.businessinsider.sg/the-fortune-global-tech-forum-UnPAY-wins-fortune-china-innovation-award-to-empower-digital-payment-4-0-worldwide/			Primary coverage is about his product, not him.	✘ No
http://sg.unpay.com/news/unpays-founder-zhang-zhenghua-named-in-fortune-chinas-2018-40-under-40-list/		Maybe for stats but not for assertions of notability.	Of course it is.	✘ No
https://www.fortuneconferences.com/fortune-global-tech-2018/2018-agenda/			Mentions him once and just asserts he spoke at a conference.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Overall, I'd say this, along with the lack of further sources turned up by my own searches, suggests failure of ANYBIO, furthermore I agree with TheLongTone that this stinks of undisclosed paid editing, particularly as an article for UnPay was submitted pretty soon after this AFD was started. All in all, it's a delete from me. SITH (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse: After I saw that DGG said It isn't obvious that Zhenghua doesn't offer financial services, I created UnPAY to prove that he is working on this area and participated in China financial services. It's because I create that article immediately after Zhenghua. I think Zhenghua has enough credibility such as any Chinese entrepreneurs to have a Wikipedia page. MrInfo2012 Talk 12:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shall look at that article separately. I point out that the question isn't credibility, but whether the sources are sufficient to meet our standards. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Subject has coverage in foreign media; just happens to mostly be in Chinese. https://www.baidu.com/s?wd="章政华" -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head of the company has enough notability, also the company has significant coverage in reliable sources. Benyamin-ln (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The question is solely of whether this meets our criteria for inclusion, and it does not. Sources are not sufficient in quality and the coverage is not significant enough in those sources that pass muster. As DGG rightly points out, it isn't an issue of credibility (or truth/accuracy/etc), it is a matter of passing the bar of WP:GNG, which this fails to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs don't confer notability and it looks Paid or COI. Szzuk (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Rose (Trotskyist)

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

He appears to be a writer, WP:before is just showing what he wrote. 2 refs in the article neither suggesting notability, nothing on the web I can see supporting WP:V. Tagged for notability since 2013. Szzuk (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is only a brief one which does not really spell out what he has done to make him notable. Vorbee (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete. I removed one source, since it led only to a non-notable op-ed he once wrote. The remaining source is a deadlink. I also removed three listed essays for which I could find no secondary discussion. His book seems to have gotten only one review. Writing essays. books does not make you notable unless the books and essays are. I can't find anything like a prifile, but John Rose is a very common name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vonn Ströpp

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

Non notable artist. Article is full of OR and possible hoax material. Tagged for notability since 2014. BLP concerns. Szzuk (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not a hoax – there's some coverage in The i [9], Student BMJ [10] and a book published by Reaktion Books [11]. But I'm not sure the totality of coverage is really enough to be significant. The Student BMJs articles are mainly submitted and reviewed by students, and its biographical details on Von Stropp read like they're taken from the exhibition catalogue. The article in The i is a series of quotes by the owner of a gallery selling his work, so it seems a bit questionable whether it is truly independent of the subject. Hmm, really not sure on this one, so I'd be interested in some more views... --Qwfp (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too found some book sources, but none are in-depth mentions. Lacks SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Ford (painter)

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

Tagged for notability since 2014. A before isn't returning anything that says he's notable. Szzuk (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw a few sources in a search. The best was this bio in a list of outsider artists. As the bio says, he was a banker, carpenter and soldier for most of his life, and took up painting afterwards. He had a couple of decent solo shows, but all together the coverage of his career does not establish anything beyond the regular practice of an artist. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 22:49, 14 January 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 19:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Cholensky

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

Not notable and only close, first-hand sources even try to establish notability. PROD denied. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying that I did not "deny" the PROD. The article was PROD'ed in 2014 and the PROD was objected to, thus the article is not eligible for rePRODing. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything at all. The political party she co-chaired has apparently 1500 members. valereee (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being co-chair of a minor political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL — it can get a person over the bar if they can be reliably sourced to enough media coverage about them to clear WP:GNG for it, but does not guarantee an article to every chair of every political party just because their existence technically verifies on the political party's self-published website. But two of the three footnotes here are primary sources, and the one that is real media is not journalism about her being co-chair of a political party, but just a self-submitted paid inclusion engagement announcement in the classifieds of her local hometown newspaper. None of this is the kind of sourcing we require to make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and I'm not finding any evidence of anything better either. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 13 January 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. Ultimately, WP:N is a consequence of WP:V: if there are no reliable sources about this party, we have no verifiable content to put in an article. Sandstein 08:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pragatisheel Bahujan Samaj Party

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

Declined PROD. Original PROD reason from StraussInTheHouse was "Fails WP:NORG due to lack of multiple, sustained, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources."

Declined by Soman with comment "Held 4 seats in state legislature, thus easily passes minimum notability criteria for political parties. Lack of references is not, in itself, cause for deletion".

As we do not currently have an SNG for political parties that I am aware of, we default to NORG, which specifically mentions political parties. NORG requires significant coverage in independent sources, and if they do not exist for this minor splinter party (I didn't find any either), then we cannot maintain the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per my original rationale and PMC’s expansion on it. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - parties represented in legislatures are notable, and it is an established in-house practice not to delete articles on parties represented in legislatures. Article now sourced. When reflecting of NORG, it must be understood that the online media landscape in India (and in particular, in regards to regional media in a state like MP) looked very different in 1999 than 2019. Having a reliable source on the legislative representation ought to be sufficient for retaining the article, keeping in mind that the BSP split would have been well covered in regional, print media at the time. --Soman (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom that the subject failed WP:NORG, the article is completely based on WP:OR none of the 2 sources mentioned in the article mention what the article claims. Based on my own independent research on the subject, there is absolute lack of reliable sources about the subject. the WP:ORGCRITE is miles away from being met. Per NORG the subject needs significant coverage in "multiple" independent, reliable secondary sources. Soman please remember WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you should not use information in the article as evidence to claim notability without verifying the information yourself and adding reliable third party sources to back up your claim. Assertion of notability lacking reliable sources that can prove WP:ORGCRITE is not helping the AfD discussion in any way.--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is Wikipedia used as the source?? --Soman (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your keep vote above, you have used the article as it stands right now as a basis. The subject right now, ~~cannot even be verified,~~ notability is far off. You stated "...represented in legislatures" can you provide a source that states the same ? I am aware of the source situation in India, I am equally aware of the promotional editing done by the members of the non notable political parties in the area. ~~The article is "not" sourced right now, it has fake refs.~~ I am willing to reconsider my delete vote, if we can find sources that can claim passing of WP:ORGCRITE, from what I searched, there isn't any. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC) [Struck based on below 13:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)][reply]

I'm not generally here to argue with people supporting my AfD nom, but the sources Soman added do support the facts in the article (do a Ctrl+F search for "Pragatisheel"). That being said, given that both are government reports and aren't even that in-depth, I still don't think they support the claim of notability under NORG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note, I stand corrected. Might have mistyped the spelling during Ctrl +F. The parliament journal mentions the split. And that is the only passing mention it had, which is not sufficient for WP:ORGCRIT--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, in that, we fully agree. (Side note for anyone reading: the second source is actually worse than I thought. It only provides the names of the four people mentioned in the article and doesn't include any details about them or the party they split to form). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spanner (software)

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

Obscure utility software that shipped along with just a few of the products listed at List_of_Garmin_products Not suitable to merge since listing product details of each of those would be non-encyclopedic Cander0000 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand or agree with your logic against merging, but I do agree with the delete. A really paranoid android (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't appear to be notable - no independent references. About a Garmin product from ~2001, not Google's Spanner (database). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I found two book sources ([12] [13]), but neither constitutes significant coverage. This page should not redirect to List of Garmin products, because Spanner (database) would make a better redirect target. — Newslinger talk 12:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do NOT redirect to Spanner (database); that's a totally unrelated piece of software. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:42, 21 January 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 19:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav People's Army withdrawal from Bosnia (1992)

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

This subject is already extensively covered between Yugoslav People's Army, Bosnian War, Prijedor ethnic cleansing, Bijeljina massacre, Siege of Sarajevo, 1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla, and to a lesser extent in other articles on related battles in the conflict, such as Battle of Kupres (1992). Moreover, RS cited by the article don't place any specific importance on the withdrawal of JNA forces as a holistic event, providing little motivation to further cover it as a subject in an article separate from Bosnian War and Yugoslav People's Army. Furthermore, this article omits mention of massacres conducted by JNA-controlled forces and of the JNA's role in starting the Siege of Sarajevo which would eventually become the longest-lasting siege of a capital city in modern history, as well as stating without citation that After Bosnia and Herzegovina gained independence the Yugoslav People's Army received orders from Belgrade to withdraw from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and referring to what in the article Bosnian War is called a "kidnapping" of Alija Izetbegovic as an "arrest"; taken together, this leads me to believe that this article is essentially a POV fork of other articles on the Bosnian War. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A spin-off should have more detail on its subject than the parent, not less. The article is duplicative as the content exists in the articles linked in the nom. I'm not sure what this article adds to the encyclopedia. Levivich (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Levivich and WP:CONTENTFORK. A redirect could be warranted, but am not sure of the best target.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 20 January 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 08:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sayh Dibba

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

Non-notable, unverifiable article on an apparent field. Two major problems with keeping this article:

Per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features may have articles if significant content has been written about them. I was not able to find any indication that this is the case with regards to this area, and since we only have an English name and not an Arabic one, our native-language search is hampered.
As has been established in a number of recent AfDs, the Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates is at best questionable (See Alexandermcnabb's commentary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zidm), so sourcing an entry solely to it is a failure of WP:V. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a reference to the Dibba plain here. If "Sayh" just means "plain" then it is possible that this meets WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, that is the exact book I called out in my nomination as utterly unreliable; please read the comments in the AfD I linked. Relying on it for anything is a failure of WP:V. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't been aware that it was the same one but on closer inspection I see you're right. I move Delete on that basis. FOARP (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fujairah. The most I can find are two sites that have basically the same information - geo coordinates, the type of plain it is that's about all. Even with the book mention above, I don't think this passes WP:GEOLAND. Aurornisxui (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Looked some more, thought about it, Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND.[reply]
Delete unverifiable geographic location that has no coverage in reliable media. I also note that the page has been this way for more than a decade. Aurornisxui the sources that you found with "basically the same info" most likely are Wikipedia mirrors. There is nothing verifiable to merge anywhere. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: No, they were not wikipedia mirrors, they were map sites. Aurornisxui (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aurornisxui, thanks for the reply. Many map sites populate data after crawling through coordinates from Wikipedia and other map sites. So they may still fall under WP:MIRROR. In any case the map sites are not enough for notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:09, 17 January 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 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Unbound: Discovering Frankenstein's True Creator

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

Insufficiently notable. The book has a dismissive footnote from Leslie S. Klinger and is pooh-poohed by Duncan Wu (both cited in the current article) but otherwise only has fleeting mentions in RS. This does not meet the threshold of WP:NBOOK. A mention of the book would however be due at Frankenstein authorship question. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks serious reviews/notice that would confer the notability on the book itself. jps (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find anything that even comes near to meeting WP:NBOOK. --tronvillain (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:FRINGE book with no particular notability. Two people spending a moment to say "this book is bullshit" and a third going, "the author exists and is one of a total of four people to advance this dubious view" do not make for WP:NBOOK level coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what a Fringe book is; books that relate to fringe topics are not excluded from Wikipedia. Publisher is established, author is academically sound, book has an ISBN number. Notability is a spectrum and the bar can be low. The authorship of Frankenstein has been debated since the book was written. While the view that Frankenstein was written by Shelley rather than Mary Shelley is not a mainstream view; it is a view and debated in Frankenstein Unbound by an academic. Such books, more of academic viewpoints, may not receive widespread support or reviews but given the publisher and author can be included in Wikipedia per our own guides. And believe me I don't like the idea that a book like Frankenstein attributed to a woman may have been written by her husband.Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But how does it meet WP:NBOOK? Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NB: "For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice..." and use "common sense" and there "will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but good reasons for the notability of such books should be clear..." I look at the publisher's reputation, the academic training of the author, and the fact that the subject matter has been discussed since Frankenstein was first published and I have to put aside my own position and suggest the book is notable enough to include. And I don't see a good reason to not include. (We aren't short of space). I've seen many comments concerning this book that have to do with the position that the book is Fringe. Fringe does not apply to whether a topic can be included in Wikipedia in the case of books and given publisher and academic qualifications there is no reason think it applies here Littleolive oil (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely common sense dictates that a book which has garnered no significant attention by a guy who has garnered no significant attention on a fringe subject that nobody serious takes seriously ... is not worthy of an article. Let's go through the criterita that WP:NB suggests for academic books:

whether the book is published by an academic press - no
how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media - hardly at all
the number of editions of the book - none since the first
whether one or more translations of the book have been published - no
how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area - it is hardly cited
whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions - no

On every count, policy is guiding us to delete this article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But then again a topic that is once again being discussed with enough weight to interest a reputable publisher is of interest enough to be included here? That's also common sense? I am not suggesting this is a great academic work at this point simply that it meets a low threshold for inclusion. I refer back to my points above. (I haven't checked the institutions that are teaching Frankenstein so cannot comment on use for teaching). With not much more to say for my part; I have to rush off. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 19 January 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 09:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryūkichi Narita

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

Rationale borrowed from my previous similar AfD of Keizaburō Saeki, which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos (no ping as he's no longer active) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroshi Nagae is also currently running.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. I have also checked the Japanese name. In this case I found no Google book results. He is absent from the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography as well as Photography in Japan 1853-1912. He is mentioned in Photography for Everyone, but only trivially. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing in any other article.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted.

Courtesy ping to Hoary, who is knowledgeable on the topic of Japanese photographers, and whose commentary on these AfDs is invaluable to me, especially when it causes me to alter my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello? Narita isn't well known these days even among the (fairly high) number of 328. He's the creator of photographs that would appear in exhibitions of work from the 20s and 30s, or at least those exhibitions whose curators aren't dazzled (or don't want viewers to be dazzled) by a very short list of stars. I'd be surprised if anyone would bother to create an article about him, but stranger things have happened. Meanwhile, for search engines to suggest that there's an article on Narita and for there to turn out to be no more than the feeblest stub is an annoyance. Delete without prejudicing any later attempt to create a worthwhile article on the man. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not likely to ever be more than a stub. Even his date of death is unknown. I was unable to find additional sources in JSTOR or Google Books.LoosingIt (talk) 09:42, 14 January 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. Without prejudice to a possible re-creation as suggested by Hoary. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Nagae

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

Rationale borrowed from my previous similar AfD of Keizaburō Saeki, which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos (no ping as he's no longer active) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. I have also checked the Japanese name. In this case I found no Google book results. He is absent from the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography as well as Photography in Japan 1853-1912. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing in any other article.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot the courtesy ping to Hoary, who is knowledgeable on the topic of Japanese photographers, and whose commentary on these AfDs is invaluable to me, especially when it causes me to alter my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello? Nagae isn't well known these days even among the (fairly high) number of 328. He's probably most noteworthy for a prewar project of photographing 国宝, national treasures. These are usually photographed in the most reverent way; and, given the ideological climate of the period in which Nagae did this, it's inconceivable that he'd have photographed them otherwise. If the photographs lack irreverence or originality, it's most unlikely that they'll cause a stir if republished or reexhibited. This being so, it's unlikely that anybody would want to develop this article. Meanwhile, for search engines to suggest that there's an article on Nagae and for there to be no more than the feeblest stub is an annoyance. Delete without prejudicing any later attempt to create a worthwhile article on the man. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's little chance of expansion beyond the current substub, unfortunately. Bakazaka (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wade (British actor)

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for an actor is not just the ability to nominally verify that he's had acting roles -- it's the ability to reliably source that his having of roles has led to his receiving distinctions, such as winning or getting nominated for a major acting award and/or receiving enough press coverage about his acting to clear WP:GNG. But the only reference here is a simple filmography list in an IMDb-like directory, not reliable source coverage about the subject. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In honor of his Dr. Who work, Exterminate! Exterminate! Fails NACTOR and good old GNG. The only significant role I see is in Little Secret. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and the above. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as argued above does not meet notability requirements (the page suggests his most significant roles in limited release direct to video productions). Dunarc (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Ardell

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

BLP all the references are to his own publications Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a claim that he helped spark the wellness movement.[14] It also has a few other things that could at a stretch be considered notable; Healthy America Fitness Leaders Award; member of the board of trustees of the National Wellness Institute for over a decade. I am not seeing any indication that these achievements are particularly notable however. Considering this I expected to see a bit more in reliable sources. There is an article in Acta Salus Vitae, which is an obscure czech journal (the article is only cited once according to google scholar) that has a two paragraph section [15] and a reasonable mention in [this https://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-35061/11_miller_1_05.pdf] (looks like a German open access publication). Overall not terribly overwhealming for some of the claims made. What all of these have in common, along with a recent story in The Christian post,[16] are mentions to his book High Level Wellness. So I would ideally say to redirect it to the book, but we don't have an article on that and even a loose google search[17] goes to other peoples writings on the subject, so not even sure that is as notable as suggested. For completeness there are very breif mentions in relation to other "gurus" in the Sydney Morning Herald[18] and New York Times Magazine.[19] AIRcorn (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many things wrong with this article but it comes down to lack of notability or reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search does not find adequate independent Rs to establish notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:27, 14 January 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 19:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milana Keller

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

Beyond the multiple issues in the template, this is really a GNG. I even tried using my rudimentary Russian skills to find things—which, in an ironic twist—led me to the Russian page where she’s also being proposed for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources that lead to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have gotten a few magazine covers, but I didn't find any independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NMODEL. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:40, 20 January 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 19:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wirex

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

A directory-like listing on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found; what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Brahiim123 with no other contributions outside this topic. PROD removed by a user with two edits: Special:Contributions/Vance Carver. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My search only found the typical crypto blogs which are not reliable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 14 January 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.