Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 September	18 September >

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 Merge and redirect. Seems like nobody wants to close this. Consensus is to merge and redirect to the "relevant parent article", however, I'm not entirely clear whether the voters consider that to be the article on the location (i.e., Samut Prakan Province) or the article on the team (i.e., Samut Prakan United F.C.). I'm going to close this as though they're going to be merged into the relevant team, however the folks doing the merge should use their discretion to ensure that any useful content from each article (there isn't much) is merged into whereever it will be the most useful, and then redirect the article. ST47 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samut Prakan United Stadium

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. I would also like to nominate these articles for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Given these are stadiums based in different parts of Thailand, I think it's a fair assumption that the levels of coverage could differ; plus the language barrier. If deletion is right, it will come - no rush. R96Skinner (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect each to their relevant parent article - but agree that this kind of bundling is inappropriate. Giant Snowman 08:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect - I'm not concerned with the bundling procedure here - every one of these articles is an entirely unsourced blurb about a Thai football stadium, and while I want to make sure we don't lose any information, there's not much here to merge, really just co-ordinates, and those are already in the parent articles (I've added a couple to the titles.) Most if not all of the parent club articles appear notable but also need sourcing, so I disagree leaving these as a procedural keep - something needs to be done with these articles, and I would recommend keeping them on their parent articles until someone comes along capable of referencing them in Thai. SportingFlyer T·C 03:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect each to their relevant parent article.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect is probably the best way forward. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as failing WP:V which is policy. I am big on redirecting NN articles wherever possible but that is simply not an option here. First of all, redirecting to an article where the subject is not mentioned should always be avoided as it simply annoys the reader who spends time searching the target in vain. Secondly, we should avoid merging unsourced material. Finally, the only source that I can find that looks in any way reliable is here, and this is linked from the Uthai Thani Province Stadium page, but none of these stadiums are mentioned in this source. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 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 Moved to draft. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 NextEra Energy Resources 250

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

This article is completely unsourced ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify looks like a work-in-progress with an entry list but no qualifying/finishing grids. I would recommend giving the page more time to develop and then try and prove its notability. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Willsome429.4meter4 (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, with the rest of them. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 06:32, 24 September 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punkas

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

A seemingly non-notable website. The only real coverage it has in reliable sources is a few brief mentions that a member of its forums was arrested for harassing/threatening Yulia (singer), which really is not coverage of the site itself. Aside from that, I could not find any substantial coverage on the site. It was nominated for an AFD way back in 2005, and Kept, which is a bit baffling today, as the article was even worse shape back then, and was nothing more than a advertisement. Even without that problem, however, it fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:WEB, the only source isn't mainly about the website it just happens to mention it. Hintswen Talk | Contribs 05:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading Rorshacma's vote I was surprised that she said that the article was even worse shape back during the first AFD. Considering the current state of the article -- only 2 sentences and no in-text citations -- I had a hard time imagining how it could ever have been worse. I found the revision just after the AFD was closed and it was this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punkas&oldid=14672584

How did anyone look at that and conclude that it was in excellent shape? Unsurpassingly, all of that 'great content' has to be subsequently removed (all but 2 sentences) Michepman (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero claim to notability. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing a search and looking at the article, it appears to fail GNG. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:55, 24 September 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 nomination withdrawn. There's clearly a consensus here that the article meets WP:GNG. No need to draw this out any further. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Gugeshashvili

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (sports). PROD was contested on the grounds that he has signed for Jagiellonia Białystok and Granada CF. However, he has not actually played for Jagiellonia and has only ever played for Granada's second team, so this insufficient to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Changed to Userfy He fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played a professional league game. Their is also the fact that it doesn't really look encyclopedic with that current setup. HawkAussie (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG satisfied, a solid amount there by searching his (apparent - I only got it because of transfermarkt) homeland name (ლუკა გუგეშაშვილი): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] to name a few. Fairly sustained coverage across multiple outlets, most likely additional there for those who are more familiar with the Georgian language and its media. I agree about the article's current state, but that isn't a reason for deletion - it could easily be improved. R96Skinner (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some good finds there, I have changed my vote to Userfy as the page at least needs to go back into a draft state before being placed onto the wiki. HawkAussie (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I cleaned up the article to make it easier to see the depth of his career, pretty obvious that he fails WP:NFOOTY but R96 puts forth some sources for WP:GNG. The image might be deleted in a week's time for lack of permission, but otherwise I hope to have addressed HawkAussie's concerns about the state of the article. 21.colinthompson (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - likely passes GNG. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of coverage linked above, including some in-depth significant coverage, meeting GNG. Nfitz (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided indicate the subject passes WP:GNG. While the article needs improving, deletion is not the answer.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 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 Tak City F.C.. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tak Provincial Administrative Organization Stadium

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

The stadium has only been used in the lower tiers of Thai football and not the top division. HawkAussie (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tak City F.C.; not independently notable but possible search term. Giant Snowman 08:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman. Also, what matches a stadium hosts are irrelevant - it's all about WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD, but this article is entirely unsourced. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman.4meter4 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Law Students' Association

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

I tagged this for notability in April, and nothing's happened since then to persuade me that this organisation meets WP:NCORP. It gets seven verifiable hits on Gbooks and another seven on Gnews. Clearly it exists and goes about its business, but I see none of the broad in-depth coverage in several significant, independent, reliable and secondary sources that would be both establish notability and enable us to write a sourced and encyclopaedic article about it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the current state of the article. It definitely fails both WP:V and WP:NCORP. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 16:17, 23 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers (film) toy line

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

Non-notable topic. The "reception" is trivial. TTN (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current article is basically a toy catalog with a small amount of completely un-sourced statements. Coverage on the toyline is minimal - while a few of the individual products may have some brief coverage, there is nothing showing any notability for the toyline as a whole. The article title is also an implausible search term, making it useless as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG as the article stands now. Will change if references can be provided that satisfy notability requirements.4meter4 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 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) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University College Utrecht

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

This article has no independent reliable sources, and all the references are from the school's website, so the article fails WP:GNG Taewangkorea (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Taewangkorea (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSCHOOL. The university has non-trivial coverage in the reference works Talent Development in European Higher Education: Honors programs in the Benelux, Nordic and German-speaking countries, Dr. Marca V.C. Wolfensberger, page 58, Springer Publishing (see this google book); Handbook of College and University Teaching: A Global Perspective, James E. Groccia, Mohammed A. T. Alsudairi, William Buskist

SAGE Publications, 2012 (see this google book); American Universities Abroad: The Leadership of Independent Transnational Higher Education Institutions, Ted Purinton, Jennifer Skaggs Oxford University Press, 2017, page 116-117 (this google book), and is part of a notable university system.4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4. Taewangkorea, did you search for additional sources, as required by WP:BEFORE? If so, what did you find? TSventon (talk) 09:19, 24 September 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. – Joe (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Krakowian

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

WP:BLP which doesn’t demonstrate notability. The subject’s acting career doesn’t pass WP:NACTOR. As a politician, he was appointed (not elected) to a local council and resigned under a cloud a few months later. This, however, seems to have received only local media attention. Searches find social media, user generated content and mentions in local media but nothing showing real notability. Neiltonks (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the OP's estimation of notability both as an actor and as a politician (at least by the extant sources) - a short-term city-level politician of no visible lasting consequence. HThe history of the article is compatible with the possibility that it was an autobiography. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems that before the IP edit inserting details about the complaints and lawsuit, it was largely edited by User:Kurtkra, who had been warned for COI for the same article. robertsky (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL as a former member of the Hewitt, Texas City Council (population under 15,000 in 2010). I do not believe that the subject passes WP:NACTOR. --Enos733 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get articles for serving on smalltown city councils, and there's nowhere even close to enough sourcing here to make him a special case of greater notability than the norm for smalltown city councillors — so the only notability claim that's actually in play here is WP:NACTOR, and he's not properly sourced as clearing that one either. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. I do not see it fulfiling the notaboility requirements, besides the obvious COI editing. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable actor or a notable politician. It's unfortunate that this article was here for 9 years before we got around to deleting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a subject in WP:RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet the standards at WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, WP:NACTOR. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COAT. A run of the mill soap-opera child actor and local politician has a page that is used to highlight his alleged crimes. Three BLP violations in one. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COAT and fails to meet WP:GNG, in addition to the COI promotional editing. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:57, 24 September 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. There doesn't appear to be a consensus that anything is worth merging. RL0919 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lairhillock Inn

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

Prod tag removed without explanation as usual. Literally none of this article or its references is about the Inn itself, and I can't find sources attesting to notability. A self-appellation of "historic" doesn't doesn't go that far in the UK... Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillybrands Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Netherley, Aberdeenshire. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article indicates it is notable for anything other than the fact that it exists near certain locations and it is not a listed building. Hintswen Talk | Contribs 05:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only found mentions in restaurant listings etc, nothing to indicate any historical significance. There were claims it was up to 200 years old, which isn't very old for a coaching inn.----Pontificalibus 06:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless I am missing something there is nothing in the article to indicate that the Inn has any claim to notability other than its age which as User:Pontificalibus is not actually that great. Indeed much of the article is about the route it is on and what is nearby rather than the Inn itself. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing in the article to suggest any significance to this inn, and most of the details are only of peripheral relevance to the inn. (I placed the original "prod" tag that was removed.) --94.196.164.61 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An earl and a marquess once might have slept there. Not even Washington or the Queen? Bearian (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge briefly to the article on the road. Note that this was a drovers road not a carriage road. The army would have passed on foot or horseback, not with carriages. The outcome should be similar to that for Gillybrands. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Nader

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

WP:INHERITED, not independently notable of Ralph Nader - Prisencolin (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The coverage of her confrontation with Prescott Bush in 1955 is extensive. Plenty of coverage of her after she published her book including an interview by the New York Times. WP:BEFORE applies. I suggest this nomination be withdrawn. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage about her over time. I've copyedited and added to the article. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of independent coverage, including very high-profile sources. As I see it her notability derives from her activist role in obtaining a federal government response to the 1955 flooding, and additionally from her authorship of a cookbook and her obvious influence in shaping the lives and career paths of three notable children. -- Orlady (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having just read "Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon," I believe Rose Nader would deserve her own article for her influence on her son ALONE. However, as pointed out above, Ralph Nader is not the ONLY child of Rose to have his own Wikipedia article. So she deserves to be kept for her influence on all of her children.Amyzex (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. FWIW, I'm not a fan of her son Ralph. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability isn't inherited indeed, but there's more than enough about her specifically to merit an article apart from her children. SportingFlyer T·C 03:55, 21 September 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. – Joe (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrullah Medqalchi

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

Does not meet WP:BIO Hintswen Talk | Contribs 18:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there is one article about Nasrullah Medqalchi in jjo.ir, there isn't enough signigicant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to meet WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE.Lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 24 September 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. No prejudice against recreation if the subject attracts coverage upon its completion. RL0919 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Devil Coaster

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

Whilst this has got coverage I can think of plenty of such projects that fall through. This is pure Crystal balling. Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced promotion for a project not yet completed WP:NOTPROMOTION - if the ride is built and it receives significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources per WP:GNG, the article can be recreated - Epinoia (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with nom and Epinoia. MB 02:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Epinoia.4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 24 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shadrack Mzamane

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

No indication of notability whatsoever, other than that his son and grandson have articles. valereee (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a lay preacher does not make one notable minus significant coverage, which is lacking here. I am less than convinced that his son Joab Mzamane is notable either. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary where we create articles just to make family trees more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MEMORIAL. This seems to be an ordinary lay preacher and missionary; one of hundreds of thousands. Notability is rarely inherited from one's children (*contra Rose Nader, John Adams, Sr., and Letizia Ramolino). There's a single source - not significant. We are an encyclopedia, not a memorial or genealogy website. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gennadiy Borisov

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

Amateur astronomer known for discovering the comet C/2019 Q4 (Borisov). WP:BLP1E applies. Perhaps one could merge some bits to the comet article. Sandstein 16:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is notable because he has discovered 8 comets, the last one is a historic find that just begun to be analyzed. A merge into C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) would have to omit his other findings. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have accomplished something quite notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I disagree that WP:BLP1E applies:

He has discovered 8 comets in total between 2013 and 2019. Terry Lovejoy, who has discovered 6 comets, has a Wikipedia article.
In 2014, he received two Edgar Wilson Awards for two of his finds, C/2013 N4 and C/2013 V2 (the full list of awardees has been added to the article in May 2018). The only two people to have also received two Edgar Wilson Awards in one year are Michael B. Schwartz and Paulo R. Holvorcem, one of whom has a Wikipedia article.
Another of Borisov's finds, C/2014 Q3, has had a Wikipedia article since November 2014.
He was the only amateur astronomer to discover a comet in 2016. (Someone needs to find a list of comet discoverers to substantiate this factoid. Unfortunately, MPC does not have such a list, they only have a list of minor planet discoverers. The Edgar Wilson Award recipients page at CBAT has not been updated since 2015 for some reason.)
And, of course, the discovery of C/2019 Q4 (Borisov), which is the second interstellar object to be found and the first one that can be studied in detail, as it's bigger, brighter, has a coma, and has been found earlier than ʻOumuamua.

There are less than 7000 comets known, most discovered by institutions, so adding articles on comet discoverers would not put an undue burden on Wikipedia. It's not the same situation as with the 541,128 minor planets discovered by 1020 astronomers and 235 institutions. There are probably less than 50 comet discoverers (but, again, this has to be substantiated). — UnladenSwallow (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commentators were writing about him in 2013, such as here. That makes him notable for more than one event. Hallucegenia (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as his finds are widely reported. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agree that an article about Gennadiy Borisov seems worthy - afaik, Borisov seems sufficiently notable according to WP:PERSON guidelines - hope this helps - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Enough coverage per GNG. — JFG ^talk 15:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The only reason he is not a notable professional is that he does not get directly paid for his work. -- Kheider (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per the above. Renerpho (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quantanew (talk) 21:30, 22 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tshepo Stanley Ramodisa

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

Non notable, fails WP:NAUTHOR. Article was declined at AFC. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is sourced to completely unreliable nonsense and I can find no better sources. Might also consider speedy deleting via g4, g5 or you know, the obvious g11. Praxidicae (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and for lack of reliable sources. Bearian (talk)
Delete. Obviously a vanity creation. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 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. Draftify was a reasonable option, but the page creator seems to prefer deletion and that was also an acceptable option to almost everyone in the discussion. No prejudice against recreation once the series airs, or sooner if there are sufficient sources. RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 19)

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

The show is to be broadcast in 2 months. It is not relevant currently. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space until the show airs and there are sources to write an article with. There's no point in deleting it when it's going to certainly be recreated, but we do not keep articles in mainspace based on the expectation that they will be notable at some point in the future. GMG ^talk 17:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete - there's minimal content here, and nothing to establish notability of a TV series that hasn't been broadcast yet. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete - Completely unsourced, everything on the page is WP:OR and likely based on the series 18 article so sources won't exist at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the article's creator has now removed the AfD notice twice,[10][11] and moved the article 3 times while the AfD is underway.[12][13][14] I have reverted the latest move and warned him, directing him here.[15] He has been warned by other editors but has removed all warnings from his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page has no sources etc, and no one is/has added anymore references etc to it yet...

Just delete it until closer to the start of the series. It will save all the fuss..

No need to keep messaging me and "warning" me that I'm vandalising the page when there's nothing to even vandalise :/

L1amw90 (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 24 September 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. – Joe (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Super League Grand Final

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

Doesn't hold notability by itself, as a single match. Even if it happens to, then it should be created much closer to the match, if not after. Consider merging with Super League XXIV. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very obviously notable event, just not a fully fleshed out article.Fleets (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fleets: a single match is a notable event? Also, you its hard to judge notability as it hasn’t even happened yet! Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per consistency with multiple other finals in this and other sports here. I think you are thinking of quality of the game, as that is unknown, the notability is the event itself, not what happens on the field, as that would only increase the notability from a level where it is inherently notable.Fleets (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up... Rugby League is a different game and has its own project. So you may want to change the article listed for deletion, as it is listed under Union. This comes under League.

L1amw90 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable event, and although the finalists have yet to be decided, the event is only three weeks away so it seems reasonable to set up the page now. I have added a reference and some categories. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, close enough so that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply, and while currently poorly sourced, the single source does provide enough proof. As Cwmhiraeth stated, since it will likely be re-created in 3 or so weeks, not worth the time to delete by this point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning towards Keep: This page is notable as it around the second biggest league competition in club rugby league and with the fact that their has been an article for the Grand Final since the first GF makes it notable. For me I would redirect it for another two weeks until we get more info but by the time this is finished, we should know at least one of the finalists. HawkAussie (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Super League final is clearly a notable sporting event and one of the most significant annual Rugby League events. I would note recent finals have had attendances of over 64,000 (and many over 70,000), and extensive media coverage. I did wonder if the article had been created a bit prematurely, but agree with the arguments above about it being swiftly recreated if it was deleted for this reason. I would stress that the event is now less than a month away and it would take something extraordinary to happen for it not to take place so I do not think that there is a WP:CRYSTAL issue. Dunarc (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Notable event that is about to happen shortly so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable and it appears that we have consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus for the current pair of articles under consideration is to Delete. Some editors propose Draft:Meridix as a version of the article that should be moved to mainspace and kept, however, others disagree with that version as well. So, we will delete the two articles brought to this AfD, and the editors working on Draft:Meridix would be well advised to continue working on that draft, address the reviewer's comments, and resubmit it through the WP:AFC process. ST47 (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meridix

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

No indication of notability for the company or its product. None of the cited sources provide third-party coverage beyond a passing mention. The only one I found via Google News is this, local news that indicates the company was tiny as of 2012. That's not enough. Huon (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted, but instead updated to the proposed draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meridix. Meridix has been in Wikipedia since 2008 but the current article contains outdated information. The draft has significantly updated third-party references (the 2012 article cited above is too old). Meridix has been used for 155,000 live events (see draft), is venture backed (see draft), and is streaming industry recognized by other services/companies featured on Wikipedia, including Wirecast (see http://www.telestream.net/wirecast/partners.htm), VMix (see https://www.vmix.com/partners), XSplit (see https://www.xsplit.com/partners), Hauppauge Computer Works (see http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_streameez-pro.html#tabs-5), Sling Media (see https://www.myslingstudio.com/Help/KB/KB-1148.aspx#meridix), Open Broadcaster Software (see https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/blob/master/plugins/rtmp-services/data/services.json), Wowza Streaming Engine (see https://www.wowza.com/blog/meridix-lets-any-customer-stream-sports-like-the-pros) and others. LiveStreamingExpert (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the draft is in no way suitable to replace either article. It has a single reliable third-party source, the Washington Post, which writes a single sentence about Meridix in their "local business" section. That's not significant coverage. Huon (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Respectfully disagree. There are 20+ third-party references in the draft, more were just added. Subject has no issue demonstrating scale or industry recognition. Draft can be improved, but the subject does not deserve deletion. LiveStreamingExpert (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - as there is a new version of the article in Draft, I would propose closing this AfD, moving the Draft to Mainspace, and starting a new AfD for the revised article - if this article is deleted it will likely be re-created with the new version, so we could save a lot of time and effort by moving the AfD to the new version - Epinoia (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say I agree with Epinoia move this article to a draft where those interested in the article can work on it. As for notability I don't see much yes there citations but only part of the article is cited. Itsabouttech (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Draft has been updated with additional references and to improve neutrality, ready for mainspace. LiveStreamingExpert (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. If it's recreated, just take it back to AFD and it will sort itself out through the usual process. The real time waister is proposing complicated moves with drafts, etc.4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Respectfully disagree. Company has streamed 155,000+ sporting events, been in business for 16 years, is integrated within leading tools in the space (many of which themselves are on Wikipedia). Again today updated draft with more authoritative industry references (Sports Video Group, Crain's Chicago Business, SportTechie, Wowza, St. Louis Business Journal). The draft process was recommended by several admins to improve the outdated information in the existing article, rather than deleting it. LiveStreamingExpert (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that the article lacks sufficient secondary and tertiary sources about Meridix specifically. The mentions of Meridix in the sources which are independent of the subject only mention the organization tangentially. Those which are more directly about Meridix are primary sources or sourced with connections to Meridix which are not useable on wikipedia. In short, the article does not have sources which show "Significant coverage" while being simultaneously "independent". Those with significant coverage are connected to the subject and therefore consider "not Reliable". This is why it fails WP:GNG. User:ToBeFree has perfectly pulled apart every source and explained why it can't be trusted per WP:Verifiability. It's a non-notable company. No question.4meter4 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For notability, the concern that led to the creation of this discussion, the current state of the article is theoretically irrelevant. Notability is a property of the described topic, not the article; the "proposal" and the agreeing comment are based on wrong assumptions.

It is furthermore irrelevant how many sporting events the company has streamed, and it is irrelevant how large the quantity of insignificant third-party mentions is. What would actually be required is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Such coverage does not seem to exist. There is also no point in creating or keeping a draft about a non-notable company, as no amount of editing can overcome this lack of notability.

I'd specifically like to have a closer look at the best sources a paid editor has managed to find about the subject (taken from Draft:Meridix).

[16]: Article topic's website, not independent.
[17]: Quotes and relies too strongly on statements by the CEO of the article subject. Not independent.
[18]: Quotes and relies too strongly on statements by the CEO of the article subject. Not independent.
[19]: Quotes and relies too strongly on statements by the CEO of the article subject. Not independent.
[20]: Written by the founder and editor of the website, lacks editorial oversight.

Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.
— WP:SPS

Not reliable.

[21]: Neither independent nor reliable, and not significant coverage either.
[22]: Neither independent nor reliable, and not significant coverage either.
[23]: Behind a loginwall/paywall. Seems to be a personal opinion piece, as it starts with I learned something new last week. Minnesota has worse weather than we do and it’s really screwing up outdoor high school sports. Reliability very doubtful and possibly comparable to a personal blog.
YouTube link: Unreliable source, possibly WP:LINKVIO.
[24]: Neither significant coverage, nor independent: The "What People are saying" footer quotes the founder of Meridix.
[25]: Not significant coverage, mentioned among 4 other startups with one very short paragraph of text dedicated to each.
[26]: Not significant coverage, mentioned among 5 other startups with one very short paragraph of text dedicated to each.
[27]: Not a secondary source.

"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.
— WP:GNG

Wikipedia is a tertiary source: see WP:PSTS, a part of the original research policy, for details. Not significant coverage either.

[28]: Not significant coverage; a "partner" list is also, per definition, not independent.
[29]: Not significant coverage; a "partner" list is also, per definition, not independent.
[30]: Not significant coverage; a "partner" list is also, per definition, not independent.
[31]: Not describing the article topic itself: Has no effect on the article topic's notability.
[32]: Not describing the article topic itself: Has no effect on the article topic's notability.
[33]: Not significant coverage; independence doubtful.
[34]: Not describing the article topic itself: Has no effect on the article topic's notability.
[35]: Not describing the article topic itself: Has no effect on the article topic's notability.
[36]: A marketplace description is not a reliable source; it lacks editorial oversight. Statements provided by the article topic are not independent.
[37]: A marketplace description is not a reliable source; it lacks editorial oversight. Statements provided by the article topic are not independent.
[38]: A blogspot blog article (WP:SPS) that does not even dedicate a single paragraph to the article subject but rather mentions it together with another company in a huge list. Not significant coverage, not a reliable source of information.
[39]: Does not even contain the term "Meridix".
One more reference has been mentioned above by the article creator... [40]... a Github page. WP:SPS applies. Not significant coverage either.

I also fail to find any additional citations, or I would add them to the article. Delete article, forget the draft. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 24 September 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. We have 2 for delete, as well as several suggestions to merge the content of this article into a more general article (one of whom provides the third Delete !vote if no suitable merge target can be found). The suggestion to merge with Quest for the Code into a new general article did not come to fruition, because that article survived its own AfD. There are good suggestions to create an article like Diabetes education games for children, however since that article doesn't yet exist, it will require someone taking some initiative to start constructing that, finding additional examples, etc. So for now, I will delete this article. However, if someone wants to take on the task of creating a more general article about games of this type, I would be happy to draftify this article under a title of your choice - just drop a message on my talk page - and let you work on adapting it. ST47 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dbaza's Diabetes Education for Kids

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

Apparently non-notable game--all the refs are either mentions in the context in general discussions of the many such games, or press releases. We should have instead of this an article on the general topic of Diabetes education games for children. Forthat, there are sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a Merge to a topic around Diabetes education games for children but could not find any thing. I would suggest Delete if nothing suitable can be found to merge Spy-cicle (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - as there is another health-related game up for deletion, Quest for the Code, perhaps a way forward would be to create a new article entitled something like Health Educational Games which could serve as a home for these and any other health related games - alternately, there is an article Games for Health which could be expanded to include games like Quest for the Code and Dbaza's Diabetes Education for Kids - Epinoia (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like a pretty solid solution which I would back. Spy-cicle (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the result of the Quest for the Code AfD was Keep, so this suggestion is no longer viable, unless other health-related games could be found to make an article - Epinoia (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Health education games for children and tag for expansion. It can be covered under that topic. I would suggest that after that a merger discussion can then begin at Talk:Quest for the Code, because although it passed an AFD, sometimes it's best to lump smaller notable topics into one article to prevent content forking.4meter4 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG. I am sympathetic to merging somewhere or even creating a page on Dbaza. However, we can't keep an article in the hope that someone will write a page. Even if Diabetes education games for children or Health education games for children articles are created this game may not be sufficiently notable for inclusion unless someone is prepared to create a comprehensive list of the relevant games. The concept of creating a broad topic page, Health education games for children, for just one game of many, simply cannot be right. Sorry, but for now, deletion is the only option. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Saint Thérèse of Lisieux#Legacy. We have a fairly straightforward consensus to do something with this list, with most comments in favor of deletion or merging. The late-coming suggestion to merge into Saint Thérèse of Lisieux#Legacy has an equal number of supporters as outright deletion, and has convinced at least one early keep !voter to change their mind. So, based on the principle that no consensus should lean towards keeping content rather than deleting it, I will close this as Merge. Please redirect to Saint Thérèse of Lisieux once the content has been incorporated into that article. ST47 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of devotees of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux

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

Shouldn't this be just a category? By the way, I don't think other lists like this exist. I Googled "list of devotees" and found just this article. Imagine if we had a list like this for every saint and every divinity! --Bageense^(disc.) 15:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep No rationale for deletion is offered. Why shouldn't we have this list? At least as a list it can be properly sourced; if it's a category we'll have all sorts of nonsense added and taken out of it. I can well imagine having an article of this sort for every saint, and think it would be fine. Mccapra (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no valid rationale for deletion has been presented, whether or not one is possible. "Shouldn't this just be a category?" See WP:NOTDUP. "I don't think other lists like this exist." See WP:OTHERSTUFF. These are really the kinds of questions one should be presenting on a talk page to other editors, not remotely a reasonable basis for starting bureaucratic deletion procedures. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Postdlf, How could I cancel the nomination then. --Bageense^(disc.) 16:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bageense: You can add a comment below your nomination indicating that you have withdrawn it, and an admin who has not participated may speedy close it if there is no support for deletion at that time. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of no clear importance - WP:LISTCRUFT, trivial, non-notable list of interest to a limited number of people - WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - WP:LISTCRITERIA, does not demonstrate "encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence" - also note: WP:LISTPEOPLE, "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion" (also WP:BLPCAT & WP:CAT/R, category guidelines apply to lists) - Epinoia (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: but it isn’t indiscriminate. It’s highly focused. You say “special care must be taken...” which implies that it hasn’t been, but the sourcing of the article clearly shows that it has. And how can you describe the list as ‘trivial, non-notable’ when everyone in it is bluelinked? You may think devotion to a saint is trivial, but a while list of notable people thought otherwise and went in the record to say so. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I'm no longer canceling this proposal. --Bageense^(disc.) 22:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If we allow this we would have to allow a similar article for every one of thousands of Catholic saints. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: - if we allow this we would have to allow other properly-sourced lists about other notable people. Why is this a bad thing? Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only deletion-worthy question I see is whether “devotee” is sufficiently definable with a meaningful inclusion threshold, or so broad as to be indiscriminate. Clearly more than just a praising quote from the supposed devotee should be required. Please let’s discuss that substantively in terms of familiarity with the subject matter; WP:VAGUEWAVEs and policy quotes without specific application aren’t helpful. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with @Postdlf:. We should focus on the sourcing. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually talking more about inclusion criteria, basically what kind of sourced statement/fact would justify an entry being added to this list. postdlf (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Postdlf, The inclusion, if relevant enough, should be in the biographies of the devotees. This list of devotees is like an inverted article. Instead of mentioning people's faith in their respective biographies, you have the faith and then the people who share that faith --Bageense^(disc.) 14:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't answer the question at all. What makes someone a "devotee"? What's the definition? postdlf (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I don't know. Perhaps that'd be one more reason to delete the article. --Bageense^(disc.) 15:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Legacy section Saint Thérèse of Lisieux. The list is not long, it's well sourced, and it may be of interest to readers. There's no reason that the information in this list, however, should be a stand alone list. Part of what makes saints notable for encyclopedic inclusion is devotion to them even after they are dead. This content would fit nicely in the legacy section of the main article.4meter4 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Merge per the very sensible suggestion of 4meter4. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Thérèse of Lisieux#Legacy. Notability as stand-alone list is marginal so this looks a good, pragmatic solution. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv Puri

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

Fails WP:BIO. Coverage is run of the mill. 9 of the 17 references are same details regard becoming chairman. The rest are run of the mill business news not related to him. scope_creep^Talk 23:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 23:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes criterion 1 of WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME - Chair of NSE BSE top 30 companies. Meeanaya (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a notability criteria either merely a description of an outcome and is not valid scope_creep^Talk 22:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not significant coverage in RS, as per above Alex-h (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. References seems like press releases. Limpbreaker (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable source. Barca (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A top-level manager of an enormous company. Clearly notable enough for an article. Elowa (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC) — Elowa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The answer to a poorly sourced article about a notable person is to try to find more sources, not delete the article. The article needs cleanup and better sourcing, not deletion. Killer Chihuahua 18:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a case of clean-up and adding new references. The reasons the references are so terrible is that there is no coverage to supply better ones. So there is no question of notability. It is not there. scope_creep^Talk 21:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's Chair and CEO of a company that's been around since 1910, so that's at least borderline notable. I cannot determine how notable the company itself is, because it's article has issues of its own. Le Sigh. I'll let the closing admin decide how much weight to give that one tenuous rationale for notability. Killer Chihuahua 00:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject highly notable and appears to pass WP:GNG. Spmilan (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC) — Spmilan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although the Managing Director of a large company, I feel the sources are poor in coverage and most point to him being the new chairman. Not deep enough coverage by sources to make me want to keep, unfortunately. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so a redirect or selective merge to ITC Limited is out of the question? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to this academic paper the subject was ranked 7th best performing CEO in the world by the Harvard Business Review. I see that the direct link doesn't work for me, but it does when I access it via this Google Scholar search. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect is probably a mistake in that document, as I can't verify it. I can verify the previous CEO, YC Deveshwar made the Harvard Business Review, curiously also the 7th best performing CEO in the world as shown in this [41]. When you search for 'Harvard business review Best Performing CEOs in the World Sanjiv Puri' nothing shows. I think it may be a simple mistake. scope_creep^Talk 19:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been unable to corroborate that claim, and, in the light of a previous CEO being 7th on that list, I agree that this looks very much like a mistake. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible paid spam and the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG amd likely has COI issues.4meter4 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 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. While I take note of RebeccaGreen's substantial efforts on this article while it was at AfD, the consensus here is to delete the article for lack of notability. ST47 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Baer

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

Non notable actress, No evidence of any notability, Google News only brings up a few one-bit mentions[42], I did find this however that's still a mention although the best out of the 6-10 sources there, Fails #1, #2 and #3 of WP:NACTOR and fails GNG. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 19:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet another performer whose WP article is limited to what's on IMDB. She had actually started performing on stage in ballets by the age of 6. I'll see what I can add to the article (certainly information about her parents and where she trained, as well as performances). (And, as I frequently remark at AfDs, Google is not the best source for people whose careers predate the internet.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with that, Unfortunately I have no access to books etc but if others do I'd happily keep this, Thanks. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 20:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple footnotes. I think she did some interesting things in her career and the titles are well known. So I would argue for keeping the article.Howard352 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added sources and information, covering her career from 1968-1984. The roles that I think best meet WP:ENTERTAINER are voicing Lila in Snoopy, Come Home, and performances with the American Ballet Theatre's Repertory Company (a review of one in the New York Times is included in the article). Most of the coverage I have found of her stage performances as a child were in local newspapers. The company, Ballet Celeste, did tour internationally during the years that she was a member, including to Japan for Expo '70, to the UK and to Canada. I have not tried to find coverage in Japanese of the Expo performances, and I haven't found much coverage online of the international tours, and none that mentions her - whether any existed or not, I don't know. I also haven't found many reviews online of the ballet companies she was a member of - there may well have been more in specialist journals and magazines. She certainly did more than was included in the article when it was nominated for AfD, but I haven't found enough reviews of her performances to say it's a definite, strong keep. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks RebeccaGreen not only for finding sources but alse adding them all to the article and thank you for also expanding the article - your work here is greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 11:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just did a quick search on newspapers.com (not the Google newspapers link) and there were quite a few articles. Netherzone (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netherzone, I should have said that most of the sources I found and added to the article were from Newspapers.com. Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, RebeccaGreen thanks for that info and the sources you added. Netherzone (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Good Job to RebeccaGreen for finding sources and putting them in the article. I think this is currently sitting right on the border of being notable; what pushes it over is that her entire career predates the internet. Rockphed (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To be notable for dancing, she'd have to be a principal dancer, or at least a regular star dancer with ABT with lots more coverage in major reviews. Her film career is also non-notable. I don't think she's really close to notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ssilvers.4meter4 (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - tough call this. Firstly, RebeccaGreen has woven her usual magic on this page. The problem that I have is that I can't access some of the key sources, eg reference 16 which is behind a paywall. Also, none of her roles indicate notability in themselves. Sorry, she is close but but I am not quite convinced as to notability at this point. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princewell Emeka

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

PROD contested by article creator on the basis that the player has played in a fully-pro league - this does not appear to be correct, he has only played in I-League 2 which is not listed. Therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Giant Snowman 11:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It needs not to be deleted as Princewell appeared in the I-League a fully FIFA pro league — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHISHIR DUA (talk • contribs)

Please provide a reliable source to verify the claim that he has played in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 12:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent a sudden change in professional playing fortunes. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thought this would be helpful, but Mohammedan are now playing in lesser leagues. SportingFlyer T·C 04:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Their are references that feature him but it seems to be match reports which feature him. HawkAussie (talk) 06:04, 20 September 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. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan International Airlines Flight 606

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

Non-noteworthy event. WP:NOTNEWS. Lopifalko (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hard landings on the runway happen, not notably. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this is particularly noteworthy for an article, just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per above, also this event is so non-notable that it probably doesn't even qualify as news. Found nearly nothing when searching for this, not to mention that there is no evidence suggesting that anything more that a rough landing took place.Grapefruit17 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:10, 18 September 2019 (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? 23:59, 18 September 2019 (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? 23:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill incident. No fatalities. No international sources. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Not Delete - Not delete : As it gives a valid information of the flight that met with an accident.--Kskhh (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is showing of real event so don't delete the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 15:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS, hard landing case that did not cause any death. Such accidents are common and do not deserve an article. WP:AIRCRAFT also has an essay on the notability criteria for WP:AIRCRASH which this article fails. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TC60054 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 12:33, 24 September 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. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to vote keep since he is one of the main robots in some of the Transformers properties, but the sourcing on this article is a mess. Having looked at a few transformers articles, I am not sure that any have sources that actually establish notability, which is sad since the transformers have deep cultural penetration. Rockphed (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree most of the pages on Transformers I have seen in AFD certainly deserve to be deleted, Ratchet is a main character with decades of notability across films, tv, comics, toys etc.. He is one of the main characters and is generally central to their history as the medic of the crew. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he is so notable, why does the article lack a reception section, nor have any new sources come up in the AfD. I am unconvinced that this article would pass GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:34, 24 September 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 List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Humans. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Faireborn

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable supporting character. Not enough is given for a stand alone article per WP:A&M/CHARACTER. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters as listed there. She doesn't have much context beyond the listing in the TV series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AngusWOOF since it's already there, but add #Humans. Also unsourced, and some of it approaches inappropriate. -2pou (talk) 18:21, 17 September 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. – Joe (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Edmondson

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find much online or on the article to support any claim to notability. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 10:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article implies that he was a member of The O'Jays, but I can't find any evidence. His collaboration with other musical acts does not rub off on him and is expected of professional musicians. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 19 September 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. – Joe (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 131ers

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

Not yet notable per WP:BAND. I can't find any significant, independent coverage of them in WP:Reliable sources. The only coverage I could find of them was this article in the weekly freesheet OC Weekly, about several bands contributing to a disaster relief album. The rest is routine local press coverage and music blogs: Beach Reporter is another weekly freesheet, and Arizona Daily Wildcat is a student paper. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is just not enough coverage out there that could satisfy even WP:GNG. I agree with the nom that these sources, especially the student paper, just are not reliable or establish any notability. Handoto (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Adjah

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

PROD contested by article creator (and previously deleted by PROD). Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 09:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Club doesn't even have an article, after searches it doesn't bring up any WP:RS for the club. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:13, 17 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hendry Antonay

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

PROD contested by article creator. Player is yet to play in a fully-professional league) (confirmed by this, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also no significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could find some coverage and there will be more in the Indian reginal language media.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above for GNG, just enough out there - esp. [43], [44]. I'll add [45] too. The hosting of the 2017 FIFA U-17 World Cup was a rather big event in Indian football, so any coverage from that isn't routine or anything of the sort in my opinion. Pinging Pharaoh of the Wizards, who I'm assuming forgot to leave an actual 'vote'. R96Skinner (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above passes WP:GNG through does not meet WP:NFOOTY at this point as the subject has not made yet made his debut for Chennaiyin FC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG per links from POTW and R96 above (esp. [46] [47]). (It happened again!) – Levivich 05:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: What happened again? Giant Snowman 08:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, R96 and I agreed on an AfD. – Levivich 16:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frightening! :D R96Skinner (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very scary!

I'm happy to withdraw based on GNG pass thanks to sources now located if @BlameRuiner: wants to amend their vote? Giant Snowman 12:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I'll stay by my vote as I still don't a significant coverage. Although it's clear that there's no consensus to delete anyway. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep overwhelming evidence of GNG significant coverage in various sources posted above. I'm perplexed on today's claims that there's no significant coverage, with no explanation on how in-depth articles don't count. Nfitz (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be perplexed about. The sources were only located after the AFD was started. Giant Snowman 18:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was the today's claim by User:BlameRuiner that perplexed me, rather than the original and earlier comments. I clarified my post above. Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all sources just repeat the same information about two local boys that got selected for U17 NT and everyone happy for them (and our boy Hendry didn't even play a single minute). I didn't see any in-depth coverage that justifies GNG. --BlameRuiner (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call The Times of India 'local'. It's the biggest English newspaper on the planet, and certainly not local. Or The Hindu which must be close to be number 2 in the world - though I suppose it could be described as local ... but it's hardly a local story. Is The Sporting News also local - Sporting News is based in North Carolina. Nfitz (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Silva Lerma

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

PROD removed. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. No evidence that he played a game for Vejle Boldklub. JMHamo (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He appeared in segunda divsions so article need not to be deleted at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHISHIR DUA (talk • contribs)

No, he only appeared in the Segunda División B, which is not WP:FPL. Giant Snowman 14:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He played 12 times for Vejle Boldklub first team, according to the article announcing he was leaving, and the club list of players by frequency of appearance. That was in 2009–10, when they appear to have been in Superliga. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: then why isn't he listed here (a database of every Superliga player ever)? Giant Snowman 13:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vejle played in 1st Division that season. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moha Ramos

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

PROD removed by article creator who said that "Since he represented the top tier fully professional leagues so, I feel the article needs not to be deleted and he is gonna play for Birmingham this season" [sic]. That violates WP:CRYSTAL, and article fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has never played in a fully-pro league). Giant Snowman 09:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He appeared for Birmingham City FC and for RM Castilla side so has played in fully pro leagues so I don't consider any point in deleting the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHISHIR DUA (talk • contribs)

He has not appeared for Birmingham City and RM Castilla do not play in a fully-professional league, they play in the Segunda División B which is not listed as it is semi-pro. Giant Snowman 12:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). – bradv🍁 13:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Sourav Singh Sarmal

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

Non-notable politician. Lacks WP:GNG, WP: POLITICIAN and WP:BIO Beasteggs (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy Delete & Salt. Per WP:CSD#A7. Non notable WP: POLITICIAN, fail WP:GNG & WP:BIO. Does not meet WP:GNG. no significant coverage .--Nahal^(T) 07:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Vanity page of non-notable student, speedy deleted a few times, as was Sourav Singh Sarmal, created by User:Mmmaaa55 who was blocked in 2018 for a near-identically disruptive editing pattern. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Beasteggs (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC) After going through the claim of notability by the author of the article, have decided to withdraw the deletion process and allow the article to be Improved as seen here in C.[reply]

Emmanuel Michael

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

Non-notable business man. Lacks WP:GNG and WP:BIO Beasteggs (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt. This is the third deletion debate for this individual - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Nnamdi Michael. Please give thought to the user creating these articles; are they not here? --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP-- Another AfD tag?? I've been told to rewrite this article in the best possible way, which I've done, what other thing do I need to do to make the article right??? NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not the article so much as the subject, who is not notable in terms set out in Wikipedia:Notability and associated pages. No amount of rewriting will solve that issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete & Salt. Per WP:CSD#G4. previous deletion discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Nnamdi Michael .--Nahal^(T) 09:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt and block the creator for disruptive and promotional editing Praxidicae (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: per comments above Ceethekreator (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT-- To the AfD nominator, I've gone through WP:GNG and WP:BIO, I've seen the criteria for passing notability for an individual and I must tell you that this individual, passes such criteria, I'd enjoin you, to go through some of the secondary reliable sources that I'd cited, which are 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Thank you. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:20, 18 September 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) 06:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobi2Go

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

Company is non-notable. Lacks WP:GNG and WP: COMPANY Beasteggs (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear COI issues, poor sourcing, obvious ad from business owner. JamesG5 (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are brief mentions, general announcements, or unreliable. Nothing out there that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 24 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of figure skating events held in Poland

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

A list of events that seem largely non notable which has just become a sea of deadlinks. I think this article is beyond retrieval. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say that probably in the world of figure skating these events are largely non-notable, not to mention that many of them are youth events. It would be one thing if there were other lists of this type such as a "List of figure skating events held in Norway" but to my knowledge, this is the only one.Grapefruit17 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 24 September 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. Nominator has withdrawn this. (non-admin closure) --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast Urban Motorway

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

I found no significant coverage for this proposed motorway system. It was also proposed in 1964, but it was never completed. SL93 (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Clearly a notable project that had political significance: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53].----Pontificalibus 06:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Pontificalibus. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. SL93 (talk) 07:06, 17 September 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) 06:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Sani Gee

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. Local indie musician with one mix tape and one EP, the award is a brand new (this year) local/community award that doesn't even have a working website or content on its social media. 2 ref sources are simply blogs. JamesG5 (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Likely an amateur wannabe article that is self created. Close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. by Fastily -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satans Black Wedding (2019)

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

Delete per WP:NFF.

Also Note: Possible WP:COI with the author, who appears to be the cast of movie and working on his own article too in Draftspace (Draft:Gabriel Finch). Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bishal Shrestha, I agree this should be deleted, and maybe the user should be blocked as well. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 11:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references. Does not satisfy film notability due to the guidelines on unreleased films. Also conflict of interest. Also child protection issue (protecting the child-author from the Internet via himself). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 17 September 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) 4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Anand (professor)

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

Not notable as professor or election candidate. Can recreate if they win election. FUNgus guy (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on holding a named chair at a major academic institution. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC#5 "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". I don't think anyone would question that the University of Toronto is a major institution of higher education and research. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Don't think we need to wait for the election. I don't know if an h-index of 13 shows notability in her field, but she definitely meets WP:NPROF#5. Sandals1 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep for meeting WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability criteria for Academics as per #5. She holds a named chair position at a major institution. The election is a non-issue. Netherzone (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability criteria for Academics. She was just awarded another honour on September 17 from the Royal Society of Canada. Silvertek (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC#5 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - full professor at one of the top two or three Canadian law schools. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Edgewood, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewood Towne Centre

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

Appears to be a WP:MILL shopping center with about 30 store anchored by a super-market. Noting notable about this center, not a regional mall with community significance. MB 02:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. MB 02:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MB 02:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Edgewood, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Apparently “straddles Edgewood, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and Swissvale, Pennsylvania.” But name is Edgewood, so merge there and note the straddle unless there is reason to merge to the other one. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hyperbolick. Doesn't meet notability but could be useful in the Edgewood article. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hyperbolick.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nestor

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

Couple of points for discussion:

1) An anon editor claiming to be the person this article is about has asked on two occasions to have the page deleted, as they are not a public figure and did not authorize.

2) Although the article barely passes WP:NOTABLE, in light of the subject matter pages and the request of the anon editor, as well as the mentions only in passing of the subject in this page, I think it is safe and prudent to delete and let the music pages stand on their own.

3) The most substantial edits (and the original creation of the page) were made by a banned editor.

All points lead to delete. Ricksanchez (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all points. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hyberbolick. Beasteggs (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per request. The subject also seems not to have performed outside of Maryland, so notability is borderline at best. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gokhan Eseli

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

Orphaned, unsourced and not notable. The article has been in this state since years ago, and I wasn't able to find any sources either. I think it needs to be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 02:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’ve found some sources but they’re of marginal value and all look like they’re closely derived from self generated PR. Not clearly notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deputy chief of mission, the highest role this article claims the subject held, is not an article-clinching notability claim in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume and depth of sourcing — but the only reference cited here at all is a short blurb about him starting a travel company after his diplomatic career ended, in a fashion column which also "covers" Barack Obama and the Rolling Stones, and that is not deep or broad enough coverage to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the best source in play. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable diplomatic functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 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. – Joe (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagruti Degree & PG College

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

Unreferenced stub. Fails WP:NSCHOOL/WP:GNG. With regards to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept", please note there is no proof this is an " independently accredited degree-awarding institution". This may well be a Degree mill. With no evidence for or against we cannot extend good faith to spam-prone topics. Article on such website-only 'schools' should be assume to be spam ads for degree mills, unless someone can prove otherwise. PS. Anyone feeling like defending this, keep also in mind the creator of this stub has been indef blocked as a "Vandalism-only account"... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft, perhaps sources can be found. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick: WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: and did I vote "keep"? Hyperbolick (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick: it is not about what vote is being cast, it is about the arguments to avoid —usernamekiran(talk) 14:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: And what vote is associated with all those "arguments to avoid"? Hyperbolick (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick: like I said in previous comment, it is not about any vote. It is about the rationale. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibility of research unveiling better information is a great rationale for a move to draft. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick: then do that research rather than having this conversation. WP:SOFIXIT —usernamekiran(talk) 17:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It takes 'bout a minute to disprove a part of the OP's stance. That being said, degree mills don't operate in India w/o an accreditation (the modus operandi is something entirely else) and so no conclusion on that locus. ∯WBG^converse 17:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete partly per nominator. Also: I cant be sure if this work of a COI and/or UPE. This is a private, for profit college that fails all the notability criteria. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSCHOOLS and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 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 List of Decepticons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slipstream (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. Most incarnations are Decepticons. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 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 00:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (Transformers)

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

PROD contested by @JIP: for reason "this is the largest Micromaster toy". Of course, this must still pass GNG... FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my PROD. TTN (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a NOQUORUM soft delete because of the contested PROD. An attempt to see if a firmer sense of consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 2 books in the citation list. Does anybody know how extensively they cover this character? Alternatively, are they lacking in independence? Rockphed (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the books used as reference are WP:PRIMARY sources. Lacks secondary sourcing or external notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent sources. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:30, 23 September 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.