Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 April	3 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Isles of Colibar

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

Not a notable micronation by Wikipedia's standards

WP:NGEO. ... discospinster _talk 22:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. This is not a micronation, which requires "a formal and persistent, even if unrecognized, claim of sovereignty".--Pontificalibus 08:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes
WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The article is also plagued by coatracking beyond its total non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unrecognized micronations are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because their own website technically verifies that they exist in somebody's mind — they can clear the bar if they get
copyright violation issue here. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Eichelberger

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, does not meet

WP:ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass our notability guidelines for entertainers/performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of free web hosting services

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

Fails WP policies on all fronts.

Fails
OVH
, etc.?
Fails
WP:NOTADIRECTORY
.
Looks like
WP:PROMO
, especially the "comparison" of the "price of connecting owned domain".
Unsourced, even though a tag has been in place since 2014.
Has historically been a spambait.

I see no purpose why this list should appear on Wikipedia, at least in its current form. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Maybe I just don't get it. I would think an integral part of web hosting services would be registration but many are only if paying. Otr500 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Clearly falls into several categories at WP:What Wikipedia is not. SSSB (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Marina Amaral

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

illustrating one unremarkable publication insufficient to establish notability Sirlanz 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sirlanz has withdrawn this Afd, see comment below.

talk) 14:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 18:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep This was already sent to AfD once and there's no valid deletion rationale. (I wrote this article.) The nominator's edit history shows they're taking issue with me, so I can only assume (since this AfD is sloppily-done) that this is a bad-faith nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - too soon after last discussion for a new one, and nominator doesn't indicate anything to explain why it needs to be reevaluated again so soon(or at all) WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep beyond the procedural reasons listed above, the subject is entirely notable.
talk) 23:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep with another ping to Sirlanz as they've edited since, maybe missed it --valereee (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets
sources available that discuss Amaral and her work over a number of years, article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

My apologies in respect of the 2nd nomination process. This is the first time I've attempted an AfD where it turned out it was not a first and the process was new to me. As soon as the 2nd status return appeared, I was inclined to reverse out of it but could not find the way of achieving that, so I figured it had to stay. Nevertheless, I started the process convinced the subject could not possibly meet notability as only one published work was referenced in which the subject played only a minor role and there was no source suggesting the subject had any particular prominence in the field. It is all the more surprising that the article survived AfD the first time round and remained in this poor condition. There has been such improvement now, so I'm content that policy is now met and have no objection to its remaining. The encyclopaedia stands the beneficiary. sirlanz 02:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely satisfies
WP:ARTIST. (links--[1], [2], [3], etc,)--PATH SLOPU 14:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick LeBlanc

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

Horribly sourced. Fails

WP:NPOL GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter how badly this article tries to assert it, he's not a notable political figure for an article based on evidence. Trillfendi (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an unsuccessful election candidate is not an
primary sources (genealogies and raw tables of election results); 20 per cent to dead links where the complete citation details were never properly provided, so we can't even retrieve them to see what they ever actually did or didn't say; and one short blurb about the plane crash he died in. None of this is how you source an unsuccessful election candidate as notable enough for Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Most importantly does not pass
Rusf10 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Bearcat and Rusf10 - GretLomborg (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George B. Mowad

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

Fails

WP:NPOL. While he served 20 years as the mayor of a town, its population was less than 8,000. None of the sources used (election returns, obituaries, passing mentions, etc.) in the article establish that Mowad or his tenure as mayor of Oakdale are particularly notable GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oakdale, Louisiana is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on its mayors just for existing as mayors, but in the classic manner of Just You Guess Who, this is referenced almost entirely to
reliable source coverage about Mowad. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree with Bearcat that Oakdale is too small for its mayor to be automatically notable, and he does not seem to be notable for any other reason. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:NPOL and the references are all tangential or obituaries. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete mayors of places with less than 10,000 people are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Slow Mo

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

Does not meet

A7 by Jmertel23, which was denied on account of the notability of people involved with the project. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks necessary sources to meet
WP:INHERITWEB, which states that web content is not considered notable simply because of notable people associated with it. Also - one of the "notable" people wikilinked from this page doesn't even have his own article- the link redirects to another of his shows. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quinche J. Félix

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

Does not meet

WP:NPOLITICIAN. The subject's highest political post was vice-president of of Bolívar Canton, Carchi, a local government position in Ecuador. The lone source attached to the article just mentions that a bust was erected in his honor in his hometown of Calceta, I was unable to find anything more significant, although given that he died in the 1970s, any likely sources are probably going to be print copies of Ecuadorian local newspapers, which I do not have access to. The article also appears to have been written by a relative of Félix's, given that they uploaded an old photo of the subject and claimed it as their own work._signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The canton is a local level of Ecuadorian government, not a provincial/state level, so there's no automatic
not inherited, so he's not automatically special just because a couple of his children went on to hold more NPOL-passing roles. But neither is this article referenced well enough to get him over the hump he actually has to clear — "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". We do not keep poorly sourced articles about people who don't clear any SNG just because it's possible that better sources might exist in places that almost nobody who's actually active on Wikipedia has the ability to check — the onus for showing that he actually has enough coverage to clear the notability bar for local figures is ultimately on the creator of the article and not on everybody else. And no, the Spanish article (which was created by the same editor a few months ago) isn't referenced any better, either, and should probably be listed for deletion there as well if anybody with better Spanish language skills than I've got is willing to tackle it. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whizzard

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

The reason I'm nominating this for deletion, a complete purge, rather than leaving it to wallow as an isolated digital fragment forevermore, is because of how far off the track this will become. It was part of a blast by a COI for their company. We're left with multiple pages that need addressing, non-notable orphans from an inactive (as per social media), non-existent (dissolved in 2017) never notable (as per GNG) failed commercial venture. This would become a redirect to a redirect to a redirect to a redirect because of their activity and their creation of too many articles - from one for their main company which is not notable and being deleted or redirected (open AfD currently), their american subsidiary and then this product. It's a long tail of non-notable promotional guff, and redirects are as cheap as they are costly.

As for the actual product, if it is easily demonstrable that the ultimate parent company is not notable and just the product of an over-zealous promotor with a distinct SPA/COI. My proposition is rather than redirect this to the company which is redirected to the parent company which is redirected to the generic article of the company's base product, to delete it completely. It only exists because of a non-user's abuse of the open policy for their own commercial gains. A vote for redirect pretty much just supports the notion that we must preserve its existence perpetually because once a non-wikipedian with a commercial motive decided to create an article on this product. Rayman60 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a single news article from 2015. Nothing since, so apparently it didn't quite make the splash that it hoped for. (Forgive the pun.) Schazjmd (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a puff piece more than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ved Prakash Gupta

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

Sources provided don't add up to any sufficient degree of notability. 1-3 are passing mentions, 4-7 are identical copies of the same interview, 8 is a passing mention, 9-11 & 13 are promotional videos, 12 is the meagrest of passing mentions. Currently this article is a badly-sourced promo feature, and I see no material that seems likely to change that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M. Davis Jr.

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

Another Louisiana obituary with no assertion of notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the subject passes
WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is the portrait of a productive and admirable life, but there is no indication of the kind of notability that results in inclusion in an encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Sources don't show notability. Not enough published papers to satisfy other notability guidelines so I am marking this as delete. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,
WP:NOTPAPER and this comes across as pure WP:BITTERNESS against the "now-baneed editor" whatever he did or didn't do. Tony May (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Not paper is not an argument to keep an article. Just because something can be online doesn't mean it should: "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion". Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adwin Brown

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

Still

WP:CRYSTAL that means we should wait until those roles have actually occurred and been shown to be significant. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had been asked to review this article by an editor who I had previously interacted with. My review at that time suggested it was not notable for exactly the reasons Rosguill said as he fails both NACTOR and GNG. I also do not see any sort of redirect target as a reoccurring role does not seem like a strong enough target article. I left the article for another reviewer to make their own judgement because I didn't feel it was fair to nominate for deletion something someone had asked me in good faith to review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could redirect to Heathers (TV series), as that is their most notable role that has already occurred. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some reoccurring roles are that way for contractual reasons and they might appear in 90% of episodes. Other such roles might be in 1 or 2 a season. I don't know how much his reoccurring role was for Heathers or will be for You, but in general I think we shouldn't be redirecting for such roles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the article, I'm inclined to agree. For some reason I had been under impression that Brown had a lead role. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)*[reply]
Possible Keep. Bit about him in
Fosters. From what I can see, he already has some recognisable star status and his star is definitely on the rise. He has a 2, 4, 9 and 10 recurrence in his reoccurring roles. and they have been going up on the increase in the order I have given. If after some good discussion on this has been done and it appears that it's heading for a delete then I guess we can preserve the history and redirect. But at this time, I think the article could be kept. Karl Twist (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I've just had another look at the page. Not much of an article. If it is to stay then there's a lot of work to be done. Karl Twist (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR, or some other standard? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:TOOSOON and he may become notable in the future. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene P. Campbell

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

Another Billy Hathorn non-notable local official sourced to obituaries, fails

WP:NPOL. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local sheriffs are not automatically deemed notable just for existing — but as usual for Billy Hathorn stuff, this is referenced to obituaries and
WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have been considered to be of some local importance, as his house was preserved as a historical landmark. [4] [5] Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The house being preserved as a landmark is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts the house's occupant from still having to actually clear GNG as a person. The house already has its own article anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the house has its own article (which I can't find), then this title should be redirected there rather than deleted. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that the house only exists in the redirect for Campbell House and on National Register of Historic_Places listings in Concordia Parish, Louisiana; in 2016 it was taken off of the national register on account of it being burnt down so I can't imagine it becoming any more notable in future. Also, the website this article cites in reference to the house was extremely short and now only exists in archive. Userqio (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Miss? The article claims he played at LSU from 1893-1896, but here's a reference to a person with the same name (and middle initial) at Ole Miss in 1898. It could be the same person.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a look at the references shows regardless of college football or political notability, there's a
WP:GNG failure regardless. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Alexander

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

Doesn't appear to meet

WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete fails NPROF, no substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 18:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete writer with a number of published stories listed, and nominations for some minor literary prizes. However, article is an orphan, no books, no claim that any of the published stories was particularly notable, and no sources. I can't find anything on her - she has a common name and I can't seem to find a keyword that brings up anything useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only thing I found in the news about the author was a local news blog article titled "Edmonds author starts a group for ‘Elder Orphans’"[6] on her involvement in forming a Facebook support group for the elderly. Writing this into the personal life section could help establish some notability in conjunction with the nominations, but the Wikipedia article in question seems to take verbatim from the author's personal website without citing it. I did also find an article on University of Washington Department of Pathology's newsletter[7] that collaborated the claim that her story was read by Jorja Fox, but this doesn't seem to establish any major notability on it's own. Userqio (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Esrati

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

Almost certainly an

WP:GNG it most likely needs rewriting due to the promotional nature of the article GPL93 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment this article was deleted by unanimous vote in 2008. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NPOL. Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Being a perennially-losing perennial candidate for political office is not an
primary sources and glancing namechecks of Esrati's existence in media coverage of other things or people, not to coverage that's about him in any non-trivial way. To be fair, the original creator in 2008 is the likely autobio candidate — but their work got deleted at AFD within two weeks, and the article was then recreated in 2010 by an editor who was far less likely to be Esrati (they stuck around for another couple of years and edited on other topics unconnected to Dayton municipal politics.) So the 2008 AFD wouldn't be grounds for speedying this by any means, but this definitely isn't a significant notability or sourcing improvement over the original version either. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No
WP:NPOL, thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NPOL; the only part of this article to have real notability is the reference to Dayton v. Esrati which would argue if anything a page for it and not the article being considered for deletion. Looking into it though, the case seems to be more a footnote than a major case when referenced in sources. Userqio (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Buck

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

If I A7ed this, somebody would find a way to say "but she was in a pageant". The fact is, she lacks notability, she lacks sustained notability, lacks significant coverage, and a newspaper article from 26 years ago isn't going to support a page. Trillfendi (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:ANYBIO, in that she is a winner of a non-notable beauty pageant and has not done anything notable since then. Dan arndt (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete winner of non-notable beauty contests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:ANYBIO - GretLomborg (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing this as a keep due to the fact that when you separate the !votes, we have 3 editors who believe the article should be kept and provide (evidence based) policy reasoning behind that. There's one editor who !votes delete but doesn't leave a policy based reason behind it and never replied to the follow up questions from other editors wishing to engage in discussion. The remaining editor who !voted delete was countered by the three editors with strong policy based arguments that effectively cancelled out their reasoning behind the delete. Had the other delete !vote editor have used policy based reasoning this would have gone towards a no consensus, however, that's not the case tonight. I believe enough discussion has taken place here and we've asked enough of the community's time in discussing this. It seems as though the discussion is done as nobody has commented on this since April 5th since it was relisted last time.

(non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 08:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Herbert Bockhorn

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

Fails

fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate if/when he makes his pro/international debut. Giant Snowman 08:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Passes GNG. Almost made an international debut (and covered extensively due to that). Also covered in the context of being on the Borussia Dortmund reserves, and possible trade talk to the English premier league. International coverage. These are all full-length pieces on Bockhorn: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer rumours and national team squads are

WP:TOOSOON. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Far from routine - or rather if such coverage were routine we would delete a whole lot of footballers. This guy has more coverage than most lower league players that pass NFOOTY. Seems he is a signicant prospect for top-tier play.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How can you be a footballer with no football career? Trillfendi (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? He's been playing for several years. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As with Fleet in being (exerting influence without ever leaving port), football prospects may be notable even if they haven't played yet in a NFOOTY league. Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a ton of coverage on him. Much of it is recent. For instance, allafrica.com quoted on the 10th: We know that the name Herbert Bockhorn was widely keyed into a Google search box after a 31-strong Cranes provisional squad was revealed this past week. Too soon for NFOOTY, but an easy
WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Seems to be

WP:ROUTINE coverage based off inclusion in a preliminary squad. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Kawowo is one of the most important Ugandan football sources, PML Daily have profiled him, Swift Sports wrote an article just because he wasn't going to appear in the Tanzania game, [16], and the BBC mentioned his call-up specifically in an article (that was routine and not

WP:SIGCOV, but shows importance.) None of this is routine coverage - it's all on him specifically. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak keep – 10 sources were posted here through 20 March, and since then BZ 22 March, 90min 22 March, Liga-Zwei 23 March. I'm not sure but I'm guessing the ICC games with the first team v. Liverpool, Man City and Benfica don't count for NFOOTY (SW), and although none of the sources individually is terribly in-depth, there are many examples of stories that really are focused on him (not the team), go beyond sheer routine coverage, and come from a variety of media sources in Germany and Uganda. For me, gets over the line as a GNG keep. Leviv ich 06:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You're correct, the ICC games don't count towards
WP:NFOOTY, as they were in preseason and therefore aren't considered "competitive games". 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I reviewed this article back on 3/18. I felt the coverage at that time was borderline, and even though they didn't pass
WP:NFOOTY I felt that that requirement would also be met. But I'll leave it up to the FOOTY folks to hash this one out.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-relist comment – Searched again and found more new coverage of this player, albeit not quite SIGCOV. I don't think this Mar 22 Sports.de article has been posted here yet. I wouldn't call it "significant coverage" because it's not very long, but it does focus on Bockhorn and has a picture of him as the lead picture. According to this article from yesterday, Bockhorn has been named to the Uganda national team for this summer's Africa Cup of Nations, and I'm somewhat impressed that he's one of two players on the team that's mentioned in this article. He hasn't played in the game yet, but if he does, that would be one NFOOTY-qualifying game. A borderline case, but I still lean weak keep, or at least draftify. Leviv ich 16:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Sesay

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

Article about semi-pro footballer who was under contract at a club (Dolphins F.C.) in the fully-pro Nigerian Premier League, but there is no evidence that he actually played for the senior side in the league. A search of online sources indicates that Sesay only received routine coverage (e.g., match reports) in Sierra Leone-based sources and essentially zero coverage in Nigerian sources, so the article comprehensively fails

WP:GNG. Article was previously nominated for speedy deletion many years ago, which was declined. Jogurney (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass GNG - I found a bunch of other individuals with the same name (e.g. this pilot in the US, and in Sierra Leone a reporter and a number of other people) - but little on the footballer. Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As an inclusionist, it is quite sad and disheartening when I see very old articles being put for AfD after all these years. This article was nominated for speedy deletion twice back in 2010. Once by @
Phil Bridger:). So I am surprised why wasn't it taken to AfD at the time?Tamsier (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:RAPID mayhap?). We're now in 2019 - this hasn't happened, and there is no prospect of this happening. Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I took the article to AfD because I don't think a PROD would be appropriate. Here editors have the time to check my research on sourcing, and perhaps I've missed some useful coverage that would meet the GNG. If not, this article has been in a sorry state for far too long. Jogurney (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RS on/off-line but didn't bother to add them to the article and now such sources are taken off-line. I don;t know. Nobody knows. And it is not far fetched because I have witness for a number of years editors arguing for an article to be kept at AfD - providing great reliable sources in the discussion but without adding them to the article itself. I bet I'm not the only one who have seen that happen during AfD discussions. We now have no archive of sources which might have been available at the time but now nobody knows. If the community/editors at the time thought he was notable for a stand-alone, then he is still notable as notability is not temporary. However, that is merely conjecture because at the moment, nobody knows. Just because sources aren't available online does not mean a subject is not notable. They might be available off-line or might have been available online but were taken off. Also, for Africa, Google sometimes does not scan or takes time to provide African related sources. As such, we should be extremely careful when talking about lack of online sources for African related articles. All I know based on our articles and my limited knowledge of football is that, he played in a premier league club at the time. I would therfefore be following this discussion and looking forward to reading the arguments of the editors who were involved with this article all those years ago.Tamsier (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep If he plays for the team the article says (
WP:NFOOTY. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, that league is not fully-professional (see,
Nigerian Professional Football League which is fully-pro, but it cannot be verified using reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

As I said below regarding

football notability, unless of course I've missed it." Quote modified to avoid repeating myself.Tamsier (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete – Sierra Leone National Premier League is not a
WP:GNG. Leviv ich 20:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Really! Sorry, I'm contused, but who says "Sierra Leone National Premier League is not a

football notability, unless of course I've missed it.Tamsier (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The way I analyze it is:

WP:GNG, can we write an article about Mustapha Sesay? and the answer is No because we have no sources from which to say anything other than to give his stats, which a reader can get from Soccerway. Leviv ich 23:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Does this footballer also go by the name of Yamusa Sesay (midfielder for East End Lions F.C.)? BBC Sports, National Football Teams, Afryka, FootballDatabase.Tamsier (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Mustapha Sesay's name was reported as "Musa Sesay" in Sierra Leone. I'm less convinced that his name was also reported as "Yamusa Sesay." I found an article about an East End Lions' footballer named Abu Bakarr Sesay who died in 2014, who had one dozen brothers, including a "Mustapha Sesay." My best guess is Yamusa is not the same person as Mustapha/Musa, but even if he were, there is no significant coverage of Mustapha/Musa/Yamusa. It appears Yamusa did make a single substitute's appearance for Sierra Leone in January 2012 (friendly against Angola), but we don't have any vital information (such as date or birth) to confirm that he is Mustapha - moreover, a single substitute's appearance in an international friendly isn't enough to satisfy
WP:NFOOTBALL without some significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm! I probably disagree. I think it is the same person. The name, position, club, and years (especially some of the sources as shown in his own article, above and below) indicates that it is probably the same person who has different names but in the end decided to stick with Yamusa. His real name by the way is Mustapha, which is shorten to Musa which is very common in West Africa especially those with Muslim names. For example in the Senegambia region where there are loads of Sierra Leoneans who immigrated there (especially Gambia where Sierra Leoneans have immigrated to for over a 100 years), the Muslim/Arabic name Ibrahima is localised to Ebrima; Ibra; Ebou; and Ibrima. The name "Mustapha" is the same as Musa; and Moss. His surname "Sesay" which is the same as Sissay, Ceesay, and Ciss, tells me he comes from the Sessay clan which is a

WP:COMMONSENSE however tells me that the chances are minute. According to this 2010 source Mustapha Sesay was playing midfield for Dolphins FC as stated in our article. According to this BBC source, in May 2011, Yamusa Sesay from East End Lions (playing midfield) joint the Sierra Leonean team in preparation for the Africa Cup of Nations. That same year (2011), this source (month not given) uses Musa Sesay for the 2011 Sierra Leone Premier League. I even tried to do a check on there 2009/10 database for anyone by the name of Musa/Mustapaha Sesay or Yamusa Sesay, but there was none, only someone called Musa Fofanah which is definitely not our subject, but a different person. Currently, we have this Football Database telling us that Yamusa Sesay has been a member of East End Lions from 2011 (the same year our article told us he joint the club) to 2019, and was in the Sierra Leone team v Angola in 2012 in which Angola beat Sierra Leone 3 - 1. By 2013, we still have him using Musa Sesay according to this Sierra Leonean archived source when playing at home. I might be totally wrong, but this tells me in the early stages of his career he was probably known by all three names (Mustapha, Musa and Yamusa). It also tells me that, when he was playing home, he used all three names or was referred to by all 3 especially the first two. However when playing international or a foreign team, he adopted Yamusa or was called Yamusa - which he continued to use to the present as he got older and more mature. If you do a normal combined Google search for Yamusa Sesay, 2019, and East End Lions, you will at least find something that is recent. However if you substitute Yamusa for Musa/Mustapha, you will not find anything that is recent, only old stuff. In any case, I wish this article and the community luck as they decide its faith.Tamsier (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

What really matters here is

WP:SIGCOV. I'm willing to accept sources with Yamusa (or heck - any footballer with a similar name and bio details to the one in our article) - but what I want to see is 3-4 in-depth, independent, reliable, sources. The ones you provided with Yamusa are name drops in a list - which doesn't help us with SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete he definitely exists, but I can't find anything on internet media to verify much other than he played at least once for a team in a non-fully professional league. He may have appeared for Sierra Leone but I can't find that either. Reluctant delete. SportingFlyer T·C 07:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy Deleted per

talk · contribs) 14:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

BIG KIDD

BIG KIDD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

References seem to be mostly to databases and unreliable tabloid-like websites. Unnotable and promotional. –
talk · contribs) 15:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Reason why not delete Some new refernces added to the page, all the refences are real and from well known webiste related to music, now also added reference from
AfD. [reply
]

Delete - just promotional article only. Fails
WP:SINGER.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as
WP:CSD A7 and promotional. StaticVapor message me! 02:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete PROMO, and very poor English. At best
WP:TNT. Aoziwe (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Promotional and non-notable. I don't think the editor arguing not delete fully understands wikipedia criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional with very poor sourcing.
talk) 02:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: The article is already deleted as per
CSD-G5.--PATH SLOPU 14:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep.
(non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 08:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Elinor Burns

Elinor Burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sources do not seem to be related to the same subject, subject is not notable, and sources appear to be self-published. JAH2k (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I don’t understand this nomination. The article has multiple sources to demonstrate notability. Has the nomination checked the offline refs to support the statement that the sources don’t relate to the subject? Mccapra (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added to the article. Also found several reviews of her writing. I think there is enough coverage. I'm not sure which sources the nominator says don't refer to the same person. Tacyarg (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly fine minor figure from British labour and communist movements. Sources are provided, and check out so far as I have access. Rupert Clayton (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely pass
WP:BIO, etc.--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 08:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, I've further expanded the article, there are plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage of her, and there's no question that they do refer to the same person. Warofdreams talk 10:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly after the expansion this figure seems encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International Pageants Inc.

Miss International Pageants Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not appear to be a notable organization. All references are either non-independent or don't mention the subject. I can't find on my own any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability (although the similarity in name to the different organization Miss International makes it difficult). Deli nk (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The similar naming makes it really difficult. I found a handful of press releases, but nothing more. The references are to the org's site or to the site for a cause that a contestant supported. Schazjmd (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable event, no third party reliable sources.-Richie Campbell (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff piece.TH1980 (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, this appears to have been created by a
WP:SPA - GretLomborg (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Breaux

Jack Breaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:GNG. Sources used are basic government records, his obit, and unlinked local newspaper articles. GPL93 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is there no end to articles on minor Louisiana mayors?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently no end, you can help sift through them! Reywas92^Talk 18:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was the first Republican mayor since Reconstruction. If he wasn't I'd say delete, but that's a significant enough fact to warrant some relevancy. Duce de Zoop (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)— Duce de Zoop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Zachary LA is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on its mayors just for existing as mayors, but the article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over the bar that he actually has to clear: "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". And no, being the first member of one particular party to win the mayoralty is not a free pass to being special, either — regardless of whether a mayor is a Democrat or a Republican or a member of some minor political party, he still has to show much more press coverage about him than this shows. As always, Billy Hathorn, the existence of an obituary in the local newspaper upon a person's death is not an instant notability pass that guarantees the person an article in and of itself and exempts all of the rest of the sources from actually having to be reliable or substantive — but apart from the obituary, this is otherwise referenced entirely to raw tables of election results and genealogy documents and non-source clarifying notes and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things or people, not to substantive coverage about him. This is, as usual, not how you reference a smalltown mayor as notable enough for Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet
WP:POLITICIAN, one of many articles about minor LA political figures created by a now banned user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Plano East Senior High School#Band. A merge can be performed at editorial discretion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plano East Senior High School Band

Plano East Senior High School Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

High school marching band. Appears to have won an honour at some point, but doesn't appear to pass GNG; all other sources are primary or nearly so. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to section in Plano East Senior High School, which has plenty of detail for an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as per Mangoe, doesn't justify a standalone article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Merge to
WP:MERGEREASON.--PATH SLOPU 14:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dulani Rathnayake

Dulani Rathnayake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

One of 70 contestants in a minor international beauty competition held in 2017. Didn’t win or place. Has not achieved anything notable since the competition. Dan arndt (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has a clear overabundance of articles on non-notable beauty pageant contestants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination, and I agree with User:Mccapra, thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cultured (magazine)

Cultured (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can find essentially no independent sources, except one or two blogs. The NYT reference given is a general article about the editor, just mentioning the magazine DGG ( talk ) 11:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the NYTimes article is a profile of Sarah Harrelson, a wealthy Miami art collector who has founded at least 4 art publications, the annual magazine of Art Basel Miami, one in LA, the one under discussion here, and one other - forgot where. Mentions of these turn up in searches on her name, but no SIGCOV on any of them. It may be that she could support an article - although to me, sourcing for a BLP looks scant. What is clear is that this Cultured mag is not notable, fails
WP:SIGCOV, although Harrelson appears to be a bit of a force among collectors of contemporary art.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australia Test cricket records against Bangladesh

List of Australia Test cricket records against Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Overly specific lists of statistics as per
WP:NOTSTATS. List of Australia Test cricket records is as specific as it needs to be. Spike 'em (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I am also nominating the following related pages which all suffer from the same issue:

List of Australia Test cricket records against India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Test cricket records against New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Test cricket records against Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Test cricket records against South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Test cricket records against Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Test cricket records against West Indies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia One Day International cricket records against India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Twenty20 International cricket records against India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was wondering where the England article was, but
WP:NOTMIRROR here, as these lists are just reproductions of similar pages on cricinfo. Spike 'em (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the previous AfD for a similar list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is my understanding that lists with three overlapping criteria have been specifically ruled against. With time I could imagine exemptions this is not one of them. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Delete far too specific - we really don't need a list for any of these; the only one that might be of special significance would be against England perhaps, but that's already been deleted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Stats should be kept to a minimum; in this case, it's overkill! StickyWicket (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overkill of statistics. Orientls (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTMIRROR. This is basic stuff that can be found on ESPNCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and above and more specifically
WP:NOTSTATS. SSSB (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Helena Eldrup

Helena Eldrup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A successful high school principal. Clearly important to the school. Fails
WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being an IP, I assume I can't vote, but I hope I can comment. I am from Sweden, so please excuse any spelling mistakes I may make. The Kjellbergska flickskolan is counted as one of the "First Five" pioneer secondary educational schools for women in Sweden, and Helena Eldrup was essentially given the task to be its founder and organiser, beside being its first principal. Being an individual from the history of a small country, it is perhaps not strange if she is not yet mentioned in international sources, even if she was an important person from that country's history (and even in Sweden, the history of women's education has not been given much coverage until very recently, despite its importance); but Wikipedia does allow foreign language references, as far as I understand, and without them, it would be hard to expand international knowledge about subject that are notable, but not yet covered in English language reference books.--92.35.227.48 (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Principal of a very notable school at a time when there were few significant girls' schools in the world. Definitely notable. Meets
WP:NACADEMIC #6. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The Fredberg reference in the article does verify the dates of her tenure. [18] I am leaning towards Keep on the additional basis of
WP:AGF for the Kullgren reference and the other references at the Swedish Wikipedia version. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment See also Therese Kamph, Eldrup's successor as principal of Kjellbergska flickskolan, nominated for deletion on 26 March, where similar considerations will apply.TSventon (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not just a principal, but also a pioneer in that she built the school up from its founding. /Julle (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep historically significant. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG and per sources.BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I was leaning towards delete, but will not oppose the emerging consensus. I can see that as a pioneer of women's education and founding principal of a school, there is an argument that she is notable. I would be reluctant to encourage bios of head teachers to be allowed as a matter of course. There is no objection to foreign language references, though English ones are of course preferable, if available. I would give considerable weight to the view of the IP, even though it is not formally a vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First principal of a notable school. The article needs more sources: references to Heckscher and Hedin in Therese Kamph are also relevant to Eldrup.^[1]^[2]TSventon (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some more sources. I haven't added many inline citations - even for the online sources for which more than a snippet is visible, it really needs someone who reads Swedish. There are sufficient sources to show significant coverage over an extended period of time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Heckscher, Ebba (1914). Några drag ur den svenska flickskolans historia: under fleres medverkan samlade (in Swedish). P.A. Norstedt & söners förlag. pp. 179–180. Retrieved 29 March 2019.

^ Hedin, Edit (1967). Göteborg Flickskolor (Årsböcker I Svensk Undervisningshistoria 117) (PDF) (in Swedish). Stockholm. pp. 104–109. Retrieved 27 March 2019.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

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) 01:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas_Lehotzky

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Nicolas Lehotzky

Nicolas_Lehotzky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not notable enough Swissdesign1984 (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
significant coverage to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A
WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 11:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G12, copied from Ravindar Tomar, Commercial Operations Management, Global India Publications, 2009. Please nominate
Enterprise marketing management separately. SpinningSpark 23:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Marketing operations management

Marketing operations management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Marketing
Enterprise marketing management that I am about to bundle Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I am also nominating the following related page because it has the same issues:

Enterprise marketing management

Enterprise marketing management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roy O. Martin Jr.

Roy O. Martin Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's a great resume but not one that really asserts notability. He had a successful family business, but not a notable one, and the only source of substance in this
WP:REFBOMB is a family-written obituary. Reywas92^Talk 06:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article was deleted in 2007 and still doesn't pass notability standards now. I tried to speedy delete it but my request was turned down. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing his inclusion in Wikipedia, but the referencing is not getting him over
primary sources, glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and purely tangential verification of stray facts about his family that have nothing to do with whether he's notable enough for inclusion or not. The existence of a book about him and his company might seem like a start toward making him notable enough for inclusion, but (a) it's being cited only to metaverify its own existence rather than actually being used to support any of the content about Martin, and (b) Claitor's is a local publishing house that just publishes the book-form editions of government documents and local family genealogies, not a publisher of conventional fiction or non-fiction books — even the book's own Amazon sales profile plainly reveals that it's a Martin family genealogy, not a notability-making book about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:
not a vehicle for genealogy. The company is covered in the Oakdale, Louisiana article and the subject has notable mention in the Alexandria, Louisiana article. Otr500 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rosam

Jason Rosam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP for radio personality and station director. Doesn't seem to have any secondary sources about him that I can find, so doesn't look like he passes
Wandsworth Radio, so the station seems notable but I don't think he himself is. Maybe redirect his page to the Wandsworth Radio page? Meszzy² (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article seems too detailed. They must be a hardcore "fan" if they know so much minor info. Agree with the idea of redirecting the page to Wandsworth Radio. Although looking at that article, that seems there's scope for that to be deleted? 132.185.161.127 (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Questionable notability. PureRED | talk to me | 19:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, ore about
Wandsworth Radio than the person. 132.185.161.127 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete. This matches his user page, so clearly self-promoted page. See User:Purplehead. Also, there is more information on Rosam's page about Wandsworth radio than him. UK Wiki User (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Deswal

Sandeep Deswal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks sourcing on both Google and Google news. Sources in the article seem very peacock-y, sending up a red flag. Seems to be an attempt to get this guys' picture out more than anything. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, seems like a peacock article Kb03 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources not sufficient to establish notability Spiderone 21:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Gedroit Jager

Oksana Gedroit Jager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This model is not notable at all. There’s nothing to show for her career—and no reliable sources at all (“Fashion Encyclopedia” is literally one big copyright violation). There’s really only a regional thing from 15min but that’s not enough for an article to stand on. An article cannot rely on one source. I put a notability tag but the author removed it... (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 16:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, how is she not notable? She is a working model, constantly shooting for different ads and magazines and doing runway shows. She is still active and has more followers than some of the models you Trillfendi have written articles for! If you were even remotely interested in the fashion industry you would know that. I'm sure her followers would be interested to read about her on wikipedia. And stating that there's only one source, when there's five different sources, is clearly a lie. But I guess IMG Models is not reliable, right? Bianca1703 (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Trillfendi (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Trillfendi: It's 2019, of course followers matter. They are people who will actively search for more information on someone and would want to read an article on wikipedia. So you're trying to say that journalists who independently did their research and interviews and wrote articles aren't credible? They are not good enough for wikipedia, right? Get off your high horse! It's getting ridiculous.

To many people, like me, Oksana is better known than many of the models you created articles on. Just accept that different people are interested in reading articles about different models. Just because YOU are not interested in her and YOU didn't write the article, doesn't mean that no one else is. I don't go around marking your articles for deletion, because I know that someone out there might be interested in one of them. But also, I have better things to do with my time.
@
verified. I’ve created pages for Model of the Year winners and unknowns; the difference is they have magazines like Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, and Elle as sources. This is not about my opinion of the subject because frankly I couldn’t care less. This is about the fact that the subject doesn’t meet Wikiepdia’s notability standards. Had you actually sent this through the AfC process, a reviewer would have declined it. I didn’t propose deletion out of spite, so stop being so sensitive and look at this for what it is. If you actually had a reason to propose deletion on one of my articles then nothing would stop that from going forth. None of this is personal. Trillfendi (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments:
WP:NMODEL gives added criterion for notability to be considered on all related articles and I don't yet see "industry related" sources only as reaching the bar. Otr500 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirecting to a section of an article that has 3 sentences? Trillfendi (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this subject definitely passes WP:NMODEL. The problem is that there are few English sources, however I have found several in Lithuanian which we should take a look at before deletion:

https://www.15min.lt/vardai/naujiena/lietuva/is-salcininku-kiles-modelis-oksana-gedroit-jager-savo-busima-vyra-sutiko-tokijuje-1050-440622 https://zmones.lrytas.lt/tv-antena/2014/10/06/news/niujorke-isikurusi-lietuve-kalbedama-su-mama-griebiasi-zodyno-4370390/
Skirts⁸⁹ 09:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about, you know, actual fashion sources like Vogue. Oh wait, none are out there. Trillfendi (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has often appeared in Vogue Japan (eg [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], etc) - searching on "Oksana Jager" helped to find those. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4 links of street style photos... how useful. Trillfendi (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent, substantive sources to establish notability. "She" didn't appear in Vogue Japan, the clothes she wore to advertise did, with her name mentioned as part of a common job. Reywas92^Talk 06:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets
WP:NMODEL #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable ... other productions". I have added sources verifying that she has modelled for many notable brands. (It helps to search on all variations of her name - Oksana Gedroit Jager, Oksana Gedroit and Oksana Jager.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Once again, a slideshow of 3 images and a smattering of street style photos (i.e. ≠off duty) does not do anything to indicate notability. Walking your dog while wearing Alexander Wang, etc. is not modeling for them, that’s off-duty. That’s not how any of this works. Trillfendi (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly if I walked a dog while wearing Alexander Wang, I would not be modelling for them. But when a professional model wears it, is photographed by a professional fashion photographer, and the photos are published in a leading fashion magazine, I would certainly call it modelling. I also disagree with the editor above, who said that she didn't appear in Vogue Japan, the clothes did. Funny how the clothes always appear on professional models, not just anybody (or nobody, just the clothes) - and that the models appear again and again .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s. Not. Modeling. It’s called being off duty. Meaning they’re off the clock. Not working. Not getting paid to wear clothes. Wearing their own clothes on their personal time. Trillfendi (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a model with
WP:NMODEL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@E.M.Gregory: She was/is actually the face of lamer, and she was chosen because she has small scars on her face which make her stand out. Bianca1703 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the claim that she represents La Mer. what I do not see is
WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@E.M.Gregory: http://www.jymbenzing.com/advertising/2018/5/29/la-mer-soleil and https://www.imgmodels.com/tools/package-viewer/66091/7845/new-york/39/51a97c48de1d345aedef8b23fb7d2fa0 there was also another source from a photographer that I can't find at the moment. The photographer's name is Lewis Mirrett in case anyone else can find it. Bianca1703 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PRIMARY sources do not establish notability. this appears to be mere PROMO for a fashion model. Wikipedia is not a a free billboard for anyone's career. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is a producer's and casting director's PORTFOLIO a promo for a model? It only shows the work he's done. I guess some gossip article is worth more on wikipedia. Bianca1703 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As not notable per nom and above
reliable sources. Otr500 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to keep this for the most part are arguments from authority, and do not provide concrete evidence that the subject meets
WP:GNG, or some other criterion of notability. The arguments to delete are far stronger; Mike Christie's argument, in particular, is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Rick Norwood

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
csp
|username}}.

Rick Norwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Effectively an unsourced BLP. Subject fails
WP:AUTHOR. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I would like to say a word or two in defense of the article about my work. The criteria in
WP:NACADEMIC
standards were applied generally, I suspect a very large number of Wikipedia articles would be deleted. In mathematics, my 24 publications, some with two dozen citations, is not an inconsiderable number. In particular, I am one of the leading researchers in the area of knots on the double torus.

My claim for notability in my other area of interest, comic strips, is even stronger. I am one of the world's leading experts on newspaper comic strips, have written extensively on the subject, and have published approximately four hundred magazines reprinting classic comic strips, as well as editing books for other publishers.

I agree that as a writer of fiction my work (so far) is minor, and is only included along with other biographical information. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles are judged on the
WP:ANYBIO
, or WP:NACADEMIC) nor work in comics (by WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:AUTHOR).

Note that of the 24 papers: none are indexed on Web of Knowledge nor Scopus (typically used citation metrics); 9 are indexed on MathSciNet (one with 8 citations, two with 6 citations, and three with 1 citation); and several are on Google Scholar (one with 23 citations, one with 15 citations, one with 5 citations, and the rest with 3 or fewer citations). I don't think that this typically qualifies as highly cited nor significant per WP:NACADEMIC. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge content of Manuscript Press into this article. The subject's unusual combination of scholarship in mathematics and in the subset of the popular culture field which is comics history (where he is regarded as a prominent figure) makes him more notable than usual. (Full disclosure: I am casually acquainted with subject through science fiction fandom.) This is an example of the situation where an article is tagged for deletion, when what it needs is improved citations. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no evidence that his scholarship in mathematics meets
WP:GNG. There needs to be evidence that he really is regarded as a prominent figure from multiple independent reliable secondary sources; I see zero such evidence presented here and I have not seen any such evidence elsewhere. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"There needs to be evidence that he really is regarded as a prominent figure from multiple independent reliable secondary sources; I see zero such evidence presented here..." I've added several independent reliable secondary sources, including two books and two magazines. I'll try to add more. I should have worked harder to save reviews of my work. But if I were not regarded as a prominent figure in the field of comic strips, would I have been hired by the top publishers in that field to edit books (
The Comics Buyer's Guide and in The Menomonee Falls Gazette? This may not be sufficient evidence to convince MarkH21, but it is certainly not "zero" evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The point is that
WP:NAUTHOR but there isn't a strong case for either of those here. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE: subject has mentioned this AfD on his Facebook page, and some of his friends have spread the word. While Norwood himself is being straightforward and adult about it, some of his friends have resorted to vile and vituperative abuse of WP, suggestions of ways to "fool" us (all very childlike and sure to fail), etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a violation of the
WP:STEALTH) and naturally calls for support towards "Keep" regardless of it being straightforward (can be construed as campaigning, but perhaps not a strong case here). — MarkH21 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I asked for help in the form of citations of reliable sources which have reviewed or commented on my work. I appreciate MarkH21 informingd me that this is against Wikipedia policy. I've been editing Wikipedia for 14 years, and had not come across this rule before, but I apologize for breaking it, and will heed your advice in the future. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lean toward Keep, and merge
WP:GNG, not any of the specialized notability guidelines.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Seems to meet the criteria for notability. A somewhat odd one, since he has a claim for notability in multiple areas areas, and it's not clear how an accumulation of notability in many small areas adds up, but I'd think that the minimum standards are met. Keep.Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An "accumulation of notability" is not treated differently by the
WP:GNG. These guidelines still should be met though and none of them have been demonstrated to have been met yet. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- As a former journalist in the field of comic books, with 26 years experience in the business, i once had the job of reviewing every book Rick Norwood published. His reprint projects were both very popular and well known for their extremely high restoration quality. I believe that Rick Norwood's contributions to the historical preservation of the graphic art form influenced many others who came after him, and i think that his Manuscript Press was a model for how to keep old newsprint comics before the public. My reviews ran in "The Comics Buyer's Guide." Anyone with a run of that newspaper can look them up.
canvassed to this discussion. [reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or
WP:GNG, that's terrific but this should be deleted and allowed to be started over. Reywas92^Talk 07:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I was going to suggest merging his article into Manuscript Press, but since that went the other way already, I'm good with keeping it as a sub of his article. The sources for MP are all independent and reliable, as a combined article it passes notability. Markvs88 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My name is Rick Marschall, and I am writing because I have heard about this situation. I have written 74 books, most of them on comics history; have been comics editor of three newspaper syndicates, of Marvel Comics; and was a writer for Disney comics. I have taught comics-related courses at four universities; consulted for the US Postal Service when they issued 20 stamps on Classic Comics; and have spoken overseas on comics for the US Information Service of the Department of State. HOWEVER I really don't want to talk about myself, except as it might give credence to my comments on Rick Norwood vis a vis Wikipedia. He has been involved in comics scholarship for decades; is universally respected; and he continues to be reliable resource for fans, students, and academics. I never have had a question about his thoroughness or his integrity. 2601:404:0:657D:3DDD:3B3D:9531:CB98 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC) — 2601:404:0:657D:3DDD:3B3D:9531:CB98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: per nom, subject clearly fails
WP:AUTHOR. SSSB (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I think Nom pegged it. Long list of books an publications, no indication that any of then are notable, despite valiant efforts by page's creator to source it. I can find no evidence that this individual meets
WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I've held back from any comments for more than a week, after someone extended the deadline for a week. And now, while during that week there were two recommendations to keep, at the last minute and within seven minutes of each other, two recommendations to delete. I have to ask, do you know anything at all about comic strips? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not 7 minutes apart, but 7 hours apart. It's also not unusual, as AfDs typically see increased activity before the deadline due to sortable lists and recent changes monitoring. It's much less suspicious than multiple keep votes from IPs and editors who have never previously voted on an AfD appearing after a Facebook post from the subject of the article. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rick, I don't know much about comic books, but I'm willing to believe that you're well-known among aficionados and that most or all of what's been said in the "Keep" arguments is true. However, I don't see sources that demonstrate that the article on you passes GNG. If two or three reliable sources such as a history of comics or a newspaper article about comics scholarship devoted a page to you and your expertise, that would work, but I don't see that. Instead I see passing references in sources that are essentially about other things; you're not the primary topic under discussion in those sources. The list of publications isn't irrelevant, and could tip a marginal case, but I don't see the sources that would even make this marginal. Are there any reliable independent sources that discuss you -- as the primary topic of at least part of the source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already listed in the references is the article about me in Fancyclopedia, the article about me in Bill Schelly's A Life in Comic Fandom, and the article about me in Toonopedia.Rick Norwood (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that Fancyclopedia counts as a reliable source; and I'm one of the most active sf editors on Wikipedia (and I have a background in fandom), so it's not from ignorance. Feel free to convince me. The Toonopedia article is not about you, though it mentions you several times in passing. I would need convincing that Toonopedia is reliable -- a quick look at the main page makes it appear to be a labour of love without editorial oversight. I don't have access to Schelly but if it's an article actually about you or if there is discussion of you, rather then just a mention of your positions as editor (or etc.) then it might count. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to be talking to someone who knows about sf fandom. Do you know Dick Eney's Fancyclopedia II, on which the modern Fancyclopedia is based? In any case, Fancyclopedia is probably as reliable a reference to sf fandom as there is. As for Toonopedia, it is true that it is a labor of love, but so is Wikipedia. Full disclosure, Don Markstein, who created Toonopedia, was my roommate for a while forty years ago. I've never met Bill Shelley as far as I can remember (though I may have, I've been to an awful lot of cons). The book includes a short article about me, not just a mention. You ask for a newspaper story about me. There have been several, and I think I saved the clippings, but I can't find them now. There were along the lines of "Mathematician publishes comic book". The print reviews I was able to find make it pretty clear that I am thought of as an expert in the field. "Rick Norwood is an old hand by now at the art of how to present reprints of classic comic strip. He's done super-fancy huge volumes, ongoing reprint anthology periodicals, and book-length collections." And I am well-known enough to have Fantagraphics, a major publisher in the world of comics, to invite me to edit nine books for them, and for Titan, another major publisher, to invite me to write introductions for their books. These were paying jobs. It is not clear to me what more is necessary. (I've also been editing Wikipedia almost every day for the past twelve years.) Rick Norwood (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note solely regarding Fancyclopedia: Fancyclopedia is self-described as being open to editing by anyone who wants to join. It is not
WP:SPS. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Rick: I'm familiar with both Fancy II and its predecessor, the original Fancyclopedia, by Jack Speer; I cited both when I was doing research for the OED, but the OED's definition of a reliable source is not the same as ours. I did a search at newspapers.com for your name and "comics" and found a few hits, but my subscription has expired, so I'll leave a note at the renewal page asking any stalkers there to take a look and post here if anything looks like it would help the article pass the GNG. From what I can see, the problem is "significant": the GNG demands significant coverage in more than one source. Even if I were to take Schelly on faith as significant coverage (and you might want to transcribe what it says if you feel it will help your argument) the newspaper articles, from what I can see in the snippets visible without a subscription, are not substantial. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Using my Newspapers.com account I found the following mentions from the 'Rick Norwood comics' search: A quote, another quote, [inclusion in a list, and a small mention. Nothing significant as far as I can see there. Sam Walton (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom,
vote stacking. Otr500 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I can't think of a way to explain in words why so many people who love comic strips love the books I've edited and published, and why people who do not know much about comic strips have trouble understand the impact these books made, especially Prince Valiant -- an American Epic. I'll only point out that everyone who wants this article kept knows comic strips and, as far as I can tell, everyone who wants the article deleted does not. Maybe pictures will help. Here are the images from a search on Prince Valaint, an American Epic, the name of the Prince Valiant books I published. The first three rows of images are images from my books. https://www.google.com/search?q=prince+valiant+an+american+epic&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrnIaBlsjhAhXtlOAKHfTaA-84ChD8BQgQKAM&biw=1920&bih=944 At the time I published them, only one previous comic strip reprint was this large, a Tarzan reprint. Even today, there are only about a dozen books to ever reprint comic strips the size the appeared in newspapers in the 1930s and 1040s.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

without pretending to know anything about comics, I ran a proquest news archive search and found The People's Prince // You spared us no mercy when we pulled the plug onyour most valiant comic, so we're bringing it back Salamon, Jeff. Austin American Statesman; Austin, Tex. [Austin, Tex28 May 2000: K1. ] : ""It's mainly useful for getting people interested in history," says Rick Norwood, a professor of mathematics at East Tennessee State University. In addition to his expertise in algebraic topology, Norwood is a comic strip scholar who publishes "Prince Valiant: An American Epic," a painstaking series of oversize volumes that reprint Foster's work in fine detail. "But if you really want to know about history you should read Will and Ariel Durant. In some ways Prince Valiant is authentic, in some ways it isn't. It compresses events; you couldn't have all this history happen in one man's lifetime.". E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've been trying to think rationally about this procedure, which is not easy. Nobody likes to be told that something they have worked very hard on, and are proud of, is not noteworthy. Every major reviewer of comic strips has reviewed the reprint books I published. Almost all of these reviews have praised the books. I've given examples in the footnotes to this article. You say someone else should have given these examples, but most of them appeared in print media years ago and nobody but me clipped and saved them. Even I could only find a few. A lot of people read the comics, but only a few follow magazines that review the comics, and in this small community, everybody knows everybody else. So, if you dismiss all the people who know me, you effectively ban all experts on the subject from the discussion. That sounds like a catch 22 to me. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and Mike Christie arguments. Extra sources are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIFAukr (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't think the GNG is met. I didn't find evidence to show he's notable as a mathematician or professor. I don't think he's notable as an author although maybe a case could be made (sources are hard to judge about reliability and independence). For me, the possible arguments for keeping are countered by the facts of it being an autobiography and canvassing. The determining factor was that not meeting the GNG is more important than possibly meeting an SNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
(non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ilaya Nila

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ilaya Nila

Articles for deletion/Ilaya Nila (2nd nomination)

Ilaya Nila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

The last AfD was conducted without much thought; this time, I say this article must be deleted because the content has been transferred to Payanangal Mudivathillai (no clutter), making this article redundant. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––
^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Either redirect to Payanangal Mudivathillai as it could be viable search term or delete altogether per the nominator's reasoning. Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If people really care that much about this song then redirecting is the only option. Trillfendi (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Payanangal Mudivathillai. All of the important information in this article fits well there and covers the song sufficiently. Schazjmd (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If content has been copied elsewhere then the list of authors needs to be kept to comply with the attribution provisions of our copyright licence. By far the simplest way to do this is to redirect this title to the target article.
Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. After two relists there hasn't been a single concrete argument in favour of actual deletion, so putting this to bed. Also, several commenters are right in stating that AfD is not cleanup. KaisaL (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry S. Harris

Kerry S. Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has so many tags on it that they’re longer than the article itself. I’m not sure what to do with it so bringing to AfD for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added some refs further supporting notability. Tags exist to call out
WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues; however many of them there are, they aren't relevant to AfD. The article is salvageable with the sources that exist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment well it’s been tagged for five and a half years for unverifiable information, and since last year for possibly lacking notability. These are absolutely relevant to AfD. You’ve added some refs but they are not inline citations so it’s not clear which specific parts of the current article they might support. The content of this article that is supported by inline citations amounts to less then two sentences. Mccapra (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should review
WP:GNG is all that's needed. There are many thousands upon thousands of articles in poor shape with several maintenance tags, which nonetheless are are on notable topics. They are expected to sit there waiting until someone gets to them, and there is no deadline. Wikipedia:Editing policy, alongside the notability policy, reiterates that we build Wikipedia by starting with crap, and keeping it. The genius of Wikipedia has always been that we do keep the crap long enough for someone to build upon. If we deleted everything that wasn't good, incremental progress would be impossible.
It would be particularly harmful to violate the notability and editing policy by deleting this bio of an African-American inventor and entrepreneur, given that the well known Systemic bias of Wikipedia means there are disproportionately few such bios. Deleting a perfectly notable one out of impatience with cleanup would be egregious. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

If there are reliable sources that support this article, that's great. Looking at the article as it stands, I've no idea which particular assertions within it are properly sourced, and which aren't. You've taken the trouble to identify new sources, and I don't understand why you wouldn't want to make them inline citations. Of the sources I can see, inline citation 3 doesn't mention Kerry Harris or his invention at all. When I look him up in Black Enterprise Magazine I see that he was nominated for Innovator of the Year, not that he won it as this article claims. The ref you've added from vol 274 of Popular Science is just a passing mention. Overall what I see is - there is a guy who hold a few patents for an invention in helmets. I don't believe that is sufficient to make him notable. There are a few references here and there to the fact that he hold these patents. He has apparently not won any ward or distinction that would make him notable. There is a bio section in the article which is completely unsourced and doesn't support a claim for notability either. Overall this is pretty thin stuff. It's been around for eight years so I don't think anyone's being hasty. Mccapra (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you read the policies I cited. Please do so. They explain why your concerns about a lack of inline citations, and uncited statements in the article, and lack of awards that impress you, have no relevance to this AfD discussion. You're clinging to this incorrect belief that AfD is cleanup. The evidence shows the subject is notable, meeting
WP:GNG. End of AfD discussion. A discussion about defects in the article belongs elsewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'm on the fence on this. Usually I give the benefit of the doubt for cases where systemic bias might be an issue, as Dennis pointed out. We have two articles about the subject in Black Enterprise, which is good. I see some other things about the invention which is squishy, and one Who's Who which we often ignore in AfDs. If I saw maybe one more solid bio in another journal I'd feel better about a keep !vote. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh: it's a borderline case, I might come back later and make up my mind. However, I don't think introducing opposite biases is a feasible nor fair way of combating existing biases, although I know Longino and Hill would disagree. SITH (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please develop the article further and then I will circle back for a vote. Also reference format appears improper
talk) 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

AfD is not cleanup. It's disruptive to come to AfD and set conditions on your voting. If we reward your behavior, editors will come to AfD and post lists of demands for edits they want to see before delivering their !votes. If an topic is notable, it remains notable regardless of the current state of the article. If someone blanked all of
We fix the problem, rather than argue for deletion. I hope AfD closers will work to discourage this kind of making demands as a conditions for votes
You could reply "Oh, yeah? Well in that case, my vote is DELETE! Take that!" That would be even more disruptive. Classic AfD blackmail. Please don't. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As mentioned above, based the on current situation of Mr. Harris and his work, this is a border-line case but believe it does pass our requirements for inclusion. Given his involvement and development with regards to installation of monitoring equipment in safety helmets and the ongoing mounting concern of concussions in both pleasure and professional sports here in the United States, I see Mr. Harris gaining more and more attention. In addition, I have added some inline cites from
WP:RS sources in the main article, which should eliminates some of the concerns of the nominator. Regards ShoesssS ^Talk 14:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Only 1 of those tags could lead to a possible deletion, and I don't think it can be applied, AfD is not cleanup. SSSB (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

X-Boxin

X-Boxin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is very promotional, and doesn't appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and those included in the article are questionable at best (Burmese language references that are mostly primary/mostly deceive and some patently unreliable.), and also have many multiple issues in article/ Strong COI/Paid concern...see talk page. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly self-promotional material for non-notable rapper with no independent in-depth coverage, only ever appeared in an insignificant chart. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Could easily have been speedy deleted as unambiguous promotion as it appears to have been created by the person himself, as well as for being an unremarkable musician."KoKoChitChit" (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument to userfy this would be a lot stronger if there were a specific user willing to work on this in their userspace. I am therefore willing to provide a copy to anyone who asks for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York Women's Culinary Alliance

New York Women's Culinary Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I do not think this article is notable. Of the 16 sources listed, 11 seem to be primary sources. Then, regarding the 5 remaining sources: Source number 1: A small historical note to the NYWCA Archive of the NYU Fales Library, doesn't seem to imply huge notability, but it is a reliable secondary source. Source number 2: Organisation mentioned in the New York Daily News, a
no consensus on its reliability
. Source number 3: Article of a HuffPost contributor, which is considered
generally unreliable
. Source number 4: Mentioned in a book which has 570 entries of restaurants etc. in New York, doesn't seem to imply huge notability. Source number 16: This is a good source, but seems mostly focused on the organisation's archive and not the organisation itself.
Taking all these factors into account, I do not think this page is notable per
WP:ORG
.
MrClog (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update regarding source number 4: the writer of the entry (Layla Khoury-Hanold) has been involved in the organisation before the book was published in 2015; she organised programs for the organisation in both 2012 and 2013 (see here). --MrClog (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this article, it will surprise no one that I believe the NYWCA is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. It has been active continuously for more than 35 years, representing thousands of members in total. Here's why: Its founding members included Julia Child, Sara Moulton, and Jean Anderson, all of whom are the subject of separate Wikipedia articles. Its members have been affiliated with the Four Seasons restaurant, the Food Network, Gourmet magazine, and Ladies Home Journal, all of which are the subject of separate Wikipedia articles. One of the article’s citations is from the New York Daily News, which is described as “a tabloid of which there is no consensus on its reliability” – an assertion made without any supporting evidence. Regarding the News’s reliability, I’ll note to start that it has been published continuously since 1919. More tellingly, according to Wikipedia itself, the Daily News was awarded a Pulitzer Prize as recently as 2017, for a story "about the widespread abuse of eviction rules by the police to oust hundreds of people, most of them poor minorities.” As for Suzanne Hamlin, the author of the story in the Daily News, she landed at the New York Times in 1992 and wrote about food for that publication for the next ten years: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suzanne-hamlin-8139a69. Another source, the Huffington Post, is also accused without evidence of unreliability. But The Post’s Wikipedia entry notes that it was awarded a Peabody Award in 2010 and a Pulitzer Prize in 2012. And in 2015, it was nominated for the Responsible Media of the Year by the British Muslim Awards. Finally, MrClog describes New York University’s Fales Library as “a good source,” but then discounts their endorsement because it “seems mostly focused on the organisation’s archive and not the organisation itself.” I’ll note only that the Fales Library is indeed a library. Conserving archives is one of the chief activities conducted by libraries – and if the Fales hadn’t been convinced of the NYWCA’s notability, they never would have bothered to acquire the group’s archives in the first place.Illbadler (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS/P, which lists New York Daily News as a tabloid and notes there is no consensus on the reliability of it (see here) and posts by HuffPost contributors as generally unreliable (see here). There is also a difference between the fact that an organisation's archives may be relevant for a library and the organisation being directly relevant to a general encyclopedia. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Re Wikipedia’s assessment of the Daily News: you are correct that it claims that there is no consensus on its reliability. “No consensus” means that some sources believe that it is not reliable and some believe that it is reliable. I disagree with your opinion that a library’s embrace of an archives doesn’t necessarily mean that those archives are relevant to a general encyclopedia. If it’s good enough for a notable, professionally-staffed university, it’s good enough for a user-generated encyclopedia. I noticed, by the way, that Wikipedia’s list of the reliability of some sources asserts the following about Discogs.com: “The content on Discogs is user-generated and is therefore generally unreliable.” Exactly the same charge could be leveled at Wikipedia. Thank you. Illbadler (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG in my honest opinion. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think we're going to agree, in my honest opinion. Is there a higher authority that can adjudicate this dispute? Thank you.Illbadler (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After 7 days, an administrator will close the request and base their decision on the comments posted here. --MrClog (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely. Thank you.Illbadler (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think an event in the New York Times is enough to show notability, and that was all I've found. There is a lot of coverage on the founders, and I also think a redirect and partial merge might be worth considering. 71.163.163.163 (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. MrClog, I'm heartened by your work on behalf of Wikipedia in spite of your acknowledgement of its unreliability. I hope you'll extend the same generosity to the New York Daily News and the Huffington Post with regard to their coverage of the New York Women's Culinary Alliance -- and that you'll reconsider your efforts to delete the Wikipedia article about the organization. The group's many members during the past three-and-a-half decades have no doubts about its notability and effectiveness in an ongoing campaign to combat sexist bias in the food professions. Thank you.Illbadler (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the "book which has 570 entries". It's "
significant coverage" we ask for. If it "addresses the topic directly and in detail" it doesn't matter how few or many other topics also receive significant coverage in the same publication: Bhunacat10 (talk), 18:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Agreed. The book with the 570 entries devotes a detailed article to the NYWCA by name. Thank you.Illbadler (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bhunacat10, for as far as I could see the book spends less than half a page on it, that doesn't seem to be in much detail. --MrClog (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MrClog, The entry that precedes the entry on the New York Women's Culinary Alliance is entitled "NYU Food Studies in the 21st Century." It is 179 words long. The entry that follows the entry on the New York Women's Culinary Alliance is devoted to a 19th Century restaurant called Niblo's Garden. It is 301 words long. The entry devoted to the New York Women's Culinary Alliance is 380 words long.Illbadler (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illbadler, so? A 380 words entry doesn't seem to be detailed enough to imply notability to me, to be honest. --MrClog (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrClog, we're talking about an encyclopedic book of 570 mostly shortish entries, all of which, obviously, are notable in the opinion of the book's editors. That said, the article on the NYWCA is longer than both of the articles that bracket it.Illbadler (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG): inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, as the book lists the 570 "food, people, places, and institutions that have made New York cuisine so wildly diverse and immensely appealing" (according to the book's description). I did some research and the writer of the entry has been involved in the organisation before she wrote the entry! The book was published in 2015 and the writer gave 2 programs in, one in 2012 and one in 2013 (see here), and therefore the source is not independent at all and really implies very little to no notability. --MrClog (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

MrClog, thanks so much for the link to the website for the NYWCA. Under their "Programs" section, they describe 97 different events produced by the members of the group for the members of the group between June 2012 and June 2017. I would not characterize that level of productivity as trivial. Similarly, under "Outreach and Community," they note, "NYWCA is dedicated to supporting member initiatives and community organizations working to promote the nutrition and health of women and children in New York City....We have supported: Nourishing USA, Charles B. Wang Community Health Center, Ronald McDonald House, Cooking with Kids with Cancer, GEMS and The JCC in Manhattan SPA Day for Women with Breast or Ovarian Cancer." The first three of these programs have Wikipedia entries. All of them are notable.Illbadler (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources report on this support it really isn't notable. You are yet to point to me any Wikipedia policy, instead of your own opinion, that supports keeping the article on this encyclopedia. --MrClog (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

MrClog, you misrepresent me. Our whole discussion has been about notability. It was you who first provided a link to the NYWCA's website. If the website is notable enough for you to use to attack the writer of the piece about the NYWCA in “Savoring Gotham,” then it’s notable enough for me to depend on for an account of the astonishing productivity of their programming. Indeed, it is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact that the NYWCA has produced and continues to produce substantial programming for its members and to support notable community organizations in and around the city of New York. You and I have also directly discussed the reliability of the sources in my entry. As noted, I believe that the Daily News and the Huffington Post, both of which have written about the NYWCA, are no less reliable than Wikipedia itself. I’ve also pointed out that Suzanne Hamlin, who wrote about the NYWCA for the Daily News, went on to distinguish herself as a writer for the New York Times, the notability of which is indisputable.Illbadler (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Illbadler, You make a few false assumptions here.

MrClog, I assume nothing. I make assertions based on research and reason.Illbadler (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the website is notable enough for you to use to attack the writer [...] then it’s notable enough for me to depend on for an account of the astonishing productivity of their programming - First of all, I don't "attack" the writer, rather, I explain why she is not independent. Second, this claim is simply not true, there's a substantial difference between me pointing out someone's involved in an organisation according to a primary source and you claiming it is notable because of that primary source. See:
WP:PSTS

MrClog, your research on the writer was meant to discredit her. It certainly was an attack. And your reliance on a primary source for research on a writer certainly allows me to rely on that same source for credible information about its activities.Illbadler (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it is not my opinion, it is a matter of fact that the NYWCA has produced and continues to produce substantial programming for its members and to support notable community organizations in and around the city of New York - This is again just an opinion. You have cited no
reliable sources
that claim they gave "substantial programming", and their support for certain organisations doesn't make them notable. I donate to certain notable NGOs, am I notable enough for a WP article now?

MrClog, my "opinion" about the group's programming is an accurate summary of the extensive information they provide about those activities. As for your support for certain notable NGOs, you are an individual. If your support included organizing on their behalf and generating publicity and money for those organizations, you might indeed merit a WP article. As for the NYWCA, their support for these notable organizations is a matter of public record, and the public acceptance by the organizations of the NYWCA is a measure of the group's notability.Illbadler (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I believe that the Daily News and the Huffington Post, both of which have written about the NYWCA, are no less reliable than Wikipedia itself - Agreed, as per
WP:WPNOTRS
, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

MrClog, I appreciate your candor. On that basis alone, you should abandon your campaign to delete the entry on the NYWCA.Illbadler (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also pointed out that Suzanne Hamlin, who wrote about the NYWCA for the Daily News, went on to distinguish herself as a writer for the New York Times, the notability of which is indisputable - That doesn't mean anything to this discussion. It's not simply the writer that matters when looking at reliability of sources, it is also about the editorial team of a newspaper and the type of news they send out.

--MrClog (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MrClog, I completely disagree. A given writer builds his or her own reputation. The Times -- that paragon of reliability -- never would have hired her if she hadn't previously established her reliability.Illbadler (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGIND (part of the guideline specifically on notability of organisations), which lists any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly as an example of dependent sources. --MrClog (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

MrClog, I have always endorsed Wikipedia’s policy regarding notability and I continue to do so now. WP’s articles are written by amateurs with no notability – or credibility -- of their own. Establishing the notability of a given subject with reliable secondary sources is thus an unimpeachable attempt to overcome this basic defect of Wikipedia. But there are limits to the efficacy of this solution. What is one to do if a prospective subject somehow hasn’t generated significant notice from respectable third parties in the media? It happens sometimes. I have done my best to adduce commentary from secondary sources attesting to the notability of the New York Women’s Culinary Alliance. I continue to believe that the sources I cite are sufficient to that purpose – you disagree -- but I admit I wish there were more. How to explain this lack? In the case of the NYWCA, it speaks to their utter lack of desire as an organization to generate publicity. They are an organization devoted exclusively to helping women culinary professionals overcome sexist bias in the profession. As its members would attest, and as the organization’s longevity attests, this focus has been – and continues to be – successful. But the NYWCA’s work has not garnered much public notice in the larger world. Still, if the article on the NYWCA is deleted on the basis of current WP policy, I believe it will be WP’s loss. In March of 2018, the New York Times’ obituary section began publishing a feature called ”Overlooked.” An unsigned explanation of the origin of the feature noted that “since 1851, the New York Times has published thousands of obituaries….The vast majority chronicled the lives of men….Charlotte Bronte wrote “Jane Eyre”’ Emily Warren Roebling oversaw construction of the Brooklyn Bridge; Madhubala transfixed Bollywood; Ida B. Wells campaigned against lynching. Yet all of their deaths went unremarked in our pages.” Summing up, William McDonald, the Times’ obituary editor, wrote, “With ‘Overlooked,’ our new collection of obituaries for women and others who never got them, The Times is acknowledging that many worthy subjects were skipped for generations, for whatever reasons.” Going forward, WP might want to take a tip from the Times.Illbadler (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrClog, seven days have passed since I posted this article and you proposed that it be deleted. How soon can we expect an administrator to resolve this debate? Thanks?Illbadler (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Illbadler, at the top of this page, there is a box saying 'New to AfD? Read these primers.' AfD discussions can be extended to allow for more discussion. It seems that only you (the article creator), the editor who nominated for deletion, and one IP editor have so far !voted in this AfD, so I think it's quite likely that it will be extended at least once. I have only just noticed it myself, and will have a look at the article and search for sources and then come back and !vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks.Illbadler (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I agree that the organization is doing important work and has significance in its field, most of the things I've read profile the members far more than the organization itself. Unfortunately, many article topics which should be deserving die in process due to lack of reliable source coverage. This does not mean that the article can't come back later if and when more in-depth coverage is given about it in various media. My other concern is that I suspect
Sarah Moulton, who was one of the founders of the organization. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Userify or Keep. I'm seeing some good soruces in a gBooks search [25]. I think the subject is notable and article needs improvement. Perhaps page creator is willing to learn to write an acceptable article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. There's enough in
WP:NOTCLEANUP, but there's limits. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Belchic

Harriet Belchic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:NPOL. Subject was a local campaign organizer and the sources, not of which are actually used as citations, are mostly obituaries or basic government records. GPL93 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obits are among the best sources for people who lived before the days of the internet. The article has been expanded over the years and could no doubt be further developed. Here we have a biography of historic interest.--Ipigott (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the obits, only one is actually hers and they are all from the local newspaper. I already did a search online and it didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. GPL93 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, an obituary can be used as one source amid a mix of solid sourcing; it may sometimes, for example, be the only source we can actually locate for a person's actual birth or death dates or for a woman's maiden name. But the existence of an obituary is not an instant notability pass in and of itself, because more or less every single person who exists always automatically gets one. The obituary can be used for verification of stray facts in an article that has already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but is not in and of itself a GNG maker if it's the only, or the strongest, source that's actually on offer at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added some references from other newspapers, including political participation at the national level. Nick Number (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any of her roles reaching notability. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local newspaper obituaries do not establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this person was notable and the article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person passes
WP:ANYBIO. The article has adequate sources Gristleking (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with the new sources that have been added, the obituary itself is still the only source that's substantively about Harriet Belchic at all — all of the new ones are just glancing namechecks of her existence, not substantive coverage about her doing anything that passes a Wikipedia notability criterion. GNG is not just "anybody who's had their name mentioned in newspapers two or more times for any reason whatsoever" — it tests for the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about her, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what she's getting covered for, not just the number of footnotes present in the article. Nothing here, either in the substance or the referencing, is enough — a person does not clear GNG just because you can find her name in a list of everybody who was elected to the board of a non-notable organization, or a comprehensive list of every single person across the entire state who was a delegate to a political convention: a source helps to get her over GNG if she's substantively a subject of it, not if it's fundamentally about something or someone else and just happens to mention her name a single time in the process of not being about her. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the record of an honourable, useful life, of civic virtue, of dedication to community and a willingness to put her shoulder to the wheels that make community and American democratic government work. We are fortunate to be blessed with dedicated citizens like Belchic. But none of the sources or any that I can find supports the idea that she was notable by our standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the first source (local newspaper obituary) could count towards
WP:ANYBIO. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Evil Warriors (Masters of The Universe)

AfDs for this article:

Evil Warriors (Masters of The Universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Pretty much the entirety of the article is a duplicate from List of Masters of the Universe characters, making this article unnecessary. Merge or redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters. JIP | Talk 08:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 04:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters per nom. Though I'm a little uncomfortable with the fancruftiness of it all. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Cometdocs

Cometdocs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
WP:ITSUSEFUL perennial stub. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 04:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manish kr Jha

Manish kr Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

autobiography's only claim of notability is as the founder of Maurya News, but that article is itself being considered for deletion. "Currently associated with PJP Group" is somewhat vague, as it does not say what his position is within that organization, and, while Prakash Jha is apparently notable, it is not clear that his production company is. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 04:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - not notable enough, could not find any
WP:RS QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

EmployBridge

EmployBridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A before reveals little in the way of independent coverage, all I can find are
pr fluff. Praxidicae (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 04:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Taulia

Taulia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Fails
WP:NCORP, all coverage appears to be routine business press (hirings, funding, promotional articles based on quotes from the company, etc.). Caveat: I was not able to read the bizjournals article, but between the title and the website[26], I doubt that it's any different from the other provided sources, and at any rate, one good source does not NCORP meet. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Park Kee-hoon

Park Kee-hoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Actor with questionable notability who I can't find any reliable sources for. (Same with Lim Young-duk who I just put a prod up for that was made by the same creator) Wgolf (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 04:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. With this being relisted twice there's only a small amount of comments and the discussion is obviously leaning towards keep. I consider this more of a contested
(non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Paul McKenna Band

Paul McKenna Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page has been tagged for notability for over eight years. Two speedy deletion nominations have been declined (September 2008 with the rationale "UK airplay, award, some coverage" and June 2009 "Being signed to a notable label is indication of importance/significance") but I cannot find any significant coverage of this band after the best part of a decade. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've managed to recover archived versions of two dead links of refs and discovered one new one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be quite a bit of coverage of the band worldwide including reviews - [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] (need to click on correct link), etc. There are more as I stopped looking for more after a while, and it should qualify under
WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least some of these additional references, along with the existing ones, are enough indication for me of GNG to get off the fence. It would be useful to add some to the article under External Links, until such time as they are use to expand and verify it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Nash

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Kelly Nash

Articles for deletion/Kelly Nash (2nd nomination)

Kelly Nash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent coverage in reliable sources, all coverage in RS that I was able to find was either interviews (not independent) or unbelievably trivial. Does not appear to meet
WP:NBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put six references on there, how many do I need? I spent quite of bit of time on this page. Not recently because I've been busy but I did add some more info recently. I am getting frustrated with the process especially since I have another page/draft (Olivia Dekker) I've been waiting two months to get approved.- Dwightform (talk)

(Updated) I did add more references on the page- Dwightform (talk)

As I said on my
WP:ANYBIO). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I am a bit on the fence here. I would expect that someone with her degree of prominence as a sportscaster would generate enough coverage to meet GNG. But I haven't found quite enough to satisfy me yet. I would certainly give credit for the Tampa Bay Times as at least one solid source, with a number of stories referenced in the article plus this, a smaller piece here, and others. But that is just one source. Otherwise, while I would not discount the Sports Business Daily article completely, since it was written and published independently of her, it is rather weak. And while I can't dismiss the Instagram bit entirely, since it was covered in many reliable sources, it is also a weak hook on which to hand a notability argument. So I still think we need at least one more solid source outside the Tampa Bay Times before I can support keeping. 16:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 23:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of MLB Network personalities, does not warrant a standalone article as i do not see anything beyond a competent journalist doing their job. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any
WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete local sports reporter who fails
WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sharman

Mike Sharman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable personality. unreliable/connected sources. Some are interviews, not secondary sources. ToT89 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete: Probably has a claim to
WP:GNG via a Tech Central article, an interview with a local radio station, and this Biz News interview (although the last one may not be the most reliable, being a self-described "disruptive internet publishing business"). The article should probably say something about the company Retroviral though, as that's entirely what these articles are about. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Upon second thought, the interviews are moreso primary sources than independent secondary sources as suggested by nom. Revised to delete by failure to meet GNG. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviews of the sort that are the references here do not show notability, for the subject can say essentially what he pleases. And, if they are mostly about the company, they wouldn't show notability for him. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Surely [37],[38] are not interviews. He was featured in the Marie Claire naked edition here... along side other notable individuals here. The subject was also listed on the Mail & Guardian 200 Young South Africans here. Mail & Guardian being a reliable source. This clearly shows that the subject makes a mark in his field of work and shows some significance. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but those are passing mentions / lists – not
WP:BASIC. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Engler

Ivan Engler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:BEFORE doesn't find any significant coverage. Scottyoak2 (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
talk) 01:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails
WP:SPIP here. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohiaddin Alwaye

Mohiaddin Alwaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article MalayaliWoman (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence of notability. The articles on ml.wiki and bn.wiki say essentially the same things, and the longer of the two, on ml.wiki, has a number of tags for sourcing, notability, and promotion. Google Scholar turns up a few citations, but nothing approaching
WP:NPROF. MarginalCost (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K. A. Siddique Hassan

K. A. Siddique Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A Kerala based Islamist. I think the article not notable. MalayaliWoman (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Looks like it passes
WP:GNG by two in-depth interview articles from The Hindu and Times of Oman (I can't find another link beside this one, but it should be from the 18 Sep 2010 issue). The article itself would benefit from some expansion on Vision 2016 (e.g. from the article from The Hindu). — MarkH21 (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Satisfies
WP:GNG. (relevant links were already given by above user).--PATH SLOPU 09:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - I'm not sure there's enough
WP:INDEPENDENT content within the two interviews to satisfy, but it is possible that there is enough to satisfy BIO. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as the creator's WikiEd supervisor has sandboxed it in draftspace. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Adshade

Marina Adshade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Résumé-toned
conflict of interest here, as the creator was an SPA with a username that's at least mildly suggestive of being the subject herself. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their writing about other things technically metaverifies its own existence -- she has to be the subject of sources written by other people to clear a Wikipedia inclusion standard. Bearcat (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

comment: I just realized that this article was written by a student in our program who wrote about their instructor, which is a huge red flag. Bearcat I draftified the article to immediately remove it from mainspace. We can figure out where to go from here. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

article creator added to the talk page of the deletion discussion instead of here, pasting their response below Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for that. Of course, if better sources can be found to support her notability the article can absolutely be moved back to mainspace again, but thanks for responding promptly and constructively. I'll now close this since it's no longer in mainspace. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am the writer of the article. The subject of the WP:BLP has reliable source coverage in that her work has been discussed in The Globe and Mail, The New York Times, Canadian Business, Cosmopolitan and Daily Mail among others, links and citations of which were included in initial revisions of the article.

I would like to assure that there is no conflict of interest.

I have edited the introduction to reflect to a certain extent the emphasis on the publications. The Academic Appointment section serves as a transition between the Education section and the Publication section. Explanations of academic appointments by their very nature are resume-themed. A key point to emphasize in the section would include the initiation of the course on Economics of sex and love - using economics to explain sexual values and relationships.

The paragraphs in the Publication section are reliant on primary source information as it serves as a discussion of the (at times counter-intuitive) state of knowledge that is a linchpin of the notable literature, research and discussions of the subject of the WP:BLP.

I look forward to constructive criticism and suggestions on how to improve the article.

Amedo.ad (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Amedo.ad[reply]
No, you didn't include any links which demonstrated her as the subject of coverage in any of those publications — you included references which demonstrated her as the author of content in those publications. A person clears our notability standards by being the subject of coverage written by other people, not by being the author of her own references. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nonsense.
(non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 08:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Time zone

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Time zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's still April First in Western America! One Blue Hat ^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 02:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Dancefloration

Dancefloration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by an editor whose only other edits were to the doubtfully notable
WP:NMUSIC. There is nothing much else in the Russian version to assist notability. Just Chilling (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Special Counsel counter report

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Special Counsel counter report

Articles for deletion/Special Counsel counter report (2nd nomination)

Special Counsel counter report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Last time I nominated this for deletion (with the closer saying "No prejudice to bringing this to AfD again in a couple of months") I wrote:

This surely fails
WP:CRYSTAL
; it's an article about something that doesn't exist yet, with the assertions that it will exist coming from figures who are perhaps not universally regarded as trustworthy.

Until such a report does exist, it does not seem to me to merit a page. Some of the material on the article could perhaps be used in pages about things that do exist.

It's been a couple of months and the only thing that has changed is that the Trump party line is that Mueller's report exonerates him completely. Whether or not one believes that, this "counter report" is presumably even less likely to ever see the light of day, and the little of any value in this page could be merged elsewhere as a brief incident in the history of the Mueller report. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 11:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Those don't all even mention the supposed "counter report" and typically predate the current claim that the report exonerates Trump. As said, there is even less reason now to suppose this "counter report" will ever see the light of day - and unless it does, this article is pointless, with cites that justify only a brief mention in the article about the Mueller report. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every single article mentions "counter(-)report", one way or the other. If you used CTRL+F or Command+F, you would see the words and a little description detailing the counter-report. The article still passes
talk) 16:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last AfD was relisted twice then closed as no consensus noting lack of participation, but per that close this renomination was justified and right on time. After a full week listed here again, and over six days without comment (despite the obvious news), I fear we are once again going down that path. I'm relisting this in the hopes that it will spur further input, but would think a second second relist likely excessive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:BKCRYSTAL; the subject is basically a not-yet-completed book. If the counter-report is ever published, this article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

To redirect is to deprive of this page's value and contents. Furthermore, this article is not a book and per
talk) 00:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see why this wouldn't be considered a book (assuming that it actually comes to exist). It would be a book-length, textual, monographic (non-serial) publication. And
WP:BKCRYSTAL says, "Articles about books that are not yet published are accepted only if they are not excluded by the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, and only under criteria other than those provided by this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should be independent sources which provide strong evidence that the book will be published, and which include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication." We don't know the title or the publication date, and there is some doubt that the book will be published, because not all of the projects promised by the Trump administration necessarily come into existence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:BKCRYSTAL is reasonable, and the rationale holds - there is an expressed intention to have a report, but there is really no verifiable information about it at this time. The redirect target is appropriate, and the history should be retained in the event there is enough information at a later date to warrant restoration. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), per Metropolitan90. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per
(non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 15:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Thirteenth Doctor

Thirteenth Doctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The Twelfth Doctor said so! TapLover (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 01:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: as this is clearly a joke. Sumanuil (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bit late for April Fool's. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, youse IS TARDy. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Evelyn Alcide

Evelyn Alcide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sure this person meets any point of
WP:NARTIST. Couldn't find any substantial sources about her on a search. The citations on this article are all to galleries and exhibitions that she has been featured in, but those are not independent sources when considering notability - what matters is independent coverage of her exhibitions, which I can find no evidence of. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ I found a couple of book sources as as well as a decent mention in Artnews. She certainly exists and has some recognition for her work. It's not as extensive as would be ideal, hence the weak keep.
talk) 12:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Change to Keep, after finding she is also in UCLA Fowler museum permanent collection.
talk) 18:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears that her work was included in "Mami Wata: Arts for Water Spirits in Africa and Its Diasporas" a traveling exhibition orginated at the Fowler Museum at UCLA that travelled to several venues including National Museum of African Art, as referenced in this essay "Drewal, Henry John. “Mami Wata: Arts for Water Spirits in Africa and Its Diasporas.” African Arts, vol. 41, no. 2, 2008, pp. 60–83. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20447886." I have requested the catalog to verify: Drewal, H., Houlberg, Marilyn, & Fowler Museum at UCLA. (2008). Mami Wata : Arts for water spirits in Africa and its diasporas. Los Angeles, CA: Fowler Museum at UCLA.--Theredproject (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work-- the UCLA show led me to their colleciton, which she is included in. Changing to Keep as this is half way to WP:ARTIST, and certainly now meets GNG.
talk) 18:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to verify the exhibition, and the book. She had two works in the exhibition. I added the citations, with page numbers. --Theredproject (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets
WP:NARTIST criterion 4(d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Vexations (talk
)

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Alec Muffett

Alec Muffett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

possibly non-notable computer engineer. There are some one-off quotes from him in articles about cyber security issues, but I'm not finding significant coverage. Sources in article are pretty much all self-sourced or affiliated. SPA creator with only a couple of other edits since valereee (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Very well known in the software community as well as the unix community for his crack program. Quite a few Gbooks mentions again for security and Crack, but not really a lot to build an article. Certainly notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crack (password software) as that's what he's known for. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep partially famous person in the Unix/Linux and security communities. Current references are really enough to pass notability, keeping it don't hurt to anything!.
talk) 04:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Passes
WP:CREATIVE. (link-[39])--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 09:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep in addition to sources already in article, I ran a Proquest news search that turned up additional
WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Joe's

Pizza Joe's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article falls well short of establishing notability. Of the six sources, four are the company's own web site. The other two are "puff pieces", only one of which is about the company (and reads more like an advertorial), the other is about its founder. The style of the article is also problematic, reading more like an advertisement, right down to listing what is on the menu. But the main problem remains the failure to meet
WP:GNG. Gronk Oz (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and improve, it is relevant just not well written.
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Mosaicberry (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - are there reliable sources to support that, Mosaicberry? Perhaps you could list some of the best; I have not found them. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Be realistic... they obviously fail general notability right now. Trillfendi (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:MILL. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the fundamental problem is that this is a run of the mill company that simply exists which doesn't satisfy the level of notability to support Wikipedia presence. Graywalls (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giyani: Land of Blood

Giyani: Land of Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Having some notability, the article would not meet
WP:NTELEVISION with lack of sufficient reliable sources. Sheldybett (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Although the article is lacking sufficient reliable sources. The show is set to air on a notable television channel [40], that alone should pass
WP:NTELEVISION and multiple reliable sources are present online, [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Broadcast on a major national network (
WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, pending some evidence that the It is the very first Xitsonga drama series made since the advent of Television in South Africa. claim is untrue; the source verifying it seems relatively reliable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

HappyBirthdaySidna

HappyBirthdaySidna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note that this song's true title is "#HappyBirthdaySidna" but the hashtag cannot appear in the article title. Despite the supposed all-star recording effort, there is little evidence of
inherit their notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't one of the topic areas where I usually edit, but I did a search for news stories in any language on this & did find several more sources. I'll add them to the page, you all can decide if it makes a difference. JamesG5 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Vungarala V Subrahmanyam

Vungarala V Subrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Founder of small start-up, searches did not uncover enough in-depth coverage to show they pass
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Anthony Morina

Anthony Morina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability — only source is IMDB.
The page is a mess, and has been for years. Possible copypaste from somewhere else BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

INFOTSAV

INFOTSAV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable student festival BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might be copyvio, seems to be copy-paste of their 2019 program. (I just spot checked a few and they were verbatims.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A first-person-voice, primary-sourced article promoting the quizzes and games at a student event. The promotional Events in Infotsav'19 section could be entirely removed on
WP:GNG notability for the event as a whole. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_April_2&oldid=1142224435"

[1] Heckscher, Ebba (1914). Några drag ur den svenska flickskolans historia: under fleres medverkan samlade (in Swedish). P.A. Norstedt & söners förlag. pp. 179–180. Retrieved 29 March 2019.

[2] Hedin, Edit (1967). Göteborg Flickskolor (Årsböcker I Svensk Undervisningshistoria 117) (PDF) (in Swedish). Stockholm. pp. 104–109. Retrieved 27 March 2019.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[1]

[2]