Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 7

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raguluthunna Bharatham

Raguluthunna Bharatham (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)

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

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

As per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NFO criteria 3 "the film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" ie Nandi Award for Best Story Writer which is verifiable for example here. Also, per User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric in the 2nd nomination: it is a commercial movie with famous actors, and you can see it is not forgotten because it is mentioned in this 2016 article about the director and in this 2018 article about the lyricist. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies
  WP:GNG.--PATH SLOPU 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination. The Keep suggestions seem to be based on an
  WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 7 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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshihiko Kikuchi

Yoshihiko Kikuchi (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 subject that does not meet

Sources were presented in the previous AfD discussion, but only one, which I can't access, appears to be possibly usable to qualify notability. However, multiple independent sources that provide

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with North America on the two books by notable authors that he dismisses as "brief" because, read in context, these are about Kikuchi's role in the Church during the long, slow period when it moved away from its tradition of sorting humans into a hierarchy of races. One of the dismissed "snippets" is also meaningful in this context. Primarily, however, I find this table to be a false and inappropriate attempt to mislead editors about the available sources because of its dismissal of a long scholarly article about Kikuchi on the grounds that Nom cannot access it, and dismissal of a scholarly book that contains SIGCOV of Kikuchi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The attempt to classify scholarly, univerisity press sources as "primary sources" is just unacceptable. BYU Studies approaches issues from a clearly scholarly perspective and the attempt to disqualify it is outrageous. There are either two or three sources, depending on the view of the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history, that provide indepth coverage. That is clearly enough to pass the general notability guidelines and justify an article. Ownership cannot be used as ground to cast out university press publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete If this topic were notable, some reliable sources could be found that cover the the unsourced biographical information we currently include. An entire long section of our article includes a single citation that is being used to support the claim that he was born in "Horoizumi District", except that it doesn't say that: it just says "Horoizumi", and at the time of Kikuchi's birth Erimo, Hokkaido was apparently known as Horoizumi Town. I doubt the author of our dubious source knew the difference. The rest of the section is dubious hagiography that, if this discussion does not end in the page being deleted or redirected, should be immediately blanked pending an independent reliable source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently claims his father was killed by a submarine and he attended university in Tokyo, but the earliest version said it was a bombing raid and the university was in Hokkaido. Is this another Bill Schnoebelen situation where a religious leader's autobiography he tells his followers has changed over the years? Neither version cited a written source, so I can't imagine why it would have been changed... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murky, incorrect family and childhood backgrounds are not all that rare. In such cases, it is best to phrase it carefully, "according to Kikuchi, his father was..." This makes it clear that we are reporting Kikuchi's memory or understand ing of the past. It would be different if a major newspaper had checked the war record. Most of us believe what we are told, even though many family stories are exaggerated, fabricated, mis-remembered, or deliberately edited to conceal certain details. Ignorant geographical details added by an American writing up a story about Japan, or an unvalidated family story about how Dad died don't really matter for notability. And notability is the question at issue here. The sources about his role in the Church are reliable. If the childhood background is not accurate, it can and should be fixed. But this does not affect the question of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Northamerica1000, please tell me you're not calling a book by BYU Press "primary" because it's a Mormon press and the subject is Mormon. If so, you completely misunderstand what a primary source is. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon further research and consideration, it is an acceptable source. Struck this in the box above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically irrelevant to the question of this subject's notability, though: the source was introduced in the previous AFD as "discussing or quoting" this subject in three places; quotes from the subject himself are near-useless for GNG, and the layout of the page numbers implies EMG just went to the index and looked for Kikuchi's name, without checking whether it was a quotation or a discussion that was on each of the pages in question, and I seriously doubt that each of pages 352, 353, 354 and 358 included a separate short "discussinon" of Kikuchi. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nb. I still feel that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per reasons and sources I provided in November 2018 when Nom last brought this individual to AfD. Note that the book published the Brigham University Press that was one of the sources I brought was disparaged by Nom on the grounds that the Press is not INDEPENDENT of the church. The quesiton was brought to the RS noticeboard, where editors judged that a reputable university press is independent of the government or church that sponsors the university, eliminating one of Nom's arguments for deletion. imho, it was tendentious to drag this one back to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the scholarly article in JSTOR that Nom cannot access is about Kikuchi's administration of LDS in Japan, I added it to the page last November, and I think my edit was a fair summary of the contents, except that with regard to notability I want to emphasize that the article is a scholarly analysis of Kikuchi's approach to recruiting converts and the problems that his approach caused. This is the very definition of
  WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Taking the Gospel to the Japanese, 1901–2001, by Reid Larkin Nielsen, Brigham Young University Press, 2006. Chapter 14, The Church in Japan Comes of Age, 1968–1980, by Terry G. Nelson discusses Kikuchi. It is less than 20 pages. I suggest that editors should feel an obligation to actually read such a source before undertaking to disparage it. The index - which is available online - shows that he is cited 7 times in that chapter. As far as I can tell, the chapters are not available online. Perhaps one of you gentlemen would be willing to walk to a library and give us your description/assessment of the source. In general, however, a chapter in a university press book is an indication of notability. And he was, after all, a major figure in LDS in Japan in 1968-1980, according to the JSTOR article and other sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: So how do you feel about the unsourced biographical content? Can we blank it pending some reliable sources? Your !vote is for "keep", but the content of your comment doesn't actually appear to disagree with my "weak delete" on the substance of the matter and the question of whether the content of the present article is worth keeping. Also, please note that not everyone lives within walking distance of a library that stocks a lot of English-language literature about Mormons that isn't itself published by the Mormon Church or affiliated groups. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant to the quesiton at AfD, but I agree that we can. Sourced to a dead link of an interview he gave, and not a particularly likely story (the U.S. Navy was not targeting fisherman in Japanese waters 2 weeks before V-J Day.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 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.

Eric Loyd

Eric Loyd (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)

Our article says he played 4

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets

WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep – clearly meets
  WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL div2 was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets
  WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the league in question does not really pass any reasonable fully professional test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: per consensus in
  WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 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.

Dark Walker

Dark Walker (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)

Lacked RS since creation in April 2007. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Ladies and Gentlemen of Pakistan

First Ladies and Gentlemen of Pakistan (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 is a list of spouses of heads of state and heads of government of Pakistan. The title "first lady" or "first gentleman" is not formal, and has no legal recognition. On the face of it, this list looks like a directory (see

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Although individuals within this list may and do qualify for their own WP articles, this list does not seem to fulfill any significant purpose (or even interest?). Definitely does not pass
  WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oshawott, Dewott, and Samurott

Oshawott, Dewott, and Samurott (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 really notable enough to have an article. No significant impact on the real world as far as I'm aware. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:POKEMON. There’s just no need to spin-out a stand-alone article here. Much of the article is overly-wordy fluff too - very little of substance is actually said. The reception section in particular looks like someone just did a Google search of every inconsequential passing mention of the subject from game reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Sergecross73. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have anything to say. This breaks my heart. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sergecross73. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article does meet the notability guidelines. Yes, it has its issues, it can be improved! GavinDavis02 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How? This was your fourth all-time edit, so I’m interested in seeing how exactly you feel you know better than everyone else here... Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I thoroughly read through the notability guidelines to come to that conclusion GavinDavis02 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Explain how it specifically meets the notability requirements then. You haven’t stated anything to indicate you understand how it does. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a couple of third-party sources listed in the references already, and it didn't take long at all to find several more GavinDavis02 (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please list off the reliable third party sources that you feel provide significant coverage. Please provide them here for evaluation. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 14 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.

Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame

Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame (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 think this is FORK of both Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame and seems fancruft. This has too many information that is not required and could easily be compressed and merged in the respective pages. If anything, I suggest creating a new one like Production of the Avengers films or Production of MCU films, which honestly would be better off. The existence of this kind of pages promotes too many unnecessary content. All the Avengers films have the same level of production value I believe. A good example is Production of the James Bond films. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep @ImmortalWizard: You should have discussed this first on the talk page. Noone is saying that these two films do not have the same level of production as other Avengers films. The point of this article is that these two films in particular were produced together and thus share much of the same information. So instead of repeating the same information, we placed it in a central location. See Production of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as another example.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for letting me know about the other example. If I had known that earlier, I would have went for MULTIAFD. Even if they were produced together, I don't see any point of FORKing in a stand alone with so many unnecessary info. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TriiipleThreat. Mosaicberry (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Triiiple's points, and to elaborate a little the point of this article is that a lot of the content in it would be unnecessarily duplicated if we split it between the two film articles since content from this article applies to both films, which is why this article was created to begin with. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid split from two clearly notable articles, page size matters as per
  WP:NOTPAPER and this article is a sensible creation Atlantic306 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per TriiipleThreat. Zuko Halliwell (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It’s not uncommon for back-to-back films to have articles on production. See:
  Principal photography of The Lord of the Rings film series as well as the above-mentioned Deathly Hallows article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per TriiipleThreat's points, and because important information concerning Infinity War's and Endgame's joint production would be lost. ARZ100 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Considering the merit of the similar nature of the productions, I'll have to agree with keeping. Garlicolive (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per TriiipleThreat. Calling this fancruft is completely inaccurate. Sock (tock talk) 14:08, 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.

James Gillingham

James Gillingham (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'm not seeing the

• Withdraw - A big thanks to
  Phil and AuthorAuthor - I've learned something new today. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete,I think this Article croosed WP:NOTADVERTISING and it's Not notable in itself, so delete the Article.Forest90 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly passes the
  Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - A simple Google search turned up reliable sources with significant coverage. I expanded the article using some of those sources. A 2017 BBC documentary includes the subject, and, as pointed out by
  WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not a notable figure. I couldn't even tell why the article was written. Perhaps instead of him having his own article, add to an existing article about prosthetics?Disaposi (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if only searching online, there's plenty to be found, including the existence of a book about him, academic papers about his work ([6]), the fact that his creations are exhibited in several museums in multiple countries ([7], [8], [9]), and the BBC coverage ([10], [11]), as well as other coverage available online ([12], [13]). --Michig (talk) 07:57, 14 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 Transport in Białystok. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zarząd Białostockiej Komunikacji Miejskiej

Zarząd Białostockiej Komunikacji Miejskiej (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)

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Most local transport authorities outside major towns are not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge to Transport in Białystok per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Mosaicberry (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soroush Dabbagh

Soroush Dabbagh (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)

Doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Citations are not good indicators for people working on humanities (particularly philosophy). He is best known for his works and views in Persian. Particularly his views on Hijab have been criticized: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. He is also known for his debates on BBC. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Citations are not good indicators for people working on humanities (particularly philosophy): False so long as you compare like with like. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  I was paraphrasing

  WP:Academic: "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. Published much but cited little. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• delete Doesn't meet the GNG. Lots of publications is not enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:01, 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 delete. Sandstein 17:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Budhathoki

Aditi Budhathoki (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)

With her single lead role, she doesn't appear to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft move to draftspace for AFC consideration after that tv series is released when her notability can be reassessed, as only halfway there at present for
  WP:NACTOR, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Draft or Delete can confirm that the subject is likely to become
  WP:BLP, it ought to be more careful on its content. The birthday mentioned, at least, seems to be contradicted by some other sources, credibility of any of them being hard to establish. Usedtobecool (talk) 09:53, 13 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.

Lil Keed

Lil Keed (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)

Subject is an upcoming American rapper. Sources are not IRS. He started his music career in 2018 and has not achieve any prominent in music industry. Fails to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

*Comment -I oppose because Lil Keed's brother Lil Gotit has his own page, and Keed has just as many views as Gotit. Thus Keed also collaborated with well known Musical artists and is gaining views, so I oppose deletion. This is User:Proudpakistani11 73.74.141.157 (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Notability is

talk) 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep – Meets
  WP:GNG. Coverage in reliable sources including Complex, TheFader, XXL, HotNewHipHop, Elevator Magazine and Pitchfork. StaticVapor message me! 23:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

*Comment - None of the sources provided are either independent or reliable

(1) Complex - is not a reliable site, no series reputation editorial site for fact-checking and accuracy like Rolling Stones. The sites in various affiliate marketing programs, getting paid commission on purchases made through the site links.

(2 & 3 & 5)TheFader, XXL and Elevator Magazine - are an interview articles which make the source not indepedent as the info obtained is from the subject himself.

(4) HotNewHipHop is a musician subscription site and a "promotional powerhouse" - not such the source is not reliable.

(6) Pitchfork - the editor of the article is a contributor who is a university student who would like to pursue a journalism career in future - she is not a legit journalist and the source/article is not reliable.

talk) 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment You are factually incorrect in your analysis of these sources. All qualify as
  reliable sources and they cover him or his music. StaticVapor message me! 19:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - Something is wrong with that analysis of sources by CASSIOPEIA. First, it is full of typos in a fashion uncharacteristic for that editor. More importantly: Complex, Fader, Pitchfork, and XXL are all listed as reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, so they can be assumed to know what they're doing with artist articles as well. And saying that a young beginning journalist is not "legit" smacks of elitism, especially when that person works at a reliable publication with proper editing and management. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, HotNewHipHop was just discussed at
  WT:ALBUMS, with clear consensus that it is a reliable source. StaticVapor message me! 19:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Enough coverage exists in reliable sources to merit an article.

WP:GNG. StaticVapor message me! 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Keep - See my comment above on reliable sources, in which this rapper has a few introductory articles. Those media mentions are indeed brief and some are reliant on interviews in which the rapper merely talks about himself, but the coverage shows some minor notice in the hip hop community, perhaps enough for a stub here. If the article is kept, promotional language needs to be removed, and I would not argue with anyone voting to delete under the
  WP:TOOSOON standard. But previous delete arguments based on suitability of sources are not convincing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Notability is the guidelines. For a artist to have minor media coverage and the sources are either not reliable or not independent - that fails the notability guidelines. It is
  talk • contribs
  )
• Delete when an article says someone is upcoming that means right now they are not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: per DOOMSDAYER520 and a Google search provides reliable sources to support notability, passes
  WP:MUSICBIO#5 through this. The subject is also signed to a notable record label. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)][reply
  ]
• KeepSigned to a famous lable, is almost upcoming and is famous enough, this is 73.74.141.157.
• Comment Pls see
  talk • contribs
  )

• @
  WP:Bludgeoning the discussion, we already know your opinion. Also remember to sign your posts. StaticVapor message me! 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep has coverage in multiple reliable sources as per Doomsdayer so passes criteria #1 of
  WP:NMUSIC and has also released on a notable record label so should be included Atlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 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 delete. Sandstein 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Vargas González

Jorge Vargas González (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't understand why this page was kept at a previous AFD. The subject's main claim to fame is being mayor of a 13,000 person town. The nav box shows an serious effort to build out content around everyone that has been a mayor of this little village. There is even

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A town of 13,000 population is not a "little village". Someone may fail
  WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've seen building complexes in China with morr people. Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Quibbling over whether a population of 13,000 makes a place a "little village" or not is entirely orthogonal to the point, which is that a population of 13,000 is not enough to hand all of the place's mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as mayors. Yes, maybe a mayor of a place this size could manage to pass
  primary sources (birth and marriage certificates from the civil registry office) and routine election coverage and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him — and while there are a few sources that are actually reliable and independent and strongly enough about him to count for something, there aren't enough of those once you discount all the weaksauce stuff. Every mayor of everywhere can always show three or four or five media hits, so the way to make a smaller town's mayor notable is not just to show three or four or five media hits — it's to show a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks him out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other mayors of places this size. But the volume of reliable and substantive coverage in genuinely GNG-worthy sources shown here is not accomplishing that: it's just matching "what every mayor can always show", not lifting him into the realm of the special. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete local politicians get local coverage. We need more to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 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. Sandstein 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

José Martínez (football manager)

José Martínez (football manager) (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who does not