Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 February	15 February >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kerewi

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

Fails

WP:GNG not demonstrated. As is, the only real coverage of the player is in a BBC piece about African footballers playing in other parts of the world, but I really don't think that constitutes significant coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 00:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 00:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 00:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 00:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Lacks significant, independent coverage required for
WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 00:42, 22 February 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 Everett C. Erle per ATD and CHEAP. The article is completely unsourced, which means there is nothing to merge. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Stamp Club

)

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

This article has been unsourced since its creation in May 2009 when it was tagged for notability. I cannot find any in-depth coverage. There are some directory references and passing mentions but I have found nothing that gets close to establishing notability. Fails

WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 00:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 00:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - I have to agree with nom. I can't find any independent coverage. Gargleafg (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet
WP:ORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not notable. Acnetj (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect after merging what can be saved to
WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I merged what little I could. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that I am doubtful of his notability, also. I cannot find any independent sources to support his page. Just Chilling (talk) 18:51, 21 February 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 proposed redirect does not strike me as a likely search term and is not mentioned in the target article, which is itself a poorly sourced stub. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Label Study Group

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

This article has been unsourced since its creation in September 2014. I cannot find any in-depth coverage. There are some directory references and the group's publication has had some passing mentions but I have found nothing that gets close to establishing notability. Fails

WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 00:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary of unsourced terms. Otr500 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no substantial, independent sources and I think the article fails
WP:NORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

DELETE -
WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not notable. Acnetj (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not indication of reliable independent sourcing to establish notability. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per
WP:CHEAP to Airmail etiquette. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

That would point the redirect towards and entirely different subject matter; the target proposed target article is about the actual topic of stamps used in airmail, while the title of this article concerns a specific (but non-notable) organization which is organized for the appreciation of stamps used in airmail. Furthermore, the organization is not even mentioned in the proposed target article. This would not by any means be an appropriate circumstance for a redirect,

WP:CHEAP or no. Perhaps you meant to suggest a merge? If there was a merge of content, then the redirect would have a basis, but as there are no RS here, you might hit resistance to even mentioning this group in the proposed target article. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:40, 21 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Capone

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

Appears to not meet

WP:NMUSIC. StaticVapor message me! 22:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 00:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: very definitely doesn't meet
WP:MUSICBIO. No sources found at all, outside of the artist's social media and the non-RS Purple Bars blog cited in the article. Just seems like a self-promotional article for an aspiring rapper. Richard3120 (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per nom and User:Richard3120. In an interview the subject even states "My music career is still in the opening stages". Otr500 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; obviously not notable now. No significant coverage anywhere, and certainly not enough to meet
WP:MUSICBIO. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Appears to be a
WP:TOOSOON situation. Omni Flames (talk) 00:46, 22 February 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.

T

04:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

2020 United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey

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

It is

Rusf10 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 22:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep It's not "too soon" at all. This is the next regularly scheduled biannual election. Who is running is speculative, but the event will happen and is notable. Race ratings are already being released. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "What's next for these midterm winners, losers and key players as the run up to 2020 starts", NorthJersey.com, Charles Stile, Trenton Bureau Published 4:50 a.m. ET Nov. 12, 2018. Literally as soon as one House of Representatives election cycle ends, the next one begins. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This is notable and almost certain to take place. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It helps if the article contained any actual facts. All it has is speculation about who is going to run, "race ratings" (more speculative editorial content) and a recap of the last election (already covered at

Rusf10 (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Rusf10, it's a fact that those individuals are speculative candidates. We don't know who is going to play in Super Bowl LIV yet, but we have an article for it for the same reason we should keep this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep per Muboshgu. Doesn't violate
WP:CRYSTAL. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments:: If
surmising, conjecture, speculation, or possibilities by one source which should be removed, but that is a content issue. Otr500 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, extensive precedent at AfD for keeping articles for next elections (most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Japanese general election). Mélencron (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu Djflem (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a scheduled future election. It does not make sense to delete only for it to be recreated in the near future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'; concur with Muboshgu and Mélencron. This is the next election cycle. There's plenty of precedent for this. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:27, 18 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farshid Asadian

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

Contested

WP:WPMA/N with only references being results from competitions that ~~thus~~they 'did well' in. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 22:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Spelling fixed RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 22:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete This is much to question about this article, especially given its COI, SPA, and sockpuppet issues. First, I don't know what Asian Games he supposedly competed in, but they're not the ones generally recognized. The Asian Games are held every 4 years with the next one occurring in 2022, not in 2009 and 2011. They may have been junior martial arts tournaments, given he was about 15 for the first one, but they weren't the Asian Games (which do have wushu). His performance at the World Junior Wushu championships was also less than meets the eye. His two third place finishes were out of 4 competitors and he finished 8th of 10 in his other event at the 2008 tournament. At the 2010 junior championships he finished 5th of 8, 4th of 7, and 11th of 12 in his events. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting of his results at these events. Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Papaursa, It may be best to put a COI tag on the page as well. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 06:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Papaursa. There is just so much wrong with this article.PRehse (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Asian Games which Asadian competed in was The 5th and 6th Asian Junior Wushu Championships which are held every two years and not the Asian games which are held every 4 years. the mistake was acknowledged and edited.

as Asadian's History of Wushu Career is fully displayed on the official website of Iranian Wushu federation, it is undeniable that every medal that he managed to get in the tournaments which are mentioned here are legitimate and are in fact reconginzable competitons. the external link to this page can confirm this.

Although his results in other competetion didn't "meet the eye" he still managed to achieve medals in World Wushu Junior championships and Asian Junior Wushu Championships which can't be simply ignored and overlooked because of his results in other competetions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vira.gh (talk • contribs) 17:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for clarifying that. No one is saying that he didn't win those medals, but that those medals don't confer notability. Junior competitions in martial arts have never been considered sufficient to show notability. Even Youth Olympic gold medalists have had their articles deleted.
WP:MANOTE specifically talks about success "as an adult black belt" in competitions with a large number of competitors. I don't see any notability criteria that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Concur with reasonings given above; the junior championships are not sufficient to generate notability. I also would like to note that the main contributor to the article has been creating a series of accounts evading a block. This isn't a reason to delete of course. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Papaursa. The photograph alone had me reaching for the COI tag. Britishfinance (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per
WP:OUTCOMES, junior and master's athletes are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:GNG - seeing very little evidence of any significant coverage. Omni Flames (talk) 01:06, 22 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Shi

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

The article is about a computer science academic at Carleton University. I am unable to find any significant coverage in independent sources, although this is somewhat expected for academics. I read the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but I cannot find any that would apply in this case. The person is an associate professor. The h-index according to Google Scholar is 9 which is somewhat on the low side in computer science. Looking though the publications, I am not able to find any in tier 1 conferences/journals (please correct me if I am wrong here) or any one with a significant impact. It seems like the person is an early career academic and perhaps it is too soon to have an article. My apologies for nominating a newly created article for deletion.-- DreamLinker (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete,
WP:PROF#C1, the best-paper awards are too minor for #C2, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails
WP:NPROF. Jmertel23 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete - I
too soon. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails all
WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Omni Flames (talk) 00:49, 22 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Press Club Vode

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

I think this fails

WP:GNG. A yearly show presented from 1921 to 1927 by students of a Californian university that seems to have had one mention in the LA Times in 1926 (which is behind a paywall). Britishfinance (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have as yet no opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted, but hope that it will be judged in the same way as an article about an equivalent group that has been active from 2013 to 2019.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 20:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am confused why anyone would consider a small club, which had a single annual event, at what was then a small college, to be
notable. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 21 February 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. Numerically, this is pretty close, but I find the arguments for delete stronger and far more convincing. Many of the proponents for keeping this point to

inclusion criteria

sections; that's a stronger stance and appears applicable to the page in question.

Editor's note: As I was considering closing this and drafting the above statement, three more !votes came in. It doesn't change my opinion of the consensus, but I did consider note closing and relisting it as an active discussion. However, this has been open for three weeks now, and I suspect the main reason more participants are coming is because this is the last AfD from the day (which is how I found it); that's supported by the fact that it has been relisted twice, once with no additional input, so I feel I am not shutting off an ongoing, productive conversation by closing this. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek versions of names

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

This is a lexicon, a type of dictionary, and Wikipedia is

not a dictionary. Pontificalibus 09:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep (Article author) I can't see why an article: "List of names of European cities in different languages" can exist and not this one. Plus, most of them are old disused terns and have encylopedic value. This article tries to help users reading old Greek encyclopedias to understand about who are talking about. Like a list of terms or symbols.(TakisA1 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Duplicated by
chatter) 16:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, probably. I note that there is a List of Latinised names, and on its Talk page is the comment "some of the names included in this article are actually hellenised rather than latinised". One of the names identified as hellenised was coined in the Early Middle Ages (Maimonides), some are described as "Coined by Anglo-Norman scribes", some in the Renaissance (eg Gersonides). So there is room for expansion of the current list to include last names; female names (all the names in the current list are male); names which were hellenized at different periods (including possibly names like Xerxes which were hellenized (or written in Greek form) by Herodotus), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs) 17:09 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment. The Latinised list is a red herring. That list contains mostly names of famous individuals that are commonly used in the English language (other than the Coined by Anglo-Norman scribes#Surnames subsection, which needs to be cut down drastically). The Greek list just gives translations of generic common names, and is haphazard, to say the least. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. No significant notability and
WP:NOTDICT. Ajf773 (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
What is "significant notability"? postdlf (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Insignificantly notable: Charles Alexander (cricketer, born 1839). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Δελετε per ~~NOTDICT~~
WP:LISTGLOSSARY: "Glossaries – alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has its own main article on Wikipedia." Also, even a partially complete list of common given names (or uncommon - Ormond?) would be very long. (And the list is 100% male names.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Fails
WP:SALAT: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". Even a partially complete list of common given names (or uncommon - Ormond?) would be very long. (And the list is 100% male names.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep ish. I agree with what RebeccaGreen has said. As for the widely cited
WP:WORDISSUBJECT. And no, this list isn't duplicated by what you can expect google translate or the interwiki links to do; but maybe the article needs a clarification of its scope, to avoid similar misunderstandings? – Uanfala (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Point taken. ~~I have replaced NOTDICT with LISTGLOSSARY as my rationale.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is more than a list, there is a third column.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 20:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per
sources?. If the "Hellenisation of names" was important should they not be listed in the appropriate articles (ex. Edward under Variant forms, etymology, or something? Otr500 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Author Comment: I have added more collumns and I will try to source every name. You can check a name by simply googling in and going to 'books'. Also with the same logic these should also be deleted: [2] (TakisA1 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@User talk:TakisA1 I am open to seeing if an article is salvageable. --"But" FYI-- Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you need to use independent sources or ones that are reliable from those pages. Otr500 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. Subject is far too general for a Wikipedia list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an
indiscriminate collection of information that says nothing why the list is of encyclopedic importance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not useful; can't even link the items in the table to other WP articles (a measure of a still-useful list). Just a dictionary. Can't see why a reader would come to WP for this? Britishfinance (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Linguistic history of this language, including names, is inherently notable. These names have articles, wikilink the list, add categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 22 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug DeMuro

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

Fails

WP:SNG pass. John from Idegon (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author) I have written the article, because DeMuro is a well-known for reviewing cars. Numerous independent sources have written about him including Philadelphia Media Network and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The reach of his writings and reviews is reflected by the fact that he is mentioned as a source and in the text of a sizable number of articles on Wikipedia. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

None of the things you've mentioned confer notability. Please name 3 or more reliable sources that discuss him in detail as required by GNG, or an achievement that rises to the level required by an SNG. John from Idegon (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this detailed Philadelphia Weekly profile (1), this Business Insider article (2), and this BI article (3). All have significant coverage (he is the main subject of all three articles), they are reliable (newspaper and BI is a major reliable news website), and all are secondary and independent from the subject. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the PW article is a fine source, but not enough on its own to show notability. As for the other two: First, that's only one source, not two. Second, both are about a single incident (each), not detailed discussion of his life. They are far more about cars than him. Further, any use of BI as a source must be closely scrutinized. See the editorial disclaimer covering the website. Having written books in and of itself is not enough to meet AUTHOR. Again, I would be happy to agree to draftify this to allow you to find better sources. John from Idegon (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That first Business Insider article has been written by senior correspondent and author Matthew DeBord. The article indeed discusses cars, because that is what DeMuro is known for. It is about his experience owning, reviewing and writing about the Ferrari 360 Modena, and I would say Doug DeMuro is more than a detail in that article. Another article is from CNBC. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm usually sceptical of the notability of YouTube celebrities, but Dough DeMuro seems to have enough significant coverage in reliable sources. In addition to the ones listed above, there are profiles of him at [3] and [4], and he's widely quoted as a car expert in stories about specific vehicles. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the fact that Philadelphia Weekly profile is local, it is an INDEPTH profile of him. Business Insider: A guy who endured a nightmare of Ferrari ownership is now suffering with a used Aston Martin is a solid source. The appearance on
WP:SIGCOV. Despite the fact that article is overstuffed with PRIMARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 21 February 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. Firm consensus that both within the original sources and within RebeccaGreen's traditional additions, notability has been established
(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Tarjani Vakil

Tarjani Vakil (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)

In the book cited she is
mirrors and forks, there doesn't seem to be much in online searches and the only offline source I can find is the cited book. Courtesy ping Winged Blades of Godric. SITH (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The nomination rationale is misleading. The cited book (preview available at Google Books) contains biographies of 21 people. The subject's biography is 13 pages long. That constitutes
WP:SIGCOV. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: WP:SIGCOV does not automatically transfer to
WP:ANYBIO. I will look back to see what User:RebeccaGreen has found. Otr500 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I don't know where the nominator was looking for offline sources, but the obvious place, the Google Books search automatically linked by the nomination process, finds several. I see that another one of them has been added to the article.
Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I have added a few more references. The Business Today article and the book The Voyage to Excellence have lengthy coverage, while the book Inside the Indian Business Mind has a substantial paragraph about her. Other sources provide details, or describe her as a role model and the first to shatter the glass ceiling. She meets
WP:BASIC, and is clearly regarded as an important figure in Indian banking. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Have quite a few references now. As
WP:BASIC. Regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per User:RebeccaGreen's additions. I added that Vakil retired from Exim. She was active as late as January 2019 as an Independent Non-Executive Director of Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd.

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barton evaporation engine

Barton evaporation engine (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 took a look at this article and attempted to find
WP:FRINGE issue out of it. It just seems in summary to be an idea that has not yet caught enough attention to be notable. Ipatrol (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 19:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 19:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I note that Barton's paper analyzing this invention has 7 citations listed on Google Scholar, but 6 of the citing papers were written by Barton himself. This is just another of the many inventions that may or may not be good ideas, but simply haven't caught on, so haven't become notable.
Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and comments. Paleorthid (talk) 22:23, 16 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Ferlita

Rose Ferlita (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)

Devoid of any references and almost clearly a
WP:COI issues. GPL93 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Member of the Hillsborough County Commission and a council member in the city of
WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Appears to be COI. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither city nor county councillors get automatic inclusion freebies just for existing — to actually be eligible for a Wikipedia article, the notability tests she would have to pass are that either (a) she had preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a city or county councillor, such as having also served in the state legislature or Congress, or (b) she could be unusually well-referenced as a special case who was significantly more notable than most other city councillors, such as by receiving nationalized coverage far beyond just the expected volume of local media attention that every city councillor everywhere always gets. But neither of those things are in evidence here at all, as so often happens this is written much more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article, and there's almost certainly a direct
conflict of interest here as the creator's username was "Kferlita". Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all of the above. She sounds like a caring person, but is just not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Academy

Westboro Academy (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)

NN private elementary school MB 18:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Doesn't meet
refs RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - non-notable elementary school.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable elementary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and my standards. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 21 February 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. Only took 11 years, Bearian ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Mertz

Roland Mertz (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)

Appears to be a
WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)GPL93 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving as director of a county emergency management department is not an office that gets a person over
primary source web pages of the things being named — so they're not sources that help to establish his notability at all. Nothing here, either in the substance or the sourcing, is a reason why a person at this level of prominence would have earned a place in an international encyclopedia — and the article was created by "MinisterGregMertz" with some followup edits by "Rolmertz", but our conflict of interest rules do militate against starting articles about yourself or your own family members. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete county directors of emergency services are almost never notable, nothing comes close to making this person an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over a decade and no references; for a reason as the person is not notable. Britishfinance (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BEFORE and found nothing. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 21 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Varieng

Varieng (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)

Opting for AFD over PROD as I don't speak Finnish. Can't seem to find anything aside from primary sources, perhaps merge with University of Helsinki? SITH (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - As long it meets
WP:GNG, it should be kept, regardless of the sources. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This appears to be a garden variety administrative research construct, of which every university has a few dozen. To become notable, they need to make some waves on their own, with widely reported research outcomes, major and special grants, etc. I'm not seeing that (although my willingness to manually run stuff through Google Translate is admittedly limited). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Elmidae. No coverage in Finnish-language sources, seems to be run-off-the-mill research unit which every university has. --Pudeo (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a native Finnish speaker and didn't find any information about Varieng apart from random mentions on the University of Helsinki website and a Twitter page. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 01:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if there are no sources, we can't verify the information, and we can't keep it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We do not assume better sources exist. If they can be found they need to be presented in the discussion to establish notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Stewart (Louisiana)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/William G. Stewart (Louisiana)

Articles for deletion/William G. Stewart (Louisiana) (2nd nomination)

William G. Stewart (Louisiana) (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)

All of the sources are either primary, obits, or are about people that he was tangentially related to and don't establish any sort of notability. I recommend a speedy delete. GPL93 (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 17:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 17:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see it fails
WP:GNG. Better sources could be searched for. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment @User:ImmortalWizard I couldn't find any actual sources to support GNG in my search. The current references used in the article are as follows: 1) a memorial on FindaGrave.com (Primary); 2) a link to a now-defunct website but the url appears to focus on the names of parks and highways; 3) memorial on FindaGrave.com, this time for his father (Primary); 4) a link to Ancestry.com with general information about his grandfather; 5) his grandfather's memorial on FindaGrave.com (Primary); 6) non-linked election results; 7) his wife's memorial on FindaGrave.com, masked as a newspaper article in the sourcing; 8) Stewart's basic info on Ancestry.com; 9) what appears to be an unlinked reference to a centennial brochure about Webster Parrish, LA; 10) another dead link for the now-defunct website, this time about a historic house that was owned by one of his ancestors; 11) A PDF that establishes that his half-brother (not Stewart himself) was a member of the LA House of Representatives; 12) Stewart's basic info on Ancestry.com again; and 13) and another memorial on FindaGrave.com. All of the findagraves are technically linked to newspaper articles, but they are local funeral announcements and obits and don't constitute significant enough coverage. Most of them aren't event about the subject. The page's creator, who has since been banned, was known for reference-spamming to make the articles appear more substantiated when they actually weren't. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being president of a smalltown local school board is not a claim of notability that gets a person over
WP:GNG. GNG is not simply a matter of counting the number of footnotes present in the article and keeping anything that has more than two of them — GNG tests for depth, geographic range and context, not just number, but (as is almost always the case with Billy Hathorn specials) the sourcing here isn't cutting it at all. The majority of the sources here are genealogy, not journalism, and even the ones that are actual journalism are obituaries of his relatives, not journalism about him. This is not how you reference a smalltown school board trustee as notable enough for Wikipedia. If this were Louisianapedia I probably wouldn't care, but then again I wouldn't be participating in a Louisianapedia in the first place as I know far too little about Louisiana to have anything to contribute to that — but nothing here is evidence that he's earned a place in an international encyclopedia at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
Lewis Powell, Jr.) Bearian (talk) 18:26, 21 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Stephen Stills Album (Southern Cross)

Unreleased Stephen Stills Album (Southern Cross) (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 unclear if this album ever existed to any degree. The sources provided are 1) a photo caption of Stills at a recording session, 2) a biography that doesn't mention anything about an unrecorded Stephen Stills album, and 3) a music forum (not reliable). I wasn't able to find anything by searching for "unreleased Stephen Stills album" or Southern Cross (which is the name of a CSN song, but doesn't appear to have ever been an album name). Normally
WP:NALBUM would dictate that the article should redirect to the artist in case of no notability, but given that this is an unlikely search term and that it's unclear if this album existed in any capacity, I am nominating for deletion instead. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: fails
WP:NALBUM. The little verifiable information that exists is already included in the Stephen Stills article, with the same references as this article; however, as noted, a redirect would be impossible with such a vague search title. Richard3120 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - We have seen this kind of thing before (e.g. this). Minor recording sessions that were never released get glamorized by fans into a legendary lost album. The nominator is correct that there are no sources indicating that these sessions developed far enough to actually be considered an album. The sessions themselves can be mentioned as a historical tidbit in the career of Stephen Stills. Fantasies of lost albums can be left at fan sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 15 February 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. Consensus that there is sufficient reliable coverage, even to pass
(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Diabetes UK

Diabetes UK (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)

Appears to fail the
reliable sources. The only two sources which weren't either affiliated or local in terms of media or news that I could find are this and this, both of which are recent articles about the impact of Brexit on diabetics. A spokesperson from the charity is quoted, but the charity itself is not the primary topic of coverage. SITH (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 17:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 17:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 17:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 17:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I have done some work on this and added some secondary sources. Everything I have added looks non-trivial to me. I agree it still needs independent sourcing of some of the claims in the article. There must be more out there - it is a very well-known charity.Tacyarg (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article passes
WP:GNG as this is a well known UK charity that does receive media coverage. A Google News search generates sources, some as yet not used in the article. This is Paul (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
This is Paul, can you give me an example please? My Google News search brings up only local sources. SITH (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to look a bit further. Yes, there are loads of local sources there, but just about every daily national newspaper is also represented.
Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes indeed. Here's some Google searches to get you started. These are from The Independent, The Guardian, The Telegraph, and BBC News. I don't think they're local links. This is Paul (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per common sense, or if you don't like common sense, then per the sources cited in the article and available via the searches linked by the nomination, including [6], [7] etc.
Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 21 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burjeel Hospital

Burjeel Hospital (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 on one of a small chain of hospitals; already included as part of the chain. I tried to redirect but was reverted by presumed coi editor , in his second edit. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect and then protect the redirect from being recreated. Not enough independent notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – lots of external links, doesn't give much context or indication of notablilty. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
talk) 02:27, 22 February 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.
π, ν) 03:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sciences Po Law School

Sciences Po Law School (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)

Notability, Decided so in French WP: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:%C3%89cole_de_droit_de_Sciences_Po/Suppression LLMSorbonne (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion is not justified, especially not on notability grounds. The Wikipedia:Notability Guidelines state that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." A simple Google search of the terms "Ecole de droit de Sciences Po" reveals a host of articles concerning SPLS in many independent publications (higher education guides, well-regarded newspapers, YouTube videos created by people independent of SPLS and aimed at prospective students, professional websites used by lawyers...). The creation of SPLS has even given rise to scholarly articles/debates.
A few examples include:
- https://www.liberation.fr/societe/2010/04/01/le-mercato-des-profs-de-droit_618446 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawStudentJam (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.lemondedudroit.fr/270-on-en-parle/62585-11eme-bourse-excellence-clifford-chance-ecole-droit-sciencespo.html
- http://www.mondedesgrandesecoles.fr/sciences-po-initie-premier-cursus-integre-droit-finance/
- https://www.letudiant.fr/educpros/enquetes/sciences-po-versus-assas-la-competition-ne-fait-que-commencer/paris-2-et-iep-paris-des-strategies-de-developpement-inverses.html
- https://www.cairn.info/revue-droit-et-societe1-2013-1-page-99.htm
- https://www.amazon.fr/cuisine-droit-Lécole-droit-Science/dp/2359710613
- https://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Legal-Education-Clinical-Reforming/dp/1107163048 (many mentions of SPLS in this book) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawStudentJam (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.cairn.info/revue-interdisciplinaire-d-etudes-juridiques-2014-1-page-99.htm
- https://laviedesidees.fr/Le-droit-sans-l-universite.html
- https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2007/04/21/l-universite-defend-son-monopole-dans-la-formation-des-futurs-avocats_899614_3224.html
- https://www.village-justice.com/articles/Ecole-Droit-Sciences-Po,6774.html
The existence of a SPLS page cannot be contested on notability grounds.
It is true that the French page was proposed for deletion a few years ago. However, this decision concerned a page written entirely in French, and was made before several reforms aiming at granting increased independence to Sciences Po's graduate schools were implemented (see http://www.mondedesgrandesecoles.fr/frederic-mion-projette-sciences-po-a-lhorizon-2022/). The rationale offered for the deletion of the French WP page does not apply to the English page and, in any event, is much weaker in 2019.
While the French speaking public is likely to know about SPLS and the French higher education system in general, or have access to the relevant information online, such is not the case for the English speaking readership. A SPLS Wikipedia page with objective, independent and up to date information on this topic is therefore valuable. This is all the more true considering that in recent years, SPLS has enjoyed a larger appeal outside of France, leading many non French speakers to seek information on this institution.
It should also be noted that Wikipedia pages concerning a particular university's college, medical school, business school or law school are uncontroversial and seen as valuable to the public. The question is therefore whether SPLS - and indeed other Sciences Po graduate schools - enjoys a sufficient degree of independence from Sciences Po to justify a stand alone page. While this might have justified denying a stand-alone SPLS page a few years ago, this rationale is no longer valid. Sciences Po is engaged in a process of granting more and more independence to, on the one hand, its college and on the other hand, each of its graduate schools. SPLS (just like the Paris School of International Affairs) has become an important and independent part of Sciences Po. It delivers in its own name Honoris Causa degrees and attracts a large number of international students. It has its own faculty, student body and administration/governance. SPLS can therefore be considered as a stand alone part of Sciences Po, which justifies the creation of a stand alone page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LawStudentJam (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Can't see any real rationale for deletion. We are not bound by decisions made in other Wikipedias that may have different standards of notability. Appears to be a very notable law school in France. It's true that we don't keep articles on schools, faculties and departments of larger institutions unless they're very notable in their own right, but it would appear that this one is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tried to read the French AFD page for this, and as best as I can tell using Google Translate as my guide, it seems like the final result was merger with another article. There was very little rationale given in the French AFD and it looks more like a straight vote than consensus building and discussion. It was also far from a landslide decision. So I don't think we should give a great deal of weight to that outcome. That being said, it does appear that this institution is notable, as far as I can determine.
talk) 19:10, 15 February 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.
(non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

DXPloit

DXPloit (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)

Article does not appear to be notable. Has no references. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 13:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 13:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 13:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 13:29, 14 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Chain

Astral Chain (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)

Unreleased video game. The publisher has scheduled a release date, but coverage in independent sources is necessarily lacking. It may become notable some time after released, that will be time for an article. —teb728 t c 11:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 12:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 12:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Question: So why exactly can't this be redirected or merged to
WP:ATD? Regards So Why 12:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect without deleting to PlatinumGames until it becomes independently notable nearer or after its release, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do Variety, Kotaku, IGN, Polygon, Forbes, Gamespot, Game Informer, Engadget, etc. not count as "independently notable" sources? It's a retail game by a notable video game developer (Platinum Games) and very notable publisher (Nintendo). Links to some of these articles can be added to the page if needed.Froo (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Froo: Can you provide us with those sources please? Regards So Why 17:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Or do the most basic of basic Google searches. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk) 17:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Game received a ton of coverage already. The problem here is sloppy article writing and nominations, not notability.

https://kotaku.com/astral-chain-is-a-new-switch-action-game-from-platinum-1832604377

https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/13/18224031/astral-chain-nintendo-switch-platinum-games-release-trailer

https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/astral-chain-nintendo-switch-1203139095/

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/astral-chain-the-new-nintendo-switch-game-from-bay/1100-6465008/

https://www.siliconera.com/2019/02/15/astral-chain-introduces-the-futuristic-setting-and-special-weapon-legion-with-new-screenshots/

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-13-platinum-games-reveals-futuristic-crime-fighting-action-game-astral-chain

https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/13/astral-chain-platinum-games-switch-august-nintendo/

https://m.ign.com/articles/2019/02/13/astral-chain-is-a-new-switch-exclusive-platinum-game-bayonetta-3-still-in-development

Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. JOE BRO 64 16:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if this discussion ends with a consensus to keep the article, I will be more than willing help write up a better article, especially with the citations Sergecross73 has listed above. I had recently helped polish the article for The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019 video game), just as a note. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was already convinced this would be a keep before I even landed here and saw he abundant additional sourcing linked above; this is no mere fly-by-night independent production which may disappear into the ether, but rather a project by a major developer that is therefor predictably receiving substantial coverage. We need not have a complete product before beginning an article--indeed, for mos media topics, our article well precedes a release date. The coverage of individual sources may not be super deep given what is known at this time, but it is sufficiently deep and very broad. With respect to the nom, who clearly opened this discussion as a good faith effort at clean-up, the nomination was still a poor one without a proper implementation of
WP:BEFORE. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I did another Google search just for giggles and there seem to be new stories from reputable sites popping up daily in addition to the ones mentioned above. Article can be fixed through normal editing.
ZettaComposer (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. My question notwithstanding - which was about why this was brought here in the first place and without having checking for sources - I do agree that this seems indeed to be a significantly covered and thus notable game even before release. A serving of
WP:BEFORE failure. Regards So Why 15:41, 21 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lang

Lisa Lang (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 and promotional. The Forbes listing alone is not enough for notability , and everything else is PR. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable business woman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are interviews with Lang in a number of widely-read sites in different countries, I will add them to the article to help demonstrate notability. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interviews are not suitable to establish notability. They are not independent of the subject nor are they coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in this article are...utter garbage, for lack of a better word and this reads like a massive PR piece that I'd expect from the subjects website. I also see no evidence she meets GNG after news search, books etc... Praxidicae (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I guess we have different opinions on what is considered "garbage". The Hindu is a large national newspaper; Deutche Welle is the German equivalent of America's NPR; Eesti Päevaleht is a major Estonian newspaper; Wired is a well-known tech magazine in the US and UK, and Forbes is also a reputable American periodical. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having forbes in the name doesn't automatically make it a good source. This is useless. It's a profile. It's not coverage, it's not independent. This is mostly an interview, this is a list, this i don't have an opinion on and will leave it for a native speaker, another interview, another interview, basically an interview, not even about Lang, not actual coverage, listicle, not coverage. Even if somehow these were all amazing in depth pieces, the article is
bio spam. Praxidicae (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see further discussion now that LovelyLillith has improved the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per current sources available. I kind of agree with analysis by Praxidicae. The quality of references are not great, and the ones in reliable sources do not offer much. Some lot of the references contain a quote or two from her. Many of the references are actually referring somewhat to the company, instead of the founder. Being the founder of a notable company could be reasonable claim to notability of course, but there has to be significant coverage, such as about the person's role in founding it, contributions, impact. In this case, there is a dearth of independent third party coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient independent, reliable, significant coverage - in Aiomag.de, Gründerszene (which I have found and added), the Kitty Knowles article in Forbes - these are about her role in starting the company. Plus there is some less significant or less independent coverage as well (SBS, and the interviews have a para or two about her before the interview questions, plus are serious questions about her work). It's also sustained over several years. AfD is not about the quality of the article, so any "bio spam" that the article is supposedly "rife" with could be removed by any editor who cared to do so. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The keep suggestions are variations of
vanity side-project of an entrepreneur. We are being deluged by them of late. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. A lot of her notability seems to hang on Forbes. I was wondering why someone whose notability is about fashion has no articles from the main fashion magazines (e.g. Vogue, Elle, etc.). My impression of fashion is that if something is notable, it gets noted, and fast. On that basis I was leaning to Delete, but then I saw references to Women's Wear Daily (WWD), whose WP article describes it as "the bible of fashion" (I had never head of it). My question is whether her WWD mentions are material? Britishfinance (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her projects are arguably as much tech as they are fashion because of the integration of the technology. There are a number of references from tech news sources. Wired, Motherboard, SXSW. She also displayed items for Lakme Fashion Week and Berlin Fashion Week, which are well-known. I've actually held back from adding much more material that comes from fashion blogs or sounded promotional. LovelyLillith (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @LovelyLillith: I think you made the right call sticking to the best possible fashion references and avoiding blogs etc. She lives in a world between tech and fashion. Her tech is not notable enough to make her a "real" tech entrepreneur (her LED is not a notable techology), and Forbes articles are a red-herring in this regard. I think she is really LED-tech in fashion (e.g. applied tech), but we get back to the same issue of her strongest fashion reference being WWD? This is very borderline. She is not as un-notable as many other BLPs at AfD, where there is not a single solid RS, but in terms of "several significant independent RS" I feel we are "reaching" for it, which I don't think we should be doing in a BLP? Britishfinance (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Lang herself is not considered notable, then ElektroCouture probably is. In addition to what's already in the article, there are other sources about the label and clothing - Der Tagesspiegel [8] and [9], Spiegel Online [10], Berliner Zeitung [11], a few paras in a Women's Wear Daily article about Lakme Fashion Week [12]. If this article about Lisa Lang is not kept, please draftify rather than deleting, so it can be revised into one about ElektroCouture. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: BLP - leaning Delete but a second relist is appropriate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having reflected on this per my comments above; case relies on two weak arguements (she is not a clear tech-blp, nor a fashion-blp) trying to combine to make one proper case. She does not have at least two clear strong RS, of which she is the main subject. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the discussion above, stressing that interviews are acceptable for sourcing but not for assessing notability. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 21 February 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 per
WP:CSD#G7; the author of the content blanked the page. Note that if this is a notable political party, any editor may create a new article about it. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Kapanalig at Kambilan ning Memalen Pampanga

Kapanalig at Kambilan ning Memalen Pampanga (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 references cited. Fails
WP:GNG ~~Cheers~~Mgbo120 09:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems pretty straightforward to find coverage of this subject, from its origins in 2008 as a group organizing a recall petition to its transformation into a provincial political party. Some examples: [13] [14] [15] [16].
talk) 14:30, 14 February 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. No support for deletion
(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Imperial phase

Imperial phase (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)

WP:NEOLOGISM – Although there are many sources that use the term, only two discuss the concept itself. Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 08:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 08:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 08:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I added some more sources, and several of them discuss and expand upon the concept of the imperial phase. They seem to constitute significant coverage. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Numerous examples of its usage as described in the article e.g. Billboard on Taylor Swift, TMRW magazine on Katy Perry, NME on Muse, Bob Stanley on Fleetwood Mac, Guardian on Lady Gaga,Financial Times on Ariana Grande, Entertainment Weekly on Madonna etc.

I created the article as I believe the range and frequency of its usage justifies its encyclopedic interest. I also believe the article provides sufficient context to demonstrate the relevance and context of the term.
The Simon Reynolds reference as published in his book Shock and Awe discusses the concept, but it keeps being removed by the nominator even though it is referenced and can be found on Google Books. There's no requirement for an online reference to be given, and the published book is more than sufficient.yorkshiresky (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Yorkshiresky (talk · contribs)'s argument. Also I think it needs to be understood the user who wants this page to be deleted continues to remove a whole lot of information from the page. (2001:8003:4F0B:4500:DDBA:DF6E:BF0F:B510 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Clearly there's countless examples of the term being used, as other users have noticed. This is a term I've seen a heck of a lot, and Ewing has used it frequently elsewhere such as on Freaky Trigger. A site specific Google search through the Guardian alone for the term reveals pages full of "imperial phase" being used, with a Take the Crown review also outlying how Tennant says an imperial phase ends. Doing the same site specific Google search with other websites like Pitchfork reveals lots of other uses, while this has a bit more detail on the phase of he who coined the term, for instance. Certainly a widely-used shorthand.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IF kept, article should be moved to
Imperial phase (arts) to distinguish this from use of this phrase in sentences like: " the aggressive Imperial phase of Athenian foreign policy," " the aggressive Imperial phase of Athenian foreign policy," "1532, the imperial phase of the Ibero-African frontier began," "neither Britain nor France is completely out of its post-imperial phase," and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 21 February 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 as hoax per SNOW and my comments below. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Jade Meyers

Victoria Jade Meyers (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 does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidence of her notability. No record in imdb (not a reliable source, but absence is unusual). Currently unsourced, but the "official website" previously present is a dead link. Ghits are "celebrity" sites with no content about her beyond date of birth. PamD 09:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the lack of an imdb listing raises hoax concerns and there is no reliable sources evidence available here or in google to disprove that. The role in Wizards of Waverley Place is not a credited role if at all. thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find anything reliable to vaguely indicate existence let alone notability. Not sure how subject debuted in a series in 2002 which did not start until 2007? Aoziwe (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. Let's see here: made her screen debut in a show that didn't even exist for another five years, then had a one-off guest role, then played the lead in the Swedish version of a TV series that's not actually sourceable as ever having had a Swedish version in the first place — and never got an IMDb profile at all, let alone any reliable source verification of any of this. I was sorely tempted to just close this discussion and pull the speedy trigger on it under a combination of G3+A7, but I stopped myself short. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best I can find is this promo for the show on Disney Channel Sweden, which appears to have the original Australian actresses, not her. I thought perhaps she might've dubbed a voice in the Swedish version as a stretch, but I can't find any evidence of even that. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to close this since this looks to be a fairly clear hoax. Here's the evidence: there's just no coverage out there for this person and the person who created the page was also making hoax edits like this, to try to add mention of another actress that looks to be a fairly clear hoax. There's also the claim of her playing a lead in a Swedish version of H2O: Just Add Water, which is suspicious given that there's no media or forum coverage of such an adaptation ever existing. It looks like there was a dub made per this forum post but there's no evidence of there ever being an actress by this name who performed the dub. Swedish can be searched via Google and a look for any sourcing that mentions Meyers with the show title and svenska bring up nothing except Wikipedia mirrors, which would make no sense unless the article was a hoax. There would be some sort of coverage for an adaptation and at the very least, there would likely be some mention of her somewhere on a forum. Then there's the most damning evidence of all, that she was on a show years before it even aired. The article says that the guy who came up with the show did so after working on the first season of Hannah Montana, which didn't premiere until 2006. If we wanted to get even more pedantic in pointing things out, HM got its start from an episode of That's So Raven that aired in 2005, a full year after this person would have supposedly performed as an extra in WoWP. Unless she and the entire production has real magic (in which case, please share) there's no way that any of this is real. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:46, 18 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aksshat

Aksshat (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 Lourdes 06:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Very questionably written article with one measly source. I didn't find ANY other sources, let alone independent, reliable ones, or really any evidence of general notability. I have to concur with Lourdes and say this fails
WP:GNG. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 08:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete That news article is this article's only usable source. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for a patently non-notable performer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 21 February 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 author and only "keep" !voter has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and I am disregarding their opinion entirely. There is consensus among the rest that this individual is not currently notable. The draft has already been redirected here. I am disinclined to keep a draft entirely for its own sake that will languish until someone slaps a G13 tag on it. I am therefore going to delete both article and redirect, and note that I will provide a copy in the draft/userspace to anyone interested in actually developing it towards a viable article. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vini Viswa Lal

Vini Viswa Lal (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)

PROD contested by the author; BLP is undersourced and has previously been draftified by another user. IMDB is not a reliable source especially to establish notability. samee converse 06:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I have added citations from new pages and other online media sites for Vini Viswa Lal.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2018/aug/14/theevandi-is-not-a-dark-or-preachy-film-vini-vishwa-lal-1857385.html https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/vini-vishwa-lal/28367 https://www.manoramaonline.com/style/yuva/2018/05/31/vini-viswa-lal-on-smoking.html Along with IMDB sites for movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajishev (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Draft:Vini Viswa Lal. As I have noted in declining the draft, the result of this AFD should also decide what to do with the draft. If this article is kept, the draft should be made into a redirect. If the article is deleted, this AFD should decide whether to keep the draft or delete the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article but Keep draft. Google search shows that he exists and that he is discussed on the Internet, but does not show independent third-party coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article but keep draft as there is potential here that he has written some notable works but he is not notable as an actor so the article needs reworking with proper sourcing and when or if that occurs in the draft it should probably be accepted, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Request to keep the article by considering the citations provided based on his notable works. Only intention is to get this notable screenwriter added into wiki thus helping the users get the required details in one place. I have removed the actor part as no solid citations available other than IMDB and kept details on main area of scriptwriting. Also please help me here what all details needed/ to be removed for emerging screenwriter. Thanks (User talk:Rajishev)

Question -
the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Answer -
the conflict of interest policy. But to answer this, subjects recent movie Theevandi was a blockbuster hit mainly sending a message on chain smokers rehabiliation struggles which I been through. And I spend sometime on the research for movie and story and could see the young writer dont have a wiki page. So started creating BLP page from the research details I have and its my first BLP. You can read more on Theevandi online as well on wiki. Thanks User:Rajishev (User:Rajishev) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Independent third-party coverage not provided is not clear. Citation have multiple third party sites newindianexpress.com, bookmyshow.com, manoramaonline.com etc which are leading news papers and media sites. User:Rajishev (User:Rajishev)

Comment Rajishev has entered Keep !vote three times (I am going to assume good faith, but it does seem like he tried to counter the delete voters), so I changed two of those to comment tag. Please do not do that again!
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment' If the draft shows promise, we should move this over the draft and restore the deleted revisions to histmerge. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Author has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 21 February 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 G5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeep Karakkat

Sudeep Karakkat (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 film producer. The hits found on Google search are all non-independent vanity hits, which prove that he exists, and Wikipedia, which would be
circular
. No independent coverage found.
There is also a history of promotional creation of articles and of creation of articles by sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 05:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 05:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 05:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Looks like a nice try, but if this was the work of a
UPE, they need a refund. The sourcing was enough to make CSD untenable, but closer inspection shows coverage is insufficient. The herculean effort to get this into mainspace is also concerning, but that's for a different venue. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and while we're at it, salt the earth. The coverage is laughable at best, and I'm almost certain this is UPE - the creator came into -en-help attempting to find some way to stop both this AfD and a related SPI. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any decently reliable sources either, and I agree with the above comments after reviewing creator's contribs. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 08:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No question. Deb (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt +Sudeep Karat. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This man is not mentioned in any reliable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:18, 14 February 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) wumbolo ^^^ 09:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Harvey Cropper

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 lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 04:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 04:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 04:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 05:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I removed the "Africa" delsort as an apparent misunderstanding of "African-American". I have added Sweden, and suggest that any
talk) 05:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, this article seems like someone getting an early start on
talk) 05:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I see many passing mentions in Google books, which makes me think that there is probably newspaper coverage that predates the Internet. Certainly not a clear-cut notability case. See the longish obit in Swedish that I just added.
talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I just noticed this was also AFD'd the same day it was created. A bit fast.
talk) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Sources establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nine citations, including 2 Oxford University Press, Arts Digest, and Scarecrow Press. Would you please give editors a reasonable chance to copyedit and add cites before instantly nominating for deletion? We are training at an editathon, and instant deletion nominations are not encouraging to new volunteers. Thanks. Broomstraw2 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
talk) 03:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as recent updates to article show that subject passes
talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per recent updates. Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 19 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Milos

Ricardo Milos (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)

Briefly being the subject of a meme does not equal notability by Wikipedia standards. Google search for name brings up about 83 results, none of which discuss him in any significant way. Proposed deletion contested. ... discospinster _talk 03:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 04:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The article does not assert anything that adds up to notability. Sometimes people make articles for subjects which are not notable enough for an article but which are notable enough for a brief mention in an existing article, however I do not think that even that applies here. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:RS. (One of them has an article in Russian WP - ru:TJ
.) The English-language source says that the video has had over 100,000 views; to which I retort, So what? That's a trivial number.

FWIW, I would have {{
prod-2}}'ed the article. Narky Blert (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'll just casually mention that beside being second top item on KnowYourMeme for several weeks now, this guy's name was apparently googled more often than topics such as
distracted boyfriend meme (for which we have a prominent article which I actually tried to start an afd nom about which was quickly voted down) Source: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Ricardo%20Milos,Рикардо%20Милос,quantum%20mechanics,nuclear%20weapons,distracted%20boyfriend%20meme
I agree someone should try to improve the article though. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:PROMO. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for a non-notable performer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 21 February 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PAVPANIC

PAVPANIC (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 mnemonic for the parts of speech in English. Pretty much the only source is the brief description in this book (and in two other books by the same author). You can tell how obscure this is by the fact that the results in a web search (not numerous at all) are dominated by forums and wikipedia mirrors. – Uanfala (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article does not cite any references. Vorbee (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given absence of reliable sources, not worth merging into Part of speech. Colin M (talk) 04:19, 21 February 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 move to
Shooting of Willie McCoy. Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Willie McCoy (rapper)

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

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

Incredibly sad but seems to be
WP:NOTNEWS. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or rename. His death was covered extensively by multiple
WP:GNG. If necessary, the article could be renamed "Death of Willie McCoy". Zazpot (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

His death appears to be more notable than him personally so it might be worth renaming to "Death of Willie McCoy". Meatsgains^(talk) 02:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Above, I suggested renaming the article to "Death of ...", but others have noted below that "Shooting of ..." would be more suitable in this instance, and I agree. Zazpot (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. This person is only known for the controversial circumstances of his death. Available sources provide only the most rudimentary background information about the person. It may be early to judge persistent notability, but refactoring to ~~Death of Willie McCoy~~ makes sense at this point. • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the discussion below, I'll amend my comment to support a move to "Shooting of Willie McCoy". • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Meets
Shooting of Willie McCoy for consistency. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to something like "Death of Willie McCoy" or "Shooting of Willie McCoy". As previously mentioned the shooting has been covered by independent, reliable sources but the late rapper himself wasn't really notable. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 09:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to
Shooting of Willie McCoy Today's BBC: Six California officers shot man as he woke in his car. Unusual police shooting getting international coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to
Shooting of Willie McCoy or something similar. The fact that he was a rapper has merely been mentioned as supporting info in news reports on his death, but of course the shooting incident has become much more notable. The article then needs to be expanded with coverage of the shooting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and move to above suggested new page. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment this indeed is a tragic event and I am not trying to minimize that. Instead of redirecting it to an article with a title like Murder of Willie McCoy, why not just merge it with an article like
List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2019 or something similar? Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or move to
Shooting of Willie McCoy --Stephan Tournay (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, rename to
WP:RAPID. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 19 February 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_February_14&oldid=1142224571"