Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 18 February 20 February >

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. czar 22:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Lutz

Ivan Lutz (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 writer. Does not meet

WP:AUTHOR. No assertion of notability. GregorB (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 15:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 15:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 15:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 15:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources are in Croatian. Running them through gTranslate, souce #2 is a write up about his novel that appears not to be a book review #3 is a pre-pub PROMO in a newspaper ("Ivan Lutz published his first ZF novel Roman published the Belgrade house "Magic Book". It will soon be available in the Superknjižare web store, and the promotion in Slavonski Brod will be in autumn".) #4 is a dead link. Fails WP:AUTHOR]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per above, sources are not good, fails GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:47, 23 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. North America1000 03:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alton "Big Al" Carson

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 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 no consensus. RebeccaGreen's additional sources were not challenged by anyone once presented. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoriya Sasonkina

Viktoriya Sasonkina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable

Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 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 merge to

(talk) (contribs) 06:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Punk Farm (film)

Punk Farm (film) (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)

Could simply have been redirected, but in ip insists on recreating, fails

WP:NFILM. Been in development for years, but no indication the film will ever actually go into production. Indeed, several fansites are saying it's been cancelled twice, once by Dreamworks and once by MGM. Onel5969 TT me 23:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 23:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:32, 20 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 Sixers. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sixer

Sixer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many bands that never really made it. Though there is an AllMusic bio, I am not seeing sufficient indepth coverage to meet

WP:GNG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds good. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:23, 27 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. Whilst a basic tally of votes would indicate a keep outcome, the requirement of the closer is to consider the strength of the arguments put forward. /there is an overriding need to consider whether GNG is met. Yes, the player technically meets NFOOTY and yes he is still playing, but since his 16 minute

routine match reporting / transfer talk. NFOOTY is a presumption of GNG and so when arguments supposedly supporting GNG in fact show the opposite, the logical conclusion must in this instance be that the the presumption is incorrect. Perhaps he will play at a higher level later in his career. That is purely speculative at this stage and the article can always be restored should this happen. Fenix down (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Clarence Bijl

Clarence Bijl (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)

An article about a 20-year-old footballer who has played in one professional game, for 16 minutes, for a 2nd-tier league in the 2017–2018 season and now plays in a fourth-tier semi-professional league (per Soccerway/Worldfootball.net). There is one four-paragraph article about his moving from the pro team to the semi-pro team (a primary source: media reporting on current event), and his current team's press release announcing his signing (primary, non-independent source). This article does not appear to meet GNG, and just barely meets NFOOTY with 16 minutes of play in one pro game in a 2nd-tier league. It is

WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article about this subject. (Did I mention 16 minutes in one pro game?) Leviv ich 19:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 19:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DordtCentraal (Dutch) DordtCentraal (English Google translation)
Twee nieuwe verdedigers voor FC Dordrecht Two new defenders for FC Dordrecht
DORDRECHT-FC Dordrecht heft twee nieuwe spelers aan de selectie voor komend seizoen toegevoegd. De twee verdedigers Clarence Bijl en Julius Bliek zullen op amateurbasis naar de Dordtse Krommedijk komen. DORDRECHT-FC Dordrecht has added two new players to the selection for next season. The two defenders Clarence Bijl and Julius Bliek will come to the Dordtse Krommedijk on an amateur basis.
De achttienjarige rechtsback Clarence Bijl is afkomstig uit de jeugdopleiding van het Rotterdamse Feyenoord. Deze talentvolle verdediger speelde afgelopen seizoen bijna alle duels voor het A1 team van de club uit Rotterdam Zuid. The eighteen year old right back Clarence Bijl comes from the youth academy of the Rotterdam Feyenoord. This talented defender played almost all matches for the A1 team of the club from Rotterdam Zuid last season.
Julius Bliek maakt de overstap van VV Kloetinge. Bliek werd recentelijk nog uitgeroepen tot Zeeuws voetballer van het jaar. Bliek is een linksbenige en fysiek zeer sterke verdediger. Julius Bliek makes the switch from VV Kloetinge. Bliek was recently declared the Zeeland footballer of the year. Bliek is a left-footed and physically very strong defender.
Brabants Dagblad (Dutch) Brabants Dagblad (English Google translation)
Royaal verlies RKC stemt tot nadenken Generous loss RKC gives you thought
Het is traditioneel dat RKC Waalwijk en FC Dordrecht elkaar in de oefencampagne treffen. Zaterdagmiddag gebeurde dat in het Riwal Hoogwerkers stadion in Dordrecht. Nog geen week voor de start van de competitie verloor RKC met 4-2. It is traditional that RKC Waalwijk and FC Dordrecht meet in the practice campaign. On Saturday afternoon it happened in the Riwal Hoogwerkers stadium in Dordrecht. Less than a week before the start of the competition, RKC lost 4-2.
RKC Waalwijk gebruikte het negende oefenduel om twee spelers te testen. Vahid Selimovic speelde links in de verdediging. Illies Bruylandts vormde samen met Roy Rudonja de tweemansaanval. Bij RKC ontbrak Roland Bergkamp wegens privé-omstandigheden was ook Nikki Baggerman er niet bij. RKC Waalwijk used the ninth exhibition game to test two players. Vahid Selimovic played left in the defense. Illies Bruylandts formed the two-man attack with Roy Rudonja. RKC lacked Roland Bergkamp because of private circumstances, Nikki Baggerman was not there.
Het nieuwe 5-3-2 systeem van de Waalwijkse club roept een week voor de start van de competitie alleen maar vraagtekens op. RKC kwam er aanvallend nauwelijks aan te pas, terwijl het verdedigend toch erg kwetsbaar bleek. Na achttien minuten profiteerde Terence Groothusen van een dekkingsfout. Hij kon de bal ongehinderd binnen schieten na een aanval over de rechterflank. The new 5-3-2 system of the Waalwijk club raises questions just a week before the start of the competition. RKC hardly came in at all, while it proved to be very vulnerable. After eighteen minutes, Terence Groothusen benefited from a cover error. He could shoot the ball unhindered after an attack on the right flank.
Goed doorjagen van Daan Rienstra leverde RKC een eerste kans op. De middenvelder stuitte echter op doelman Nick Wolters. Daarna duurde het lang voor RKC nog een keer dreigend in de buurt van het Dordtse doel kwam. Een kopbal van Roy Rudonja eindigde in een simpele prooi voor de keeper. De rust leek met 1-0 in te gaan, maar op de valreep sloeg Denis Mahmudov met een prachtige individuele actie toe. Driving through Daan Rienstra well gave RKC a first chance. The midfielder, however, met goalkeeper Nick Wolters. After that it took a long time for RKC to come threateningly near the goal of Dordt. A header from Roy Rudonja ended in a simple prey for the keeper. The rest seemed to go in 1-0, but at the last minute Denis Mahmudov struck with a beautiful individual action.
Uit de lucht From the sky
Na de pauze kwamen Mo Mezghrani en Johan Voskamp voor aanvoerder Jan Lammers en Rudonja in de ploeg. De laatste wissel rendeerde. Een voorzet van Quasten werd door Bruylandts in de voeten van de spits gelegd. Dan is het meestal wel raak. After the break Mo Mezghrani and Johan Voskamp came in for the captain Jan Lammers and Rudonja. The last bill returned. A cross from Quasten was put in the striker's feet by Bruylandts. Then it is usually hit.
Het grootste gedeelte van de tweede helft speelde zich af in de buurt van het doel van RKC. Toch kwam de 3-1 van Clarence Bijl uit de lucht vallen. Die kopte een kwartier voor tijd een voorzet van Mailson Lima Duarte Lopes binnen. Twee minuten later was het opnieuw prijs. Nu werkte Bijl met de voet een voorzet vanaf links binnen. The majority of the second half took place in the vicinity of RKC's goal. Still, the 3-1 of Clarence Bijl came out of the blue. He headed for a cross from Mailson Lima Duarte Lopes fifteen minutes before time. Two minutes later it was again prize. Now Bijl worked with his foot a cross from the inside.
De doelpunten van Bijl hakten erin bij RKC. Selimovic kreeg na een overtreding uit frustratie geel. Niet alleen de proefspelers overtuigden niet. RKC beleefde een zwakke generale. Daar veranderde de late 4-2 van Noel de Graauw niets aan. The goals of Bijl chopped at RKC. Selimovic got yellow out of frustration after a foul. Not only the test players did not convince. RKC experienced a weak general. The late 4-2 of Noel de Graauw did not change anything.
Editors can decide for themselves whether this is SIGCOV. Leviv ich 18:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for translating and formatting! The previous two lines (more intro and title) in the Dordt article are also about the player, i.e. 5 sentences in each article. There is more coverage, of course, but this was very good among what I saw. Along with meeting the professional standard, it is more than sufficient. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although 2 is sufficient, a third good article is by SPN Media. Maybe you can add that one as well? gidonb (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.
Krommedijk 360/SPN Media (Dutch) Krommedijk 360/SPN Media (English Google translation)
Clarence Bijl verlaat FC Dordrecht voor streekgenoot Clarence Bijl leaves FC Dordrecht for a local
Clarence Bijl speelt komend seizoen voor ASWH. De negentienjarige verdediger verlaat FC Dordrecht en gaat komend seizoen in de Derde Divisie spelen, waarin de Ambachters elfde werden. Clarence Bijl will play for ASWH next season. The nineteen-year-old defender leaves FC Dordrecht and will play in the Third Division next season, in which the Craftsmen were eleventh.
Bijl kwam een jaar geleden over van de Feyenoord Academy, waarvoor hij tien jaar speelde. De speler kwam bij FC Dordrecht amper tot spelen. Zo speelde hij éénmalig zestien minuten in het eerste en kwam hij tot zeven wedstrijden in Jong FC Dordrecht. Bijl came over a year ago from the Feyenoord Academy, for which he played ten years. The player hardly played at FC Dordrecht. For example, he played for the first time for sixteen minutes and he played seven matches in Jong FC Dordrecht.
'De TC is uiteraard verheugd dat de multifunctionele Bijl, die onlangs al enkele keren meetrainde, de keuze heeft gemaakt om volgend seizoen op sportpark Schildman te spelen’, zo meldt ASWH op haar clubwebsite. The TC is of course pleased that the multifunctional Bijl, who recently trained several times, made the choice to play at Schildman sports park next season,' ASWH reports on its club website.
All six sentences are about Bijl so I just bolded my two favorites. Note it's sourced to the club's website. Leviv ich 04:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for more work put in! The following is misleading: the entire article is about Bijl, as should the bold be. Choosing just a few bold phrases misleads the reader. The article is NOT sourced to the ASWH website. Only the quote is. That is good journalism. There is very different info in the article than whatever was on the ASWH website. If you were serious before, you would now withdraw your nomination. FOOTY and the GNG were met and our article is better than the Dutch one. Your arguing under various keeps that the article does not meet the GNG does not hold any water and is in stress with
WP:BLUDGEON. You now have a chance to prove that you are true to a clear word given before. gidonb (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Last one. This is the press release from ASWH, on their website, that is explicitly cited by the Krommedijk 360/SPN Media piece translated below (and many others):

ASWH team press release (Dutch) ASWH team press release (English Google translation)
De technische commissie is bezig om de laatste puntjes op de i te zetten bij het samenstellen van de selectie voor het seizoen 2018/19. Dit heeft wederom geresulteerd in de komst van een nieuwe speler. The technical committee is working on the final points in the selection of the season 2018/19. This has again resulted in the arrival of a new player.
De TC is met Clarence Bijl overeengekomen dat hij de selectie van ASWH komt versterken. De negentienjarige speler komt over van FC Dordrecht. Bijl is op meerdere posities inzetbaar, maar speelt voornamelijk als rechtsback. In de voorbereiding op het afgelopen seizoen gebruikte FC Dordrecht-trainer Gérard de Nooijer hem echter ook in een aanvallendere rol. Voor hij in 2017 naar Dordrecht vertrok, maakte Bijl tien jaar deel uit van de opleiding van Feyenoord. De Rotterdammers plukten hem als jeugdspeler weg bij zijn amateurclub FC Binnenmaas. De TC is uiteraard verheugd dat de multifunctionele Bijl, die onlangs al enkele keren meetrainde, de keuze heeft gemaakt om volgend seizoen op sportpark Schildman te spelen. The TC has agreed with Clarence Bijl that he will strengthen the selection of ASWH. The nineteen-year-old player comes over from FC Dordrecht. Bijl can be used in several positions, but mainly plays as a right back. In the preparation for the past season FC Dordrecht coach Gérard de Nooijer also used him in a more attacking role. Before he left for Dordrecht in 2017, Bijl was part of the Feyenoord course for ten years. The Rotterdammers picked him off as a youth player at his amateur club FC Binnenmaas. The TC is of course pleased that the multifunctional Bijl, who recently trained several times, made the choice to play next season at sportpark Schildman.
Wij heten Clarence van harte welkom bij onze vereniging en wensen hem veel succes en plezier bij ASWH! We warmly welcome Clarence to our association and wish him every success and pleasure at ASWH!
All four sources translated above have between three and six sentences about Bijl. You can't seriously call that significant coverage. The nom already identifies the most-significant coverage of Bijl, which I added to the article before making this nom. It's this 4-paragraph story about the decline of his career and him not giving up even though he was transferred to 4th-tier ASWH. In this one source, he says (Google Dutch-to-English translations) The result was that Clarence Bijl spent almost a season out of the picture to his great disappointment. and In daily life he works at a tire company in Dordrecht.. By Bijl's own words, he is quoted as saying, about his time at Feyenoord and FC Dordrecht, unfortunately nothing came of it in practice, and I finally participated once in a while as a substitute, and I do not see ASWH as a new step up to professional football, but I do not want to think about that at all. It seems even Bijl has said he is not pursuing a professional career. But if editors here want to call these sources significant, or back an SNG that presumes notability for a player who played in one game for 16 minutes two years ago, I can't stop you folks from !voting "keep per NFOOTY" or suggesting a three-sentence mention is SIGCOV. I can't stop you from lowering our standards like that. I just don't understand how you can say with a straight face that this is an encyclopedia and not a football almanac. There is literally, right now, a sentence, cited, in Clarence Bijl, about how he almost scored a goal in a game, but it was blocked. Yes, this deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia. :-) Leviv ich 14:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a difference to a player who has finished his career to a player that's starting out, each footballer needs to be weighed on their own merits. As this one is at the start of this career I give more weight to
    WP:GNG and this is normally the case. Govvy (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Arguing !keep because, though he doesn't meet GNG or have SIGCOV now, he will have SIGCOV in the future, seems contrary to the policy
WP:TOOSOON, and similar consensus. Leviv ich 16:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
My keep is a weak keep, come back in a few years, if he is 23 and lost to the non-league I would go with delete. However look at Jamie Vardy, this is a footballer who has gone from non-league to premier league. There is always room to return to football league football. Crystal-ball or not, player still passes many interpretation of NFooty. You can't just dismiss a policy because you want too. Govvy (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This particular player has gone from 1st-tier Feyenoord (youth until 2017) to 2nd-tier FC Dordrecht (2017–2018) to semi-pro 4th-tier ASWH (2018–). I don't see how this trajectory indicates he will likely receive SIGCOV soon. NFooty does not trump GNG–it's not more restrictive–and the guideline it's a part of, NSPORTS, specifically says just because a player meets an SNG doesn't mean he must be notable. See the discussion ongoing at NSports talk page. This article is an example where a non-notable player meets NFooty but still isn't notable. That's not ignoring a guideline, that's applying it properly. There is longstanding precedent for articles being deleted even though they meet NFooty (let me know if you want the list of prior AfDs that support this). When the article Jamie Vardy was created, Vardy already had 38 appearances (and 25 goals), and coverage in 3 independent sources. [14]. Met GNG, and didn't just barely pass NFooty, but had 38 pro appearances instead of 1 appearance for 16 minutes. Leviv ich 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bijl already has significant coverage, meets FOOTY and meets the GNG. Still, it is reasonable to assume that there will be more coverage as ASWH is continuously covered in the press. He has recently signed another year with the Derde Divisie side. Govvy stands correct at what he points out. With much more playtime vs FC Dordrecht came and will continue to come much more coverage. gidonb (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and if and when that significant coverage comes and his career develops, then we can write an article about him. You'll never find me voting to !keep because someone will become notable in the future, because it's
WP:TOOSOON. Leviv ich 14:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Too soon is totally irrelevant here because he meets both the professional standard and the GNG NOW!!! Future coverage is no relevance to significance -Bijl's current meeting of both standards is!- but even then Govvy's analysis makes sense. gidonb (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're going around in circles now so I don't think it's productive anymore, but my last thought is that I'm just stunned that anyone could call a three- or six-sentence article SIGCOV that meets GNG. Leviv ich 15:40, 26 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. czar 23:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond E. Foster

Raymond E. Foster (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 is almost entirely unsourced. Of three sources provided one is dead and two are passing mentions insufficient to establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find any quality RS where the subject of the piece was on him; most I get are passing references/name-checking is 2nd tier (and lower) RS (which is unusual for a media-BLP that claims to have worked with History Channel etc.). Article is a CV and unambigiously
    WP:PROMO. Britishfinance (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blankstein, Andrew. Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]07 Feb 2003: B.2. ]. Article is certainly C.V. style PROMO. But it may be that he is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Island, Croydon

The Island, Croydon (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 building. Fails

WP:NBUILD. That a real estate agent is quoted on a local news website as saying the asking price of one of the flats is the most expensive in the town is not sufficient to make this building notable. The other coverage is not in-depth, but is merely routine, for example the pausing of construction. Pontificalibus 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable building. As someone who is familiar with Croydon, this building is only of local interest (there are many more buildings of greater interest in Croydon), due largely to its location in an odd position in a traffic island. It is otherwise a routine residential building. Only trivial mentions outside of local press of Croydon, and those in the local press amount to no more than routine announcements, fails
    WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 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 redirect to List of Idols winners. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepal Idol Winners

List of Nepal Idol Winners (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)

We don't have any such articles for other Idol versions, at most there are lists of finalists. Furthermore there have been only two seasons of this show, so whatever information is here is just repetition from the main article and really no chance for unique content. I suggest this should be redirected to Nepal Idol or (preferably) List of Idols winners. ... discospinster talk 20:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:41, 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 redirect to Internal measurement. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koichiro Matsuno

Koichiro Matsuno (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 self published sources. ToT89 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:41, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Aversano

Paul Aversano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable personality. Sources are just some trivial coverage or self written, non independent articles. Are of no use. Fails GNG ToT89 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:39, 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 keep.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Gamla Östberga

Gamla Östberga (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)

Unsourced for twelve years and no article on Swedish Wikipedia so notability is doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:49, 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 redirect to Diary#Other forms of diaries. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gardening journal

Gardening journal (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)

Unsourced for 12 years and not evident that there are multiple reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is over 13 years old and effectively unreferenced. It is a WP:TNT case with various disjointed and trivial content; as well as assertions about the most famous keepers of gardening journals that are also unsubstantiated by independent high quality RS. (and are also probably WP:OR). It is a small junk article. TNT it now, and if someone returns to write a decent WP article on "gardening journals" then we can review that. Nothing here worth keeping, and if I started editing this article to remove unreferenced claims, it would be blank. Britishfinance (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IMPERFECT makes this quite clear, "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". Andrew D. (talk) 23:44, 26 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 (withdrawn) AustralianRupert (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Chollet

Fanny Chollet (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)

Swiss fighter pilot. Known for being the first female fighter pilot of the Swiss Air Force, which (sadly) is a matter of

WP:SOLDIER pass is still some years away. I've already added a mention at History of the Swiss Air Force, which is the appropriate level of coverage in my view. Sandstein 18:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn. It's clear that other editors don't share my view that being known (only) as the first to do something can be a case of
WP:BLP1E, and Lt. Chollet is otherwise quite notable given the amount of coverage she has received. Sandstein 14:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:59, 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. czar 23:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arséne Maffo

Arséne Maffo (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 about former youth footballer who made 2 substitute's appearances (<30 minutes of total play) for a senior side in the fully-pro Paraguayan top division in 2011. The only online coverage of this player is routine (e.g., match reports or statistical database entries plus a name drop in an article by his former academy). In fact, it's impossible to track down what happened to him in the past 5 years, which says something about his notability as a footballer. Prior consensus (e.g.,

WP:GNG - as is the case here. Jogurney (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 22 minutes of play, 8 years ago (and no career to speak of since) is not sufficient when GNG is clearly failed. GiantSnowman 10:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 25 year old who made two brief appearances 7-8 years ago. NFOOTY merely sets a bar above which GNG is likely to be met, however in this case NFOOTY is clearly wrong as GNG is rather resoundingly not met - a few passing mentions and not much else. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 20 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 is that the subject is notable, even if not specifically as a singer. bd2412 T 02:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Tsing-fong

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan-biography for a singer of a group who lacks independent notability.

Masdggg, with 58 edits, is reverting a redirect, turning it into an article that lacks secondary sourcing proving the person is notable per GNG or per MUSICBIO. I don't necessarily think we should delete this, a redirect seems appropriate, but we do need to make clear that we have standards. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep 看来我必须得用中文才能明确表达我的意思（因为我是中国人，中文是我的第一语言）。您去Google或百度（Baidu）搜索一下，有大量关于吴青峰（Wu Tsing-fong）的报道（主要是中国媒体<含港澳台媒体>），可见其知名度是相当地高，完全具备独立关注度（independent notability）。现在，苏打绿乐队（Sodagreen）虽然不解散，但主唱吴青峰已经开始独立发展（develop independently），有自己的音乐作品和音乐公司，也多次以个人身份参加综艺节目（TV show）及演唱会（concert）。例如，他在《歌手2019》（Singer 2019）既担任竞演歌手，又担任主持人。可惜的是，阁下您并不懂中文，看不懂中文媒体的报道，才误以为吴青峰没有独立关注度。建议您还是搜索他的中文名（Search for his Chinese name）“吴青峰/吳青峰”吧。

--

talk) 19:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Redirect to Sodagreen, and protect that redirect from reversion. I have some familiarity with this singer and his band. Wu has done very little that is notable outside of Sodagreen, and note that his music award is for one of the band's songs, not for a solo product. His few outside activities, like the 2019 singing competition, can be mentioned as historical tidbits in the band's biography. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with the above that he has no notability as a solo singer. The 2019 TV show, while popular, does not help his case. However, he appears to be a very notable songwriter. The zh.wiki article lists 128 pop songs he wrote for other artists since 2004. Winning "Best Composer" at the 18th Golden Melody Awards and "Best Lyricist" at the 27th Golden Melody Awards, IMO, tips the scales towards KEEP. (Even though the winning tracks were by Sodagreen, he was the sole awardee on both occasions, as far as I can see.) Another consideration is that Sodagreen has apparently entered a hiatus, and as mentioned above, Wu has been developing independently, not just as a singer-songwriter, but also as a TV show host and actor. Timmyshin (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Masdggg's reason --Mariogoods (talk) 10:27, 26 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. czar 23:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frame, Set & Match

Frame, Set & Match (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)

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Searching turns up more on a picture framing shop in London. MB 18:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:57, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Your Radar (EP)

On Your Radar (EP) (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 guidelines. Artist doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry. Bernadette51 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:56, 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music in the Komi Republic

Music in the Komi Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unsourced skeleton article that hasn't been improved in over a decade. All musicians and songs are redlinked so there is nothing to work off of to add more content or sourcing. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:48, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Colchester stabbings

2019 Colchester stabbings (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)

π, ν) 17:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 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. czar 23:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Jump Day

World Jump Day (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 tried to look up info about this event (almost 13 years past since it happened) and I don't see the article passing

coatrack for the actual event article. – The Grid (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There's a little bit out there about the World Jump Day hoax, but it would make pretty thin gruel for even the stubbiest of stub articles. What I'd ideally suggest here is a redirect to Torsten Lauschmann. There's actually quite a bit of coverage of his work as an artist in general (for example: [17][18]). I'm pretty sure he's notable, and this "event" would be easily handled in context as cultural performance art. But there's a small problem; his article is a redlink, so there's nothing to redirect. I may see if I can do something about that in the next few days, but I've got a lot on my plate; no promises. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: That would be great to add to once the author's article is created! – The Grid (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 14:08, 25 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) 18:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness World Records - Vietnamese holders

Guinness World Records - Vietnamese holders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. Simply being in the Guinness Book of World Records is not a claim of notability, and the references are all to that book.

π, ν) 16:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:45, 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 keep. North America1000 03:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Repasky McElhinney

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Repasky McElhinney (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)

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73mmmm (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously not an A7 and any promo can be edited out. Has created a number of notable works and has some of his films in the permanent collections of notable museums such as the MOMA and therefore passes
    WP:NARTIST with plenty of reliable sources coverage already in the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:29, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Night in Japan

One Night in Japan (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)

Bootleg Michael Jackson album, fails

talk) 14:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Europe is purchasable from many important stores. Here some examples:
https://www.bol.com/nl/p/one-night-in-japan/1000004006523927/
https://www.lafeltrinelli.it/musica/cd-album/michael-jackson/one-night-japan/8712177055180 (now, it's out of print)
https://www.fnac.pt/Michael-Jackson-One-Night-In-Japan-2CD-CD-Album/a259607
DVD version charted in Switzerland and Netherlands.
https://hitparade.ch/charts/musik-dvd/26-07-2009
https://dutchcharts.nl/weekchart.asp?year=2009&date=20090711&cat=d (it is a chart topper in this country)
It was enough to do a research to find these informations writing "One Night In Japan Michael Jackson" on Google. Why don't do researches before to propose the delete? Simone Jackson (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Simone Jackson: We did do the research, and we didn't find any notability for the album... existence alone does not make the album notable, we were looking for articles written about the album. The DVD may be notable, having charted in two countries, but if that's all we can say about the DVD, and there is no prose that can be written about it, then this information is better off mentioned in Michael Jackson albums discography#Video albums. Richard3120 (talk) 18:18, 25 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 as improved. bd2412 T 02:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Grocott

Harold Grocott (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)

Playing in the Empire Games doesn't meet

WP:NSPORTS, but worse, I can't verify that he played. We have a source that says that a H. Grocott (presumably this one, though not certain, could e.g. be his brother Horace Grocott) left for the Games[19], but the other source actually reporting on the games doesn't mention him as part of the team (source gives by name the four team players and the one solo player)[20]
. If that source is correct, a G. R. Scott played at the Games instead.

None of the sources are indepth reliable sources about Harold Grocott, but passing mentions or primary sources.

Fram (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added further references that show that "Harold Grocott" was the H. Grocott that competed at the 1934 British Empire Games: [21], [22], [23]. Clearly it wasn't his brother Horace, as Horace's entry in the
    WP:SPORTSPERSON, which states that, "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition". Clearly the Empire / Commonwealth Games is a major amateur competition, and indeed until the advent of the World Bowls Championship in 1966, it was the highest level international competition for lawn bowls. Paora (talk) 10:15, 20 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chendooram

Chendooram (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 Siddha medicine but fails GNG comprehensively. Also, see

WP:MEDRS. ∯WBGconverse 13:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Can be redirected to Siddha (which's a mess) or somewhere like that. ∯WBGconverse 14:37, 20 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) 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fatafat

Fatafat (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 spot trivial name-mentions over this reminisce, this book and this DaliyMail piece. Atlas Obscura is user-generated content and not reliable.

Fails

WP:GNG comprehensively. ∯WBGconverse 13:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:28, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Miller (author)

Ryan Miller (author) (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)

Cannot see how this passes

WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails both
WP:GNG. Perhaps it's a result of having a fairly common name, but a web search turns up nothing of note on this person. Domeditrix (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete per
WP:GNG. Colin M (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete - Seems to fail
WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:57, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Nassetti

Alberto Nassetti (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)

Clear case of

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 TT me 11:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:24, 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 withdraw. Ref looks good.

ping me) 12:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Casa-grande

Casa-grande (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 reference for the article. Largely original research.

ping me) 11:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 11:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 11:38, 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. no policy-based reason to keep. Frankly the lone keep !vote was promotional. After I judged consensus I looked at the article, and it is blatantly promotional. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ERA Prometheus

ERA Prometheus (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)

Keep: Added much needed criticism to the claims of "universal affordability. Also removed the "Titan Edition" section as it made the page looks like a sales page. Before the page was hastily deleted, this "Titan Edition" section was also continually being stripped down. This clearly shows there was multiple and ongoing good faith efforts still being made on this page to fix the issues. Lastly, this watch model is notable and encyclopedic within the luxury industry. It is an (1) atypically priced watch model going for 1/10th the market price (affordable within haute segment as verified from 3rd party sources) and (2) it is the most crowd funded watch of its kind coming out of NYC, which is a fashion authority. Izazii (talk) 12:26, 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 keep. There is fairly clear consensus that this incident has fairly substantive coverage in reliable sources, and thus is basically notable. If those advocating to merge this still feel strongly about it, a merge discussion might be a better venue. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Amanda Froistad

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NOT NEWS, and BLP1E DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @
    WP:COATRACKish. Without speculating about User:DGG's intentions, it's very unfortunate that this information can't be referenced in this AfD as it's now gone (he nominated this page for AfD and the Moderation Management page for speedy deletion). The Moderation Management deleting admin, User:RHaworth either doesn't want to discuss this or is on some kind of wikibreak. I asked for a deletion review but imagine that will take several days for an outcome. I really don't think this AfD should proceed without that context, but here were are. - Scarpy (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment @
    WP:GNG, this is notable for reasons other than the bystander effect. It's a high profile case that establishes a legal--and to some extent social--precedent for information that's shared within peer-run support groups. Plenty of support groups, twelve-step groups in particular, encourage 'anonymity' among members. In meetings guidance is given along the lines of "whom you see here, what you hear here, when you leave here, let it stay here." It has encyclopedic value to have reference material showing the legal and social extent to which this is true (or not true). - Scarpy (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Scarpy: you bring up an interesting point, but I'm still not sure that being an example of the downside of the anonymity given perpetrators due to doctor/support group/patient confidentiality sends this into keep territory. I could see how this might contribute some material for a new section in Self-help groups for mental health#Criticism, named something like "perpetrator confidentiality". Reading this again makes it seem that it's a Venn diagram of themes that can feed multiple articles with short info but in aggregate isn't enough for a standalone article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:GNG and has other encyclopedic value in the case of peer-run support groups and the bystander effect. This is what Wikipedia is here for. - Scarpy (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I have updated the article; it is no longer a stub and is of higher quality than it was when nominated.
talk) 02:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for making that large list of references. With dozens of references from notable sites (news accounts about the death; news accounts about the trial; news accounts about the lawsuit caused by the death; accounts in books about how it’s an example of the Bystander Effect; accounts in books about how her death was an example of bureaucratic incompetence; etc.), I think the article’s notability is without question.
talk) 05:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed, but moving an article while AfD (Article for deletion) is in progress can cause issues, so I will do this if the article passes AfD.
talk) 14:17, 25 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) 18:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WooPlus

WooPlus (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)

insuffient evidence of notability ,and promotional as well DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Found these from Google to help with the discussion- BBC News, PEOPLE Magazine, Bustle, VICE, Huffington Post Australia, AskMEN, The Daily Dot, Daily Mail, Cosmopolitan and Femina. Hope this helps other reviewers. Csgir (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:36, 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 keep. Consensus is to keep but there is no consensus on examining if this will gain more coverage in the future. Discussion about the title belongs on talk.

(non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 08:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

2019 Balochistan attack

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 doesn't merit a standalone article per WP:ROUTINE & WP:NOTNEWS. Two minor & seperate incidents were combined based on WP:OR to create this article. —

(Talk!) 08:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:10, 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 keep. While I personally have sympathy for the argument to delete, I cannot close this any other way. The existence of substantive coverage is a difficult argument to overcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Christina Margarethe of Hesse

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication of independent notability.The subject was born into a deposed family and married into another deposed family. Virtually everything in this article is about other people: her father, her grandparents, her great-grandparents, her half-siblings, her husbands, her children, her grandchildren. She is solely of genealogical interest, and

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
{talk} 13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • A difference is that this article contains essentially no information about Christina Margarethe herself. But you are right, Wikipedia is full of articles about irrelevant relatives of former heads of state, most of which should be deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 11:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in reliable sources, not individual merit or achievement, is the criterion for notability in Wikipedia -- or most modern royalty would have no articles in this encyclopedia. It is the nature of persons of royal descent that significant coverage of their dynastic affiliations and the events of their lives is rooted in their kinship to monarchs, and so long as that coverage occurs in reliable sources, it contributes to their notability. Some may feel that being selected one of the few foreign, non-Commonwealth participants in so extremely rare and widely covered a ceremony of the modern era as a modern European coronation, such as that of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, does not mark that participant as notable. Others may reasonably consider that it does. FactStraight (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deposed or not, this is still someone who is a recent member of one of the aristocratic families of Europe. That's not NOTINHERITED, that's membership of a group which makes its members implicitly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTINHERITED
    . He has inherited this claim from someone actually notable, but he isn't.
Christina Margarethe of Hesse though is more than this. She was a member of the House of Hesse in her own right. Now, the Grand Duchy of Hesse was deposed after WWI and the House lost its power, but that doesn't stop them existing or its members being notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not satisfied at the quality of arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBGconverse 08:46, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Berler

Caroline Berler (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:ANYBIO. Point to note, the creator of the article is named CBerler. Daiyusha (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:32, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason JetPlane

Jason JetPlane (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 seem to meet the BLP notability guidelines. Article has little sourced content, and coverage in the media is extremely thin. UnkleFester (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Castellon

Demo Castellon (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)

Invalid criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:INVALIDBIO). Claim to notability is through the subject's relationship with Nelly Furtado. Subject is not notable in his own right. UnkleFester (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:35, 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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoagie Haven

AfDs for this article:
Hoagie Haven (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 notability under

Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Playing devil's advocate: the page could be said not to pass
    WP:ROUTINE but I think the fact it's popular with students at Princeton and to some extent appears to be a cultural phenomenon to them just about gets it over the bar on that. EDIT: To state the obvious the 2006 delete decision wasn't based on policy, since the relevant policies barely existed then, and should therefore be ignored for the purposes of this discussion. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just because you don't like
Rusf10 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Nah, we can decide in a AFD or RFC not to apply a particular policy, and this isn't even a policy - it's a guideline. There's a reason why
WP:AUD got turned down for general application. FOARP (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a really poor argument. See
Rusf10 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Please refrain from making personal attacks. I've stated my reasons for thinking that
WP:AUD should not apply - because it is a poor guideline that delivers illogical and inconsistent results (coverage in Andorran media = notable, coverage in London city media = not notable). FOARP (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not a personal attack, that's a direct criticism of your argument. If you don't like the guideline, then purpose that it be changed. We have guidelines for a reason, they are not to be ignored.--
Rusf10 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
One paragraph in a book on Princeton does very little to establish notability.--
Rusf10 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
but the
New York Times has been determined to be an enemy of the state, or similar, I believe, so Wikipedia should probably not consider that a valid source. :( --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 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 keep. Nominator wanted to withdraw the nomination, and the consensus is that the subject meets

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

D. J. B. Hawkins

D. J. B. Hawkins (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 would be incredibly difficult to evaluate the notability of this kind of article (ie, an academic-like person who isn't affiliate with a university) without some assistance. I do notice there's a lot of primary sources in this one, which was the final straw in nomination.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"D. J. B. Hawkins" is fine per
WP:COMMONNAME: it's more natural, less cumbersome, the form used on books and the preferred form at several national databases per VIAF and WorldCat. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:38, 20 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. czar 05:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brightech

Brightech (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 lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 02:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:25, 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 merge to Silverbridge, County Armagh. czar 05:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles in Silverbridge

The Troubles in Silverbridge (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)

Seems to be about one event, about which I can find little but run of the mill coverage. SITH (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:55, 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 keep. The consensus is that the article's references are worthy enough for the subject to pass

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Roohi Bano

Roohi Bano (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)

Delete: as insufficiently notable

actress; notability cannot be derived from relatives. [email protected] 01:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 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_19&oldid=1142224586"