Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 23 February 25 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 merge to Mew discography. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mew singles

List of Mew singles (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)

Completely unnecessary list article when Mew discography exists and suffices. No other band or musical artist has a "list of singles". This seems to have been created to display track listings and infoboxes as if to show every single as a stub article? No secondary sources apart from one referring to an album. Lazz_R 00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Mew discography (or vice versa?), or at least redirect. As far as I can make out, the articles for each Mew single were merged into a discography as a result of this AfD back in 2010. In 2015, this page was moved to it's current title and a new discography was created. We do not need two discographies for this band, and at least the newer version follows the typical format. PC78 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the main contributors to this (sizeable) article may not have been notified about this AfD, so courtesy pinging @Arbitrarily0, Mayast, and ВікіПЕДист: in case they wish to weigh in. Colin M (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect Agree with PC78. Legion X (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am sympathetic towards the desire to include a complete detailed discography, but how to do this is something that this project has never really got to grips with. The number of different versions of many of the singles, and different B-sides/additional tracks makes this one difficult to achieve without a separate article, but the detail is excessive here. The infoboxes are pretty redundant, and make the article look cluttered, but I don't think the detail here would fit well within the band's discography article. --Michig (talk) 10:01, 3 March 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. Michig (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Malkova

AfDs for this article:
Mia Malkova (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 GNG, and technical SNG passes are not sufficient to ignore that this is an inadequately sourced BLP.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Solid Keep. She meets WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). QED. Britishfinance (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As other arguments - meets WP:PORNBIO which was created for situations such as this. Curved Space (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - 2016 XBIZ Award Best Actress meets WP:PORNBIO.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meeting PORNBIO based on an industry award is not enough. She fails
    WP:ENT and sourcing is poor. Many biographical details about porn actors are faked so we need to be careful here. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:50, 24 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Develop Africa charity

Develop Africa charity (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:CORPDEPTH. The sourcing on the page at present is mostly directly related to the charity; the independent sources give either very little or no coverage. I also note that a similarly named page (Develop Africa), created by the same editor, was speedily deleted a few days ago. GirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As discussed here, the Amazon, Google books etc sources do not demonstrate notability - they simply show that the head of this charity has self-published some books, none of which have been reviewed or discussed in reliable sources. At AfD, we discuss each article on its individual merits, not in comparison with other (potentially problematic) articles about other subjects. GirthSummit (blether) 16:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are now 16 references and from the YouTube channel you can see, that this organization is very useful and should be on Wikipedia DevAfrica (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that this account's username is very similar to the name of the organisation that is the subject of this article, and that this comment is their first contribution to Wikipedia. GirthSummit (blether) 16:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
ChildVoice International, ICCF Holland. Why is he so strict about Develop Africa charity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.135.34.130 (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi, 46.135.34.130, I am assuming that you are the same person previously editing as DevAfrica now that your account has been blocked. Let me just be clear that the only reason I raised this AfD discussion because I reviewed this article, and judged it not to meet our guidelines on notability. I have not reviewed the other articles that you are bringing up - it's very possible that they also have problems, which may be addressed in time, but shortfalls in other articles is not a reason to ignore shortfalls in this article. Please keep this discussion focussed on this article, without pointing to flaws in others.
There are indeed sixteen sources currently used in this article - there are references to the charity's own website, there are references to the website of The Pencil Project, which the charity is directly involved with, there is a YouTube video on the charity's YouTube account, there are Amazon and Google books links to books self-published by the charity's director, there is a link to 'The Dream Home' project, which the charity is also directly involved with, there are crowd sourcing pages asking people to donate money to the charity, there is a press release by a law firm that donated some misprinted pens to the charity... There appear to be two actually independent sources - both of them giving one-line passing mentions to the charity. Details for sources required to write about an organisation can be found at
WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm sorry, but none of this comes anywhere close to that. GirthSummit (blether) 20:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Note to IP editors It's a bit strange that two similar IP addresses, (both registered to Vodafone Czech Republic) should show up at AfD independently and, never having edited any other article, vote on this. Strange also perhaps that 46.135.47.194's first edit was to put a charity stub tag on the article - that's not something that most new users know how to do.
Guy/s, this isn't a vote. It doesn't matter how many accounts/IPs come along saying that the charity's activities are useful/promising/importantant etc. To influence the decision you need to show that the charity currently meets the notability requirements, linked to above. If you can show significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources, to a standard that meets
WP:CORPDEPTH, then I will happily withdraw this nomination. I have looked pretty hard however, and can find nothing that meets the required standards. GirthSummit (blether) 07:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 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.

(non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 17:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Phase 2 metro station

Phase 2 metro station (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)

Wikipedia does not require an article for a tiny little metro station. I don't see any way this article can be expanded. User:cool12y —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 24 February 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First of all, it's not tiny. It's a major metro station on a major line. Such stations are considered inherently notable. It's impossible for a public works station of this magnitude to not have extensive government reports or proposals, studies, budgets, environmental assessments, etc.. The article can easily be expanded just like any other metro station, like Janakpuri West metro station for example. Content such as the history, layout, relation to the community it serves and other transit connections can be added.Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has generally been accepted that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Agree with other users above. It only needs more work. --Hiwilms (talk) 18:16, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Girardin

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

actor who has only ever held minor character appearances, no coverage and almost all results are for people who are not him. Praxidicae (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because those articles exist on WP, doesn't mean that they should but merely having been in them doesn't satisfy
WP:IRS in my opinion and I would expect if he had been a top billed cast member in multiple notable films, there would be an array of in depth coverage of him, but there's not. Praxidicae (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to be clear,
WP:NACTOR doesn't have any kind of footnote defining "significant", and I couldn't find much discussion of the term in that page's talk page archives.) Colin M (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
My point still remains that he lacks coverage which is the ultimate determination of notability. Praxidicae (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. To address Colin M's comments, what precisely is "above-the-fold billing?" on IMDB (as a 20+ year contributor to IMDB, I'd love to know!), what evidence is there that the subject meets the same, and what notability guideline does such explicitly satisfy? The only one of those three movies in which the subject had a noteworthy role was Hollywood Man, and whether one can call a film that doesn't even make Box Office Mojo's site a "notable film" is questionable at best. I want a great deal more to handwave away the GNG than such a shaky interpretation of NACTOR. Ravenswing 01:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to cases where his name appears in the abbreviated cast listing on the movie's main page (which IMDB labels "Cast overview, first billed only"), rather than having to click "See full cast". See this page for an example. The notability guideline that I'm claiming is satisfied is
    WP:NACTOR, as I wrote in the beginning of my vote. Colin M (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yeesh, sorry, I didn't know the IMDB cast section followed the ordering in the end credits. Thanks for the information, but also
    WP:CHILLOUT. Colin M (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark White (model)

Mark White (model) (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 concerns - no substantive coverage in reliable sources. 10ztalk is a regurgitator of a Medium post - 10ztalk possibly should be blacklisted.

π, ν) 19:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 24 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashely Calejo (model)

Ashely Calejo (model) (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 concerns - no substantive coverage in reliable sources.

π, ν) 19:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 24 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. Normally,

user:power~enwiki makes a good argument against redirecting. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

A Cappella Metal

A Cappella Metal (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 supposed musical genre - the only source is describing a single band as an "a cappella metal band".

π, ν) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:41, 24 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) 11:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Bell (entrepreneur)

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

Doesn't appear to meet

WP:BIO. Coverage is very brief or in local newspapers. The "South East Entrepreneur of the Year" award is insufficient to confer notability. SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 24 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) 11:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Jane Laughlin

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

The subject does not pass

WP:NACTOR. There simply isn't reliable coverage on her. Kbabej (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @
WP:G7. I could be wrong on that count, though. As it stands, I do not believe the subjects meets WP:NACTOR or GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Small minor roles. Britishfinance (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single role of her's is a significant one (recurring ones or in not notable movies), making Laura fail
    Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anisa Romero

AfDs for this article:
Anisa Romero (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 musician/artist, can't find any in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Seems like this would even qualify for speedy deletion under criterion
    A7 (no indication of importance). Colin M (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: just to be a little pedantic the removed text you're referring to reads During the 1990s, she sang with Roderick Wolgamott of Sky Cries Mary and lead vocals for Hana. It did not say she was actually a member of Sky Cries Mary. That removed sentence, even if verifiable, would not be grounds for notability. (That said, after some more searching, I can believe she is/was a member based on sources like [13])
Also, do you have a source for the claim that "Being a lead singer of a notable band is a clear and solid statement of notability". My reading of
WP:BAND suggests this is not true, based on the quote Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. and on this portion of notability criterion 6: or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles (which suggests to me that being a member of one notable ensemble does not establish a musician as being independently notable). Colin M (talk) 16:00, 2 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Osita Onumonu

Patricia Osita Onumonu (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)

Though they are a number of non-significant awards it currently fails

WP:TOOSOON. Lapablo (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing impressive, essentially
    talk) 23:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Below are some of primary sources notable awards she won. AFWN Fashion designer of the year Award 2016 https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2016/07/09/gala-nights-creme-de-la-creme/?amp

Green october event (fashion designer of the year)-2018 http://lamodespot.com/green-october-event-2018-the-nominations-for-the-fashion-awards-categories/

https://fabwoman.ng/female-winners-at-lamode-magazines-2018-green-october-event-fabwoman/

Fastest Growing Brand Award 2016 https://www.bellanaija.com/2016/10/first-photos-juliet-ibrahim-eni-balogun-trish-o-couture-are-top-winners-at-the-5th-glam-essence-style-awards-and-runway-show-2016/ Princek2019 (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Mahveotm. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. The accolades listed in the article are not notable. The subject did get primary coverage here and a secondary coverage here, but these two are not enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The latter article stated that the subject's brand is a top fashion brand in Nigeria. However, a Google search of the brand doesn't support the article's claims.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please kindly look closely Mahveotm Versace1608 on the underlisted award especially , it's a well recognize award in africa especially in fashion industry in Nigeria and they are both reliable primary source

Fashion designer of the year Award 2016 https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2016/07/09/gala-nights-creme-de-la-creme/?amp https://m.guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/afwn2016-the-thrills-frills-and-highlights Princek2019 (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, does not meet
    WP:GNG appears to be a promotional/vanity article. WCMemail 11:50, 28 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) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel Zuberi

Nabeel Zuberi (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)

Ineligible for G7 as someone else has blanked the page, although it looks like an associated account. Either way, per

WP:GNG but clearly others contest this so I am AfDing to gain consensus. SITH (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence Zuberi played a significant role in shows listed in the article and fails
    WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabeel Zubieri - it looks like a duplicate AfD on a duplicate article.PRehse (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! There were 2 articles created on wikipedia. The only problem was the spelling mistake. His name is Nabeel Zuberi, not Nabeel Zubieri. Therefore the articles could have looked the same. The other page is deleted, but this page has the correct spelling and correct biography. Please have a look at those references listed in it as I have added a lot of references and news links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebrity717real (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt -- Per all above. Fails NACTOR and/or GNG. Too soon to be notable enough; anyways why G4 was not applied? ∯WBGconverse 07:03, 4 March 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 Clathrina. RL0919 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guancha

Guancha (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 would like to propose a deletion of this genera. It does not exist, and which species do exist have new names and I have already piped all the redirects to the new species so there is no purpose to keeping the old name (anyone searching for the outdated species in an old source already gets a redirect to the correct species name). This page is an orphan (no pages link to this) and thus serves no function. An alternative to deletion could be to just redirect this page to the family page Clathrinidae. Mattximus (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The page very much serves a function: to explain to the reader, who might look up a genus mentioned in a book or elsewhere, that this is no longer recognised as a genus. An encyclopedia exists to provide information to its readers, not to hide it from them because taxonomy has changed. This information can presented on a separate page or in the article on
    Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
But it is incorrect, all those species names are no longer valid. Would a compromise be a redirection but placing an explanation in the Clathrinidae article about former name in case anyone looks up the genus directly (this is not a problem for the species listed, since I have already redirected with appropriate attribution of old names)? Keeping it as is makes it look like they are indeed valid. At the very least they have to go, even if the article itself is not deleted. I will do this now. Mattximus (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is incorrect? The article says that this was formerly recognised as a genus including the listed species but is no longer recognised. That looks perfectly correct to me, and just the sort of encyclopedic information that a reader would expect, remembering that encyclopedias cover history as well as current knowledge.
Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The lead sentence is correct, in that it informs the reader that this is not a real thing. However the list of species is actually invalid and should not be there, nor the taxobox. No other page on wikipedia would list invalid species. I suppose that can be called alternative #2, just keep it as a one sentence article. Is that preferable to my first compromise? Mattximus (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the list of species is not invalid, because they were previously thought to be part of this genus, and, if the article doesn't already make that clear, it would only take a few words to fix that. The taxobox can certainly be done away with. Once again. encyclopedias cover history as well as current knowledge.
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • A merge would be perfectly fine, but it should include the encyclopedic information about which species were previously defined to be part of this superceded genus.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Fair enough I will change my opinion from delete, to *Redirect to Clathrina. Mattximus (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect C'mon. This would be a no-brainer redirect to Clathrina if not for the single Ernstia entry, and that is easily dealt with by an explanatory sentence at Clathrina. I mean, it's no disaster if this just sticks around as an unnecessarily expansive redirect (so to speak), but needed it is not; might as well be tidy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I feel we have too many articles on historic taxa already, and this one is just obsolete and not so much historic. Adding a note about former taxonomic placements in the target article would be nice to do though. --
    talk) 14:54, 28 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fivetran

Fivetran (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)

Typical run of the mill corp. Startup company with series of funding press releases. At this point nothing significant or outstanding about the company and only serves to promote the corp. Lapablo (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:16, 24 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) 12:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eron Westwood

Eron Westwood (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:NSPORTS [14]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet either
    WP:NSKATE. Sandals1 (talk) 17:42, 13 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) 01:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and SPORT. If anything TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:02, 24 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) 11:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of art galleries in Colombia

List of art galleries in Colombia (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 seems like a purely promotional article of private art galleries; no attempt to establish WP:GNG for any gallery (in fact there is almost no referencing at all). Original editor seems long gone. Another editor has been trying to create individual WP articles on these galleries, one of which Beatriz Esguerra Art was an A7 CSD case (and very promotional). We could remove all the unreferenced promotional material which would leave the article almost blank. Dediced to consult with AfD instead. Britishfinance (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Coolabahapple: Yes, that struck me as weird too, why the list doesn't include the country's major art galleries, just the small private ones. And by the way, it's Colombia, not Columbia... Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:GNG, this can be a suitable way of dealing with semi-notable subjects that do not merit a full article. It is in such cases a matter of judgment which ones should be included. Th links to their websites should be removed, and at least one good third-party reference for each added. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I'm inclined to agree with you... just picking a few names out of the list at random, I could easily find at least one in-depth article from reliable sources on each of them. I'll see if I can add these sources in the next couple of days. Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep: I've added a reference from a reliable source to all but one of the galleries – I'm not a fan of lists in general, but this one can be sourced fairly easily, and if the major museums were added there would be a stronger case for keeping the article. Richard3120 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nice work Richard3120. The question is what is this article becoming? It is still a list of private art galleries, with referencing to now prove existance, but not notability. I think it would need a decisive "nudge" to give it stability/a future – otherwise, what would stop it from the same fate as the recently deleted "List of Wineries in Alabama"? Britishfinance (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance: it's a valid point. I'm not very keen on lists in general on Wikipedia, I think 90% of them are badly sourced and/or full of original research – at least with this one it is possible to locate independent sources for most of the galleries. But it probably does need a clearer focus, and the addition of the major art galleries. Richard3120 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:21, 24 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 Vézina. Any useful content may be merged as desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vezina

Vezina (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 online source search brings up seven

general notability guidelines. SITH (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a google books search for Vezina Tapae brings up a whole bunch of hits (seems he was second in command in the battle per some of these, and pretended to be dead) - however most of the hits are in snippet view (and many aren't in English) and I'm unable to see how much depth there is there. in this book which seems like a RS, he appears in 3 pages per the index (however the book itself isn't available in those page ranges).Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page 176 from Grumeza, Ion. Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe. University Press of America, 2009. which you referenced, is available to me, here[15]. That page suggests Vezina can be seen on
Trajan's column, but isn't too clear on this point (and even Decebalus' visage on the column isn't certain, I think). Some sources online claim that Vezina is called a priest on the (likely forged) Sinaia lead plates. To me, any fact which is sourced to a source that used these plates should be flagged in the text as being based in a likely forgery. His being second in command to Decebalus is attested in Cassius Dio here[16], which is the reference used on page 70 here[17]. If it were a clear that he is depicted on the column, then these three primary sources (one forged) and their discussions in RS (where found) could be cobbled together into an encyclopedia article, I think. Without something more, though, I wouldn't support keep in this case. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:11, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metacorder

Metacorder (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 online source search brings up no

WP:GNG failure. SITH (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the information in the article, this is a device in a non-notable short story by a non-notable writer? Unless something fairly central is missing, this is not encyclopedic material. /Julle (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Wow, this article flew under the radar for a long time, didn't it? Colin M (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Party of Canada

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

Doesn't appear to have received the requisite

WP:NCORP failure. SITH (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 14:50, 24 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Renowitzky

AfDs for this article:
Arthur Renowitzky (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)

Personal promo piece that has survived here since 2010 without any reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in addition it seems from the edit history that a number of 2016 edits were made by the subject of the article or someone closely related to his organisation. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. From what I see in my BEFORE, he doesn't pass SIGCOV. There are a few items covering his activism / speaking - but I don't see how this raises up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete, I always regret deleting a Bio about someone doing good works. However, coverage I can find is limited to a few mentions and an article or two about him in the local paper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I must agree with the previous voters. He has a compelling life story and is doing great work, but there is not enough
    significant and reliable media coverage of him or his charity. And if the second of those was present, the article should be about the charity as an organization. Unfortunately, the article reads like a plea for donations, and while this charity certainly deserves donations, an encyclopedia is the wrong place to ask. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, simply not notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:52, 1 March 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) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Prakash

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

I do not believe this individual meets

WP:NBIO. The article states that "He rose to fame with the 2013 blockbuster Malayalam film Memories but his name does not appear on the lengthy cast list, nor on that of his other film Persiakaran. The article seems to have been written by a single purpose creator, probably someone with a CoI. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable actor. Seems to have done a role of note only in his last Malayalam movie, which incidentally is probably not good enough to merit an article. Jupitus Smart 15:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show he meets
    WP:NACTOR.Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 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 redirect to

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Heidelberg University Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences

Heidelberg University Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences (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 in its own right Bigwig7 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 10:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SS49: Relisting really not necessary here. It's already been relisted twice and there are no conflicting opinions -- only standard operating procedure. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. As above. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:43, 2 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palghat Ramprasad

Palghat Ramprasad (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 was recently moved from Draft:Palghat_Ramprasad after failing AFC submission twice. I'm not sure whether or not this qualifies for deletion, so I'm looking for XfD discussion. Does this individual meet notability guidelines? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. After complying with biography of living persons guidelines, it was submitted with a much abdridged NPOV version. But I published the new NPOV version with proper citations and any references that might have sounded like advertising were all removed. Please see edit history in original version. I was afraid this was waiting approval for too long and hence created new version incorporating the recommendations. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arasksk (talk • contribs) 03:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 10:00, 24 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. bd2412 T 23:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund

Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund (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 guidelines at

WP:GROUP. I have no connection to the subject, I stumbled across it when a newly created account was adding a non-notable to the list of people who were first on the board of this now defunct group. I removed that, and then the listing of all the other board members who were non-notable. I tried finding some sources regarding the group but came up short, realizing the entire group was non-notable and unlikely to gain any as it no longer exists. Prod was contested. Ifnord (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment. Please see
    WP:PROD. It is the informal process to delete an article, the tag you removed and hence the formal process now. Ifnord (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment. @
    WP:RS, and "en-news" are RS news sources where English is the language. I can see that there are some foreign sources oon this but the ones I checked were just name-checking the Fund and not discussing/profiling it (e.g. goes to prove existance but not notability). However, this fund may appear with different names in Russian/Asian media and thus a good RS that does profile the fund could exist in a major paper in these areas? Britishfinance (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 09:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not able to find any significant coverage of the fund itself. In my searches I found passing mentions like [18], which is certainly not enough to pass
    Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:43, 3 March 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.
Why was this page deleted if 2 people nominated it for deletion, and one (myself) argued against it? How is that possibly consensus in any possible scenario? This process initiated by people that obviously are educated in their domains but not in history or politics or any aspect of historical reflection, has its parallels adn is reminiscent of the top-down structures of communist political decisions, and gangsterism.Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article should certainly not, according to Wikipedia's written rules, have been deleted for notability issues, because if you read the notability topic in Wikipedia, it is based on the subject-matter, not the specificity of the article in question. I could extract quotes from the Wikipedia article on Notability, as I thought I still had time to do so, however, this article is gone. If it was so difficult to find information on this specific topic, why is there a page on the Whitehouse website currently, that specifically refers to the name of this specific fund? Why is there a vacuum on Wikipedia of topics on this subject matter? This is just another example on Wikipedia, who either are not sophisticated enough to do an effective web search or are too lazy to do one, because it may take too much time. Please explain what consensus means on Wikipedia. Does it really mean majority-rule, or does it actually mean consensus?... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sooner or Later (GF4 song)

Sooner or Later (GF4 song) (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 song is a cover version of Sooner_or_Later_(The_Grass_Roots_song) so does not need its own article. All content from this page has been added to the original, in line with how cover versions are normally treated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Too Orangey For Crows (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Converted to {{afd2}} and signed --DannyS712 (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 09:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 09:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect Already merged so just redirect. Should have perhaps simply been BOLDly redirected after the merge. Aoziwe (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I agree with the previous two comments. This is an improper use of the AfD process. The article cannot be deleted for attribution reasons because content has been moved from this article to the proposed redirect target, Sooner or Later (The Grass Roots song). It would have been better to simply edit the article to make it a redirect. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Michig et al.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page edited to make it a redirect as suggested. Therefore the page is considered to be kept? Too Orangey For Crows (talk) 13:23, 1 March 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. consensus is that the season fails NSEASONS and no sources have been provided to support the assertion that wider GNG is met. Fenix down (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1907–08 Rochdale A.F.C. season

1907–08 Rochdale A.F.C. season (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:NSEASONS; Rochdale spent this season in the Manchester League, which was nowhere near even being a top semi-professional league at the time. Prod removed by article's creator. Number 57 12:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:29, 24 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) 11:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Barry (singer)

Jack Barry (singer) (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:NBIO. No sources for article, cannot find any sources for Jack Barry, The Jack Barry Show, or Jacob Belser. History states that article may be completely original research. Rogermx (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did searches on Google and Google Books. I found nothing. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how
    Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QXP: The Quran As It Explains Itself

QXP: The Quran As It Explains Itself (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 translation of the Quran. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as another non-notable book about the Quran.
Exposition Of The Holy Qur'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The first relies entirely on
    significant coverage of any kind. SITH (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. I had originally PRODded the QXP article as "Non-notable book. The Quran is, but no support that this specific translation is.", which is still my position. DMacks (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: both seem to fail
    WP:NBOOK. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Urman

Richard Urman (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 seeing how this person can pass

WP:NACADEMIC. Run of the mill medical person. Edwardx (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
(talk) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination; the article reads more like a promotional biography entry rather than a neutral Wikipedia one.TH1980 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 11:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet either
    WP:NPROF. Promotional 'cruft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: Fails
    WP:NPROF, I would say the award they won is not independently notable and does seem to be a well covered or prestigious award (despite that the article about the award claims as such). Couldn't find any reliable secondary source that actually linked him to the award. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dawit Mulugeta

AfDs for this article:
Dawit Mulugeta (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 person is relatively unknown and a non-public figure, even if they are notable enough for an article. The significance of his publications is not as profound as previously thought upon further inspection and through laterally checking secondary source material. Previous claims to keeping this page several months ago should be reverted; reasons for keeping this article are exaggerated by the author (me).

talk
) 7:00, 10 Feburary 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't understand why you want to apply
WP:NACADEMIC.CoronaryKea (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Very much on the weak side. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment/Delete I have done multiple checks on the impact of the research, which do not span past his field, and do not support other fields. The research done by Dr Mulugeta is in it of itself wonderful, however, it is not significant, despite my claims. It has the same effect as someone writing their professors wikipedia article. I feel that it is not significant enough for an article, even if there are cited papers.
    talk
    ) 1:44, 25 Feburary 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OK, so I guess he never played pro soccer, or happens to be an obscure species of moth, but this is too much. Tony May (talk) 15:25, 2 March 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) 12:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GSI Outdoors

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

PROD replaced with corporate spam. Original rationale was: Insufficient

independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for failing
    WP:CORPDEPTH. I found a number of good references but they all mentioned the subject in passing only, usually as one of a list of recalled products (water bottles with high levels of lead) or in a list of potential camping supplies to take whilst outdoors. Ifnord (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep it, but it certainly needs more factual information. Their products are on Amazon, which is what caused me to go looking for more info, so they aren't totally trivial. And checking the reviews, they seem to be towards the top of the heap in cheap **** enamelware, so a little background info is a useful thing. And at least they are honest, they buy from China, not like Graniteware which goes on and on about their great American Heritage but buys the product in Mexico.
btw, not germane to GSI but wikipedia ? Take your stupid popups and SHOVE IT ! "Duh, did you want to edit now ?"
No, I was having an epileptic fit and mistakenly clicked the "edit" tab. Imbeciles. 172.58.41.3 (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to respond to this so I'm just going to
indent it. SITH (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is clear consensus to delete this article at this time. TheSandDoctor Talk 07:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-to-Peer Electronic Accounting System

Peer-to-Peer Electronic Accounting System (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 neologism per

WP:NEO and WP:No original research. I can find little to no substantial mention of the subject online, apart from research papers apparently written by the article creator. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This topic is the article creator’s stated area of research. Outside of that it doesn’t seem to get a mention, so not notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet -related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software -related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I prodded it on similar grounds, and the prod was contested without comment by an anonymous editor, who also added some references to the previously unsourced article. Two mention peer-to-peer transactions but not this subject, one is a subscriber-only JSTOR link, and two are research papers by the article creator. I can find nothing about it online in RS outside of research proposals by a single researcher. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Don't see which part cannot be covered on main articles of the subject. Shashank5988 (talk) 21:14, 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 redirect to Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer). There is clear consensus in favour of this redirecting to Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer). TheSandDoctor Talk 07:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian & Jenn Johnson

Brian & Jenn Johnson (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)

For inexplicable reasons, out of 4 sources here, three of them are basically public birth certificates. Nothing in this article shows notability and there are no reliable sources out there for notability for this group. “But they charted!” is not a guarantee of that. Trillfendi (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:40, 24 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana (actress)

Ariana (actress) (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)

Technical SNG passes are not enough for a BLP when the subject clearly fails GNG.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 04:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don’t know how many times I have to say this but winning an award is not enough for an article. There are no independent, reliable sources here. No career to speak of as she retired over two decades ago. Trillfendi (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single listing on "some website". Not clear this is reliable at all or even affiliated with any official organization. A collection of roles from "some other website" apparently written and maintained by volunteers. So basically no more reliable than Wikipedia. A puff interview on "some website". What appears to be mostly badly written erotic fiction, just in case we need a citation for whether "Decker pronged her wet hole". It's not clear that any of these are at all useful for a BLP, and the name is so exceedingly generic that I'm finding plenty of sources about plenty of people, but none of it is about her. Winning an award doesn't mean we keep a poorly sourced flagrant BLP violation and pretend it's an encyclopedia article. GMGtalk 13:00, 24 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities Anonymous

Celebrities Anonymous (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 found no significant coverage. Fails

WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no external reviews listed at imdb and there is no entry at rotten tomatoes, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 04:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Big failure of
    Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero to Infinity (Raftaar album)

Zero to Infinity (Raftaar album) (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 album. Neither this stub nor a Google search shows independent coverage. This draft does not provide any information except content of the album; there is no Reception section, for instance. Google search shows that it exists, finds this article, and finds that it has been publicized, but not by independent sources.

This article has been periodically stubbed down and is back in article space with inadequate information. Draftification would be reasonable, but there already is a draft that is the same as this article, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or redirect to artist. No indication it meets either
    WP:NALBUMS.Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 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) 01:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 04:41, 24 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Stage

Sarah Stage (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) 02:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--no, that kind of coverage is not enough per GNG. Delete: no significant discussion, nothing here of any lasting importance. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Editing could fix the
    talk) 17:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:NEXIST isn’t applied here. Trillfendi (talk) 19:15, 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 merge to

(non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Union Pacific 1982

Union Pacific 1982 (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)

These are non-notable locomotives known only for their paint schemes. There has not been substantial independent press coverage, nor is there any distinguishing factor (like preservation) other than the paint scheme. (Compare, for example, to clearly-notable preserved locomotives Pennsylvania Railroad 4800 and Pennsylvania Railroad 4935, which have vastly more coverage and more to actually include in the articles.) Four of the six articles only have a single source that does not directly discuss the locomotives.

Also included in this AfD:

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Template:UP Heritage Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 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. Keep arguments provide evidence of notability. Michig (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey in Lahore

Donkey in Lahore (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 enough for notability, fails WP:NFILM. Störm (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found these very quickly and there a lot more references I have not checked. Not sure how much BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the above reliable sources that have been identified for
    WP:GNG, the Variety piece is particularly convincing, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crappy article that was mostly a copyright violation (admins may want to look at getting rid of offending versions). That said, film is notable. In addition to above there is coverage in this book and some in this. Don't know how much but get "The case in point atVIFF was Faramarz K-Rahber’s documentary Donkey in Lahore ... high ground of knowledge and truth, explaining the quaint ways of the natives. Donkey in Lahore gained...". Also reviewed by Michael Lallo in The Age, 14 February 2008, "When love transcends all borders". Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:05, 2 March 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 Chew (comics). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chew (film)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with rare exceptions on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, the notability test for most film requires the film to get released and receive reviews from film critics. But this cites just two pieces of production-announcement coverage, which is nowhere near enough to make an unreleased film notable yet, and according to the most recent update its entire status is now in doubt as even its IMDb profile has been scrubbed completely. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Articles don't get retained in draftspace indefinitely either — if something doesn't happen within six months to change its notability enough to get it restored to articlespace again, then it will get deleted from there too. In the incredibly unlikely event that this ever actually gets released, we can undelete the article if we want to recover the past work. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. But at least it gives the article six months. If nothing happens, the draft can be deleted.--
talk) 02:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Chew (comics). Deletion is a non-starter when other, better options are on the table. PC78 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Miraculous animated musical

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a film that hasn't been released yet, and doesn't even have a confirmed title yet. As always, we do not create or maintain an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with rare exceptions for extremely notable films (e.g. the Star Wars franchise) that generate a lot of production coverage, the notability test for most films is that they have been released, and received reviews from film critics. But this isn't referenced anywhere near well enough to get it into the "special case of significantly greater notability than most other unreleased films" basket -- it cites one brief mention of the fact that a film was planned in an article that's primarily about the regular TV series the film is being adapted from, and is otherwised sourced entirely to the producers' own self-published Twitter tweets. This is not how you make a film notable enough for a Wikipedia article this far in advance of its commercial release. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator that this film, planned for release in 2021, is way
    WP:TOOSOON. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 24 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. Michig (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Schulman/Joost project

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

WP:BLP articles does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment they announce that they're working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then you need to wait until you do know those things before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A film that has actually been shot, with references to casting and production, and movies and plots are sometimes kept underwraps, and shot without titles.
talk) 03:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's lots of really good sources here to help show its notability with a very well known cast, and it passes NFILM. Perhaps most importantly is that the fact that principal photography has begun (and indeed finished). Cindlevet (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that the fact it doesn't have a title is irrelevant; that doesn't mean the project isn't notable, and no policy suggests you need one before creating an article. Cindlevet (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R. S. Karthik

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 actor who’s claim to fame is an untitled character in a film. Fails nactor Praxidicae (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:50, 8 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) 04:03, 16 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) 00:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's perfectly acceptable to give an opinion that this should be deleted, but "per nom" is not a valid opinion as the nominator's statement that this actor only played an untitled character in a film is a bare-faced lie.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Except as I commented above, there is still virtually no coverage of this person despite his supposed "starring" in this film of questionable notability. Therefor per nom could also be referring to my comments. At the time I searched for this there weren't any independent, in depth, reliable sources, as remains the case now. Praxidicae (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that might be true, but you shouldn't overstate the case for deletion by lying that the subject played an untitled character when it was actually the lead role.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you're being unduly harsh here and stating this as if my intent was to deceive. At the time when I afd'd this with the sources available to me it showed no main role in a film of note under his name R.S. Karthik. It wasn't until later that the sources stating such were found but my point still stands that he is not currently notable. Praxidicae (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to rewrite history. This is how the article looked when you nominated it for deletion. Notability may not have been demonstrated, but it was perfectly clear that the subject played the lead, named, role in Peechankai, which makes your nomination statement a clear lie.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:A7. Do you really think that this subject, based on the information available on him – none of which is a material quality RS on the subject himself (the critical component for a media-BLP) – makes him notable. There are AfD's in the queue that have not even had a comment, and you spend your time like this? Making "contrived" cases to create borderline BLPs is a fools game in WP unless the subject is a figure of long-term historical importance. This guy is not. Britishfinance (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that it's important that people should know that they will be called out when they tell lies, whether in a correct cause or not. Don't you?
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You have taken an extreme view that a mistake is definately a lie. If that is the case, then AfD is full of liars as many AfDs have mistakes or inaccuracies in their proposals. I have seen such mistakes in some of your contributions Phil, but I don't call you a "liar". I make comments in many AfDs without voting to note potential mistakes (and such comments have been made to me on my contributions). But I do not assume that they are "lying". What is even worse, you take such an extreme view for an AfD which is not only a Delete, but is most likely a COI/UDP case – E.g. the basis of this article is a lie? Britishfinance (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not lie. Lying implies that I did something with the intent to deceive. That is not the case here. I made a mistake which I admitted and I still stand by my comment that when I initially looked at the article, it appeared to me that he had not held a major named role. If you want to take my temporary inability to read as a malicious act, do so elsewhere because this has gone far off course and I've since expanded on why he is not notable. Further, if you think that I am acting maliciously, please take it to the appropriate venue. Thanks.Praxidicae (talk) 23:28, 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. Sandstein 10:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naked for a Cause

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

Fails

WP:GNG; an charity initiative that distributed "celebrity nude calendars" with no significant notability. The sources in the article are primarily promotional. Allied45 (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related page (this an article on the actual calendar that was distributed):

Gods of Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Allied45 (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nominator that lacks notability contemporary or lasting, with a bit of routine or promotional coverage and nothing else. Aspirex (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to McGrath_Foundation#McGrath Foundation initiatives with due weight, both articles, ie, only a couple of sentences each. Neither article is notable in its own right, but could be a fan or cult following search term, and are of possible respective interest. Aoziwe (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of organization-related deletion discussions. Aoziwe (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 17 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) 00:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails
    WP:GNG. Doesn't look like a merge is appropriate, as this benefits, but is not an initiative by, McGrath, as far as I can tell. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete
    WP:NOTINHERETED; attractive people in the buff do not confer any notability they may have upon these topics. Madness Darkness 15:14, 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 07:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ERNI Electronics

ERNI Electronics (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)

De-prodded with the rationale "no". Original nomination rationale was Fails

independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:51, 16 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) 00:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, fails
    HighKing++ 18:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McKenzie Lee

McKenzie Lee (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)

Best new starlet isn't enough if the subject clearly fails GNG

Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You can find the list of "major" AVN awards in WP here (
    36th AVN Awards), and it lists Best New Starlet as a "major award". We need to stick to WP:PAG and WP:PORNBIO here, and somebody's personal view on these actresses (which I know are contraversial), "contrived" outside of these PAGs. Britishfinance (talk) 19:50, 22 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) 00:16, 24 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. Randykitty (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnni Black

Johnni Black (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)

Precedent best new starlet isn't enough if the performer fails GNG

Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Yes it does. You need to familiarise yourself with
    36th AVN Awards
    ), which helpfully list out the "major awards" for you - one of which is "Best new starlet".
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes it is. She meets WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). Britishfinance (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes
    WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - There are few references, but they satisfy GNG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do awards for "new" or "upcoming" really indicate the same level of significance or notability as other awards from the same source? Almost by definition, the only competition is other people who haven't yet won any awards. The article only shows 2 awards — AVN Best New Starlet and FOXE Video Vixen — both limited to new/upcoming people, in the same year, and the article doesn't indicate that she won any awards when competing with what you might call "people who win awards". Contrast this person with other performers who have won these "new" awards but also picked up awards that well-established recipients earn. --Closeapple (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet
    WP:SPIP. Per much prior precedent, including several DRs, a technical PORNBIO pass -- which is dubious in this case -- does not exempt a BLP from sourcing requirements. The article on the award has been itself deleted confirming that it's not a significant award. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Britishfinance: The New York Times published op-eds and columns by Stoya and Kayden Kross ... Trillfendi (talk) 01:51, 24 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) 00:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why don’t people get it? Winning an award doesn’t automatically make an adult film performer notable when they have no career to actually speak of. Least of all, Best New Starlet. If it was Female Performer of the Year or Best Actress then I could see keeping it. Literally NO career! One movie? Get outta here. Trillfendi (talk)
    • Comment Black was in over 300 movies, so not sure how you came up with her only being in one. You're obviously are not familiar with her career at all other than glancing over the article. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PORNBIO is not a tool to toss out GNG. A "New performer" award is a good indication the person has not had enough of a career to gain notability. Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 22:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While
    Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:34, 3 March 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 Consensus on the redirect issue. I'm not going to create the redirect, but if somebody else wants to, they can do so on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stony Point Pass

Stony Point Pass (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:GEOROAD. SITH (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:15, 16 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) 00:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find nothing notable about this road and am a big fan of this essay. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Comment. This page seems to have been made to get pointy with the US Government. See this from pages creation "Except for a small section the road remains unpaved; this fact remains true despite the fact that the United States Tax payers have paved roads in Iraq and Afghanastan. Stony Point Pass is a pock marked lunar landscap that could be used by NASA to test new lunar vehicles". (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Redirect to
    alternative to deletion and I am shocked nobody bothered to do that over the course of this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I think there are better uses of our time than creating redirects for all of them, and some might share names with other notable roads in which case they shouldn't be redirected at all, but
    redirects are cheap and I don't see the harm in redirecting this one. Smartyllama (talk) 21:03, 1 March 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_24&oldid=1142224606"