Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 17

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

Is covered by

List of named storms (U–Z) and serves no purpose now Noah^Talk 22:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Please be aware that I will be nominating more articles under this as I check them for coverage. They will be listed below as I add them. Noah^Talk 22:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would like to simply redirect these, feel free to do so. I had a conversation with some other editors last night and agree that the best course of action is probably redirecting. As I haven't had time to do that, the AfD remains open. Noah^Talk 11:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the tropical storm project is no longer interested in these titles as set index articles, they should be turned into disambiguation pages to serve the purpose of reader navigation. Readers are better served by shorter lists that match the title sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's much easier to find which storm you are looking for when there are only a few options rather than a long list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a dab page (i.e. fix per mosdab if necessary) - or as a minimum as a redirect to an anchor in a list. DexDor^(talk) 19:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as these pages aid navigation in their current form.
Talk: Contribs) 19:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all, and perhaps nominate
List of named storms (U–Z) for deletion, given there is no lists for other sections alphabetically. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment @
Rubbish computer: As I said above, I discussed and agreed deletion would not be the best option after the fact that the AfD had started. Would it be okay to have all those links redirect to their specific storm name on the alphabetical list? @Ajf773: Just because nothing similar exists at this time, doesn't mean you can delete it. Nothing new would be created if that were the case. Noah^Talk 13:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

No, per what I said above. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. DexDor^(talk) 20:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative to removing that list is to create more to cover the full scope alphabetically. Ajf773 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Ammons

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

Doesn't meet any of the

WP:RS). Her family members are famous, so she gets some coverage by talking about them, and this pattern is seen in most of the other sources: they are not about her; they mention her when discussing something else. She gets 29 words in the book on regional blues, and that's including her own name in the count. EddieHugh (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a few other references. I will leave it up to others to assess whether she meets any criteria. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me still. The jazz club review is from a business where one of the reviewed musicians often plays, so isn't independent. I don't know if the online radio broadcast is an RS. Most of the others are just mentions of her in lists of people. Tens/hundreds of millions of people would have an article if her coverage were enough to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (GNG). EddieHugh (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither
WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:WAWARD) 15:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete-Per EddieHugh.∯WBG^converse 06:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete.

π, ν) 23:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Internationale Arbeitsgemeinschaft Donauforschung

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

Per PROD reasoning:

Please create this at de.wikipedia.org and let this copy be deleted; an English version already exists at International Association for Danube Research. When reusing content from International Association for Danube Research, please make sure to attribute it properly, via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Association_for_Danube_Research&offset=&limit=500&action=history -- see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quickly please, this article is a german language version of International Association for Danube Research, it is an almost exact duplicate (in german) of the IADR article lead and organisation section. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete German language partial duplicate of existing article; there should be no discussion necessary here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk']] 22:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete as per
WP:A2. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Wassink

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

Minor former appointed state official fails to rise to the level of

WP:GNG. The sourcing also doesn't hold up--it's almost all primary, written by the subject, or directory-type stuff that doesn't verify the information given and doesn't indicate encyclopedic notability for the article subject. Marquardtika (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is a very minor former appointed official and doesn't meet

WP:NPOL, no real secondary sources establishing notability either. GPL93 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete Pretty much noone below the actual secretary level is notable in sub-national unit governments. When you are both assistant and depty it is rare indeed to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert and
WP:NPOL. Risker (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Subject has not held any political office that constitutes an automatic
primary sourcing that cannot support notability at all — and the only footnote that's actually citing a media outlet is an article where he's the bylined author, not the subject, so it's not contributing anything either. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. clpo13_(talk) 22:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Joey Sellers

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

Fails

^{• whaddya want? •} 06:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was redirect to Sergey Zhukov. clpo13_(talk) 00:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:43, 18 January 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.

V Poiskah Nezhnosti

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

A non-notable Sergey Zhukov's musical album.--RTY9099 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 06:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sergey Zhukov per common practice for albums without independent notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:09, 17 January 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.

Mne s Toboy Horosho

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

A non-notable song Russian pop band. No value, no reliable sources.--RTY9099 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 06:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article claims that the cover version by Haiducii made the charts in Austria and Italy but I can find no evidence of this. However, this may be the result of language and I may change my stance if someone knowledgeable finds evidence of chart placement. But even if the chart claim is correct, that might be useful info for the
routine listings at typical retail/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mne s Toboy *Ne* Horosho I've heard of the band Ruki Vverkh! (why isn't the k in there?), so it's not a complete no name song/group. But darned if I could find anything for the song to indicate notability. I didn't do an off-Wiki search for the group and would guess there's a 50-50 chance somebody could find indications of notability for the group, but its article also shows no sign of notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:08, 24 January 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. clpo13_(talk) 22:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JnC

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

No sources; doesn't meet notability guidelines K-popguardian (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
Talk to my owner:Online 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Question
talk) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Answer It was meant to be AfD but I messed it up.-K-popguardian (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources in article, and I couldn't find any reliable secondary ones elsewhere. Doesn't pass
WP:NBAND afaict. Don't think a redirect is beneficial. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - It was only a one time album collaboration similar to Tablo x Taeyang and TRAX+Air. There really isn't any sort of notability for such an article, not that there's any sources anyway.-76.174.35.70 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Opinion on this one are all over the board and I do not believe another relisting is likely to result in consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 in photo

View AfD · Stats

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

Not enclycpedic, similar articles should also be considered. This was raised on #wikipedia-en IRC today. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By similar articles, I mean any Year in xxx article. If a wider RfC would be better, please let me know and proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinosF1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC is not a valid or substantive argument. And I can't tell if your objection is specific to this page (please elaborate if that's the case), or to the mere fact of a "[year] in [subject]" page...if the latter, please don't waste our time. postdlf (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- For previous years, I believe we need to establish whether they provide any substantial benefit to the encyclopedia and even whether a category could replace them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinosF1 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would be the point of deleting lists that are necessarily going to be expanded as the year progresses? And re: categories, see
    WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep, no valid reason for deletion has been presented. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per
talk) 13:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Nothing much useful about this article, it just appears to be a calendar of routine events or photo awards. Only a few of them are notable and have dates attached. Consider nominating
2018 in photo as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: ATM just a calendar of events, no notability shown for most of it. There should be a limit before these articles can be created. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Should an RfC be started on the general need for calendar of events style articles? RhinosF1 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only real question is whether a particular topic merits one, not whether we should be doing it at all. Note also that I have struck your "delete" !vote above because you've already weighed in as the nominator, and using that formatting in a subsequent comment looks at first glance like separate support. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This topic shown no notability for a list. As has been pointed out the 2018 in photo article doesn't either. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for
Patriccck (the creator): What's this page supposed to be about: 2019 in photo(graph)s (plural), or 2019 in photography? -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- @
  talk) 15:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page appears to have been put together with particular laziness. It derives indirectly from (French)
WP:FLAGCRUFT. I'd be happy if there were a thoughtfully and energetically compiled article for each year in photography, but this article is just lazy. If somebody lacks the time or effort needed to create an article that goes some way toward being helpful, then that person shouldn't create the article at all -- is my belief, but it's not en:WP policy. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Good idea, but to say that the implementation is half-baked would be generous. Therefore, together with
Draft:2019 in photography moved there too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment to the creator.
Patriccck, this article would probably get a lot more sympathy from people (such as me) who think it's potentially worthwhile and perhaps also from people who (so far) don't think so, if you'd take the trouble to improve it. My own minor edit three days ago is the most recent. You've found enough spare time to edit cz:WP; how about editing this article? -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 06:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I think of "cs" as Czechoslovakia and avoid it. A silly mistake. ¶ Please see this edit, in which I changed red links to article titles in French to blue links to article titles in English. Go to fr:2019 en photographie, click on the blue links from it, and look in those pages for the titles of the English equivalents. That's how you'll find that fr:Prix Niépce is Niépce Prize. Replace the French name with the English one. By contrast, fr:Prix HSBC pour la photographie doesn't have an English equivalent. This English-language page of HSBC's shows that, surprisingly, the name even within English-language contexts is still "Prix HSBC pour la Photographie". Look at the bottom left of the French-language Wikipedia page for "Modifier les liens". This goes to Wikidata item Q3404784. So you provide the link "{{Illm|Prix HSBC pour la Photographie|WD=Q3404784}}". This will point to the Wikidata item as long as there is no English-language page. When there is an English-language page, the link will point to this page. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No change. It seems that when I wrote the comment immediately above, I was just wasting my time. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 16:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We’re only 17 days into the year for crying out loud. What notable achievements in photography have been done yet for an encyclopedic article? Let alone an accurate one. None.
WP:TOOSOON. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, hey! why isnt the
too soon. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep there's content and this type of article is a generally-accepted part of Wikipedia's navigational structure. If you really feel otherwise, you'll probably need an RFC and then some AFDs.
π, ν) 23:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Thinks: "Ha ha.
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Riverside Ground

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium this must be removed. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 19:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 19:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination and outcome of the similar AfD mentioned. This is
WP:NOTSTATS. There is also an entire category of similar articles that may need to be addressed: Category:Lists of international cricket five-wicket hauls by ground. Ajf773 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@ImmortalWizard: I am utterly confused. Here and in various other places you seem to be arguing that lists of fifers are notable and should not be deleted. So why have you nominated this one for deletion.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: for now, it should be deleted. It is unfair to keep some of them while deleting others. A clear concensus should be made in WikiProject Cricket for consistent guidelines and to avoid further dilemmas. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We either keep all or delete all, or have something in the middle like n number of fifers per ground. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, creators' work should not be overlooked. All of them should get fair treatment. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:ALLORNOTHING. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

'@

WP:MULTIAFD. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. I am closing these as "keep", but without prejudice to taking individual articles to AfD again if there seems sufficient reason to doubt their notability. Bundling these articles here made it very difficult for participants in the debate (and the closer) to judge notability/consensus. Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this nomination strikes me as curious given the comments the nominator made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket and messages they left on various user talk pages. They've also created three articles on exactly the same theme in the last 24 hours. It's not a great leap of imagination to arrive at a conclusion that they picked a featured list to AfD to prove some kind of point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a
WP:POINTY nomination, after the nom re-created this article, which had already been deleted via AfD. There is no valid reason in the deletion rationale of this nomination, and further more, the article in question is a Featured List. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Also note that 02blythed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contested the deletion on the talkpage of the M. A. Aziz Stadium article, after being missing on WP for the best part of TWO YEARS. What are the chances of this editor coming out of retirement to save this very niche article? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: So are you trying to say I am using sock puppets? And you have no right to call that niche considering there are dozens of articles like this (some FA). The only difference is that it has a underdeveloped lead unlike most of them, which, with enough time given, could be made better. After all, my main purpose of creating it in the first place was to have FA list. I felt that it had the potential since other ones have been as well. Otherwise, you have valid points and I would suggest MULTIAFD. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just pointing out this amazing coincidence. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no valid deletion nomination given. "One article of this type was deleted therefore they must all go" is a completely invalid argument. Discussion should take place at an appropriate location as to whether all/only some/none of these articles are valid for WP before any further half-cocked AfDs are started.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note - over 100 such articles have been bundled for deletion by the same nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve. The list of bundled articles include this one... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Square Thing: I had to do this. Hopefully everything will be resolved :) ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am coming to this AfD from
Wikipedia:Content_forking#Acceptable_types_of_forking The stadium article should contain a paragraph summarizing these lists and should have a link to the article about 5 wicket hauls. The readers of the stadium article would most likely also be interested in reading these records. I also note it is FL. (I also agree with what User:ChrisTheDude said above. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:50, 21 January 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.

Dewi Driegen

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

Proposing this NMODEL page and for the sake of brevity, other pages below along with it which all have the same problem in common. No verifiability for its bold claims about their respective careers. No reliable sources found or sometimes pure gossip. Really no sources besides modeling agency listings and directories.

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

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

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL [User talk:Trillfendi|talk) 02:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can we possibly assess all of these articles in one AfD? I'm not sure what the same problem they have in common is supposed to be - on a quick look at several, some are sourced only to Models.com, some don't have that as a source and have other sources instead, including magazine articles which need to be assessed for
WP:RS .... Please relist separately, so they can each be assessed on their own merits. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I assumed in seeing the only one sourced to a defunct online publication which had virtually nothing to do with her career it’d be easy to see why it was proposed with the others. But I guess that’ll have to be a two part-er. So I’ve trimmed it back down to these.Trillfendi (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like your style. I've seen AFDs with more bundled but usually not ones about notability, unless they're all stubs made by the same user. I'd advise nom to keep this open but unlink the bundled ones and just nominate them individually to avoid
WP:TRAINWRECK. SITH (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable references cited. Fails
WP:GNGMgbo120 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If the nominator is finally done altering the list of nominated articles, perhaps they could finish the nomination process by adding the proper templates to all of the nominated articles bundled in this nomination? See
talk) 07:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Lazily, I assumed it’d all lump together by itself but I’ve now sorted it out. Trillfendi (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Re Dewi Driegen: Vogue has a profile of her on The Vogue List. [4] I presume that this is a
New York Magazine? [5] RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment For Fabiana Semprebom, sources

WP:NEXIST

: a Google Books search shows snippet views of the following:

Para Ti (2007) - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "She was only 14 years old when a booker from the agency Ten discovered her walking the streets of San Pablo, Brazil "When she saw me, she proposed to take part in a contest and I won." More is visible in the snippet view [6]
Veja Rio (2010) - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "Retirement in half With a curriculum that includes campaigns for brands such as Dolce & Gabbana and Victoria's Secret, the model Fabiana Semperebom inaugurated the fashionable "half-retired"." (Snippet view shows nothing, unfortunately.)
Veja (2007) - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "The four cited as most promising are now guaranteed presence in the fashion circuit: Isabeli Fontana, Mariana Weickert, Fabiana Semperbom and Katarina Scola. Months later, Gisele Bündchen, who already shone on the fashion circuit, ..." (Snippet view shows nothing.)
Manchete (1999) - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "Fabiana Semperbom, one of the stars of the last Morumbi Fashion, came to her hands through an excursion from Maringá, Paraná. Years ago, when Panthera left his international career to return to Brazil, he was .." (Snippet view shows a small part of 4 columns, not possible to see if there's more about Fabiana.)
O Brasil na moda: backstage - Volume 2 (2003) - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "Later they would join the group Mariana Weickert, Talytha Pugliesi, Carolina Bittencourt, Ana Beatriz Barros, Vanessa Greca, Marcelle Bittar, Jeza Chiminazo, Raica, Fabiana Semperbom and Luciana Curtis. They dominated the scene in the two ..." (Snippet view shows a bit more, hard to see if there's more about Fabiana.)

That looks to me as if enough coverage does exist, verifying that she has appeared in the shows the article says she has (and that could verify some content previously deleted for lack of sourcing, such as walking for Victoria's Secret), but it is not easily found online. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For Danita Angell, I found a bit less, and some of what I have found will, I am sure, not be considered
WP:RS
because they are original magazines for sale on ecommerce sites, or scanned and posted on blogs. However, they do verify some of the content.

Harper's Bazaar, December 1999, Millennium IT list [7]
Vogue Italia, December 1999, inside [8]
Vogue Italia cover, January 2000 [9] (about the 8th post down, or search for Danita).
New York Times Magazine - photographed in the Doris Duke home, February 2001 [10]
New York Times Magazine - photographed in the Mark Twain House in October 2001 - a newspaper article about it in the Hartford Courant [11], and the NYT slideshow of the photos [12]
New York Times Magazine (2000) - another scene [13] RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For Fernanda Tavares, here are some things I found:

Elle, Volume 20, Issues 5-7, 2005, text visible in the google search result says "HEAVENLY CREATURES Brazilians such as the amply curvaceous Caroline Ribeiro, Fernanda Tavares, and (official spokeswoman for the push-up bra) Gisele Biindchen have dominated the catwalk in recent years. However, a new ..." (Snippet view shows nothing.)
Allure - Volume 13, Issues 5-8 - Page 56, 2003 - text visible in the google search result says "Versace Intensive Revitalizing eye masks were a hit with the show's makeup artists, who smoothed the cooling gel patches under the eyes of models such as and Karolina Kurkova, Fernanda Tavares, Amber Valletta before applying black ..." (Snippet view shows nothing relevant.)
Travel & Leisure - Volume 30 - Page 131, 2000 - text visible in the google search result says "STYLE/brazil Backstage, 19-year-old Fernanda Tavares—the world's number- two model—is getting her tresses blown out and leading the other models in a sing-along. Fernanda adores Brazilian clothes. On her feet are S2 Haviana flip-flops." Some is visible in snippet view [14], but not enough to see who she was modelling for.
A mulher potiguar: cinco séculos de presença - Page 1 - 2000 - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "In June of this year the beautiful potiguar Fernanda Tavares, of 17 years, pierced the blockade. It is no coincidence that she has been highlighted as the top of the Brazilian tops in the international fashion circuit. "At 20, Fernanda Tavares continues ..." Some is visible in snippet view, on three pages, but not enough to see what it says. [15]
Veja - Issues 1-4 - Page 118, 2005, - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "While a constellation of models ran from one show to another in the MAM, top Fernanda Tavares was circulating around the city, oblivious to the excitement of Fashion Rio. Fernanda spent the week recording four special summer episodes ..." (Snippet view shows nothing.)
An article about Dolce & Gabbana in The Australian Financial Review in November 2018 [16] includes a photo from 2002 of Fernanda Tavares with Dolce, Gabbana, Gisele Bundchen, Esther Canadas, and Naomi Campbell at the unveiling of the Dolce & Gabbana men's fashion collection for the Spring/Summer 2003, in Milan.
Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, 2015, has 'Yu (Tsai) and Me: Fernanda Tavares' [17] It says, "Fernanda first appeared in SI Swimsuit in 2001 and has been a legend ever since. Over the years, her work with photographers James Porto, Terry Richardson, Enrique Badulescu and Jr. Duran stunned readers and left a lasting impression on her career. She has also worked as a runway and commercial model with top-tier labels like Chanel, Prada, Ralph Lauren and Louis Vuitton—just to name a few. And with a successful MTV show in Brazil and a friendship with the wife of NFL football super star Tom Brady, we think it's safe to say Fernanda and her unwavering beauty aren't going anywhere anytime soon!"
There is coverage of her with her husband Murilo Rosa, for verification of the Personal life section. [18]

That looks like sustained coverage to me, and provides verification of some of the significant work she has done. I have not yet searched on her name and the brand names to find sources for each of them - probably more could be found. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Marcelle Bittar:

Alexander McQueen: Evolution [19] - Alexander McQueen Spring/Summer 2003.
O Brasil na moda: backstage, Volume 2 2003. Same as Fabiana Semprebom - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "Later they would join the group Mariana Weickert, Talytha Pugliesi, Carolina Bittencourt, Ana Beatriz Barros, Vanessa Greca, Marcelle Bittar, Jeza Chiminazo, Raica, Fabiana Semperbom and Luciana Curtis. They dominated the scene in the two ..." (Snippet view shows a bit more, her name is one two pages.)
Veja - Issues 1-4 - Page 8, 2008 - text visible in the google search result says (in translation) "Marcelle Bittar, model, and now host of a TV show, wisely avoiding the turmoil "In my time, they corrected us." Isabel Fillardis, on the models that are shaking the head Gisele: balancing ..." (Snippet view shows nothing.)
There's also plenty of current news coverage about her, in Portuguese - [20], including this [21] which indicates that as of January 2016, she was still working. It says, in rough translation, "With 16 years of brilliant trajectory on the runways, Marcelle Bittar (33) has plenty of reasons to celebrate. Recognized by the four corners of the world and in the list of the most requested tops of the fashion scene, Paraná says that fashion was responsible for major changes in her life. "The contact with different cultures, the trips, the responsibilities still in the adolescence, the challenges and the difficulties that I had to face in the beginning of the race, all this made me mature. Today, I have more peace of mind to make choices and manage my time better, "she points out during her stay at Nannai Resort & Spa, in the paradise of Porto de Galinhas, in Pernambuco. Without thinking about retirement, Marcelle gives tips to anyone who wants to enter the market. "There are a lot of girls betting on this career, which increases competition. Being persistent, determined, professional and responsible is what makes the model different, "teaches the beauty, proud of her deeds. "I never imagined getting where I came from. If I could, I would do it all again, but with the maturity I have today," she says.

Again, that looks like sustained coverage. I could search her name with brand names, to verify work she has done, but there is already more that could be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of them. Sources
WP:BEFORE has been done: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". The articles do need more citations, but that is not a reason to bring them to AfD - "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources". RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

None of the sources I found were credible in my Before, from searching page after page after page of Google, including those from Google Books (sometimes nothing showed up at all...). If a model is a model, she would have sources in fashion magazines, not only some random coffee table books. One thing should be abundantly clear, NYMag’s defunct model profile directory is not enough for an article to stand upon. I can give a bunch of examples of non-notable models who have them too. Being in SI Swimsuit doesn’t automatically create notability, especially if other sources that aren’t SI itself can’t back it up. Being on a tv is not notability if we can’t get verification for it. The Vogue Paris thing I found for Driegen showed a 404 error.

That leaves the only one I can see keeping here: Fernanda Tavares. NEXIST should be NVERIFIABLE.Trillfendi (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I dug, and found the Vogue Paris article on the Wayback Machine. What on earth is wrong with being in a coffee table book? though only one of these sources could be called that anyway .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the 21st century, model’s careers are documented by magazines and the Internet. Being in the coffee table books isn’t wrong, duh, but if that’s the only source out there and the references don’t even work it makes no sense.Trillfendi (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as RebeccaGreen has found several supporting sources, there are more sources available in foreign-language media (esp. Portuguese), and the nomination seems to be founded on some basic misunderstandings about
talk) 16:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all since sources exist.-
WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The reason I nominated these is that just because sources “exist” out there, doesn’t mean they’re automatically reliable or even usable. Marcelle Bittar stands completely unreferenced. Dewi Driegen only has a models.com profile that doesn’t show anything the article says. Danita Angell has a dead link and a FashionModelDirectory profile. Fabiana Semprebom’s article has absolutely no information about her career and just a models.com profile. I said it at the jump, no sources are out there to even verify this information. Articles must have references that people can
actually see and use. These picture books are not meant to support a whole article and should only be used as a last resort if that. If a model does Dior, for example, typically there is a magazine article, whether brief or a spotlight, that exhibits that. Trillfendi (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I forgot to mention in the previous comment the reason I nominated Ferndada Tavares was the only source I could find was from New York Post 15 years ago. Trillfendi (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for
WP:NMODEL. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 01:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Bakazaka: sure, but if we have to use them in place of English sources, I expect foreign sources to also be reliable and in-depth - the same standard I'd use if they were all in English. The citations above are passing mentions or asides - I don't see any in-depth profiles of the models in any notable publications, foreign or otherwise. Which ones would you use to make your notability case(s)? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 01:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Bakazaka: Tavares was a weak keep, so ultimately no real disagreement there. The other three are the ones in question. I'm not sure that being on the cover of a magazine is enough - if there's nothing else, and no reliable info exists with which to build a reasonable BLP. But if anything this has been a fun afd to research - moving on to less glamorous subjects. Cheers. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a field which is heavily dependent upon publicity, and it can be expected that all sources wil be contaminated by PR. We probably in field like this will have to find some othre basis of decision. I'm not familiar enough with the field to be the best person to devise one, bu tthe first question I'd ask is whether we are judging from those best known and most highly thought of within the profession (as we do with many special categories), or those best known to the general public. Read literally, the only applicable criterion for non-pornographic models in nMODEL is that they have a large fan base. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: It's not always about the general public per se. Many, many, many models who have articles on this website are not household names at all yet have notability criteria in their respective ways. The way the industry trend is these days, Instagram followers are considered a "large fan base" (people like Gigi and Bella Hadid for example) but that doesn't warrant an article, of course. If anything it's just pure unmitigated trivia. On top of it being very mercurial in a lot of ways. If Instagram all of a sudden disappeared I'm sure they'd still have a career. Model Anna Ewers was titled "Model of the Year" for 2015 and she is known for not having "that many" followers compared to other supermodels. What is supposed to make a model's article is their work plus reliable sources. And the way I see it is if we shouldn't have to be digging 5ft to find sources, especially ones we can barely see. Defeats the purpose, really. Trillfendi (talk) 22:03, 22 January 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.

Johnny Issaluk

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

properly referenced

. As always, none of these are fields where a person is granted an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because he's technically verifiable as existing, but the referencing here is not cutting it in terms of establishing that he's notable:

His claims of notability as an athlete derive from sporting events, such as the International Arctic Games, that do not confer an automatic pass of
WP:GNG
if they're the best you can actually do for referencing.
His appearance in a short documentary film is metareferenced to a Vimeo copy of the film, rather than any evidence of reliable source media coverage about the film.
His authorship of a book about traditional Inuit sport is metareferenced to its own publication details, rather than any evidence of reliable source media coverage about the book to get him over
WP:NAUTHOR
.
His claims of notability as an actor boil down to supporting and bit parts, not major roles for the purposes of clearing
WP:NACTOR
, and are completely unreferenced. But actors do not get a free NACTOR pass just because roles have been listed, as that would hand a free inclusion pass to every single actor who exists at all — the notability test for an actor is the reception of reliable source media coverage about his work as an actor, but none has been shown here at all.
His claims of notability as a cultural educator include being awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, a one-off award which was presented to 60,000 Canadians in 2012 and thus does not instantly make them all notable in and of itself if no other notability for other reasons has been properly demonstrated; participating in an expedition that's "referenced" only to a photograph on the self-published website of the organization that sponsored that expedition; and winning a non-notable award from that same organization, as referenced only to an article in that organization's own self-published member magazine which glancingly namechecks Issaluk's existence in the process of being primarily about somebody else.

All of which means that none of the referencing here is properly establishing him as notable at all, and none of the claims are "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— KEEP:

@Bearcat, I've just updated the article based on the issues you reference above. I definitely feel the article should not be deleted, as I believe Issaluk meets the standards for NACTOR / GNG having been the lead in a film which debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival (Kajutaijuq), supporting roles in two other TIFF films (Indian Horse and Falls Around Her), supporting roles in high profile film and television (Indian Horse was produced by Clint Eastwood, and the Terror was produced by Ridley Scott), etc. Most recently he was Romesh Ranganathan's guest star on his primetime BBC2 program.

My sense based on the social media around him is that when people search for him they are looking for him as an actor, so I've revised the article so that that sections on Traditional Inuit Games and Community Work come later (and I've kept them intact because they are relevant to his career as one of the only Inuit actors to appear in feature films and television).

Let me know what you think. Qilalugaq (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained, actors are not guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they've had roles, or even because of where the films they had roles in happen to have premiered or what other notable person happens to have produced them — notability is

primary sources rather than reliable or notability-supporting media, and even among the ones that are media, the only one that's about him to any non-trivial degree, rather than just glancingly mentioning his name in the process of being about something or somebody else, is still a limited circulation local newsweekly and not a major media outlet. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep. I think he clears

WP:GNG, having good mentions in the Mississauga News, the CBC, and Nunavat News, with supporting documentation elsewhere. Curiocurio (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

He doesn't have a "good mention" in the CBC, he just gave a brief soundbite at the film's premiere in an article that's about the film, not about him. People get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG, not by being soundbite-givers in articles about other subjects — and neither the Mississauga News nor the Nunavut News are widely distributed enough to constitute "enough media coverage to clear GNG" if they're the best the subject can actually show. And "supporting documentation" doesn't carry notability either, if the person hasn't been properly shown to clear

WP:GNG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

@Bearcat Thanks so much for following up. I 100% understand what you're saying and why you're saying it and appreciate the time you're taking with this. I have added new secondary sources from the Toronto Star which discuss Issaluk's acting more directly as well as an interview with him featured in this month's issue of Canadian Geographic. Part of the difficulty in sourcing this particular article is exactly why I wrote it in the first place: major media outlets (the kind that ensure an article easily passes Wiki GNG standards) don't tend to cover Arctic or indigenous issues and people. So as a writer who wants to see better representation on Wikipedia and help to grow WikiProject Arctic and WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America (both of whom Issaluk is indexed under), I'm often stuck using sources from less-circulated media (like smaller newspapers in the north that are often considered too local to be objective) or settling for small clips or soundbites of Arctic/indigenous actors in articles that spend the majority of the time talking about the widely-recognized Southern or European stars. (It's definitely disheartening to see so many non-white actors/artists on the AfD chopping block over precisely this issue.) In Issaluk's case, however, I genuinely believe we've reached the proper GNG threshold based on Wiki's guidelines, but of course I welcome further discussion, as I know we have the same goal, which is to democratize knowledge without sacrificing rigor. Qilalugaq (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, as important as it is to improve our representation of underrepresented groups, we don't and can't do that by creating special lowered notability standards under which members of minority groups can get in the door on less accomplishments, and/or less reliable source coverage, than a straight white man would need to show. As unfortunate as it is that some groups of people don't get as much media coverage as others do, it's also not our role to

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by waiving our notability and sourcing standards just because the subject happens to be a person of colour, or a woman, or LGBTQ, and on and so forth. (For example, it's not our responsibility to institute a rule that only straight white men would actually have to pass a notability standard before they get in the door, while women and people of colour and LGBTQ folk could get in the door just for existing.) Unfair though it may seem if you believe in the goal of improving representation (which I do as well, by the way), we can't do it by waiving our notability and sourcing rules just because the subject happens to be a member of one of the underrepresented groups — we do it by working harder to find the women, LGBTQs and people of colour who do meet our existing notability and sourcing standards and are just getting ignored or missed, rather than by creating special reduced notability and sourcing standards for them. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

WP:BASIC
.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

A fair bit of
Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still firmly in Keep over here, especially since the Romesh's BBC show does focus quite a lot on Issaluk as a notable person (presumably also why he was chosen to be the star), though I understand that not all countries are able to view this so perhaps something could be added to the article to clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qilalugaq (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Do know that you cannot vote twice. Removed the bolded Keep vote.
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I have found evidence of him winning medals at the Arctic Winter Games in 2002 (1 gold, 1 silver) in a Team Nunavut report [25]. The 2002 game results do not seem to be on the Arctic Winter Games website [26], and no years prior to 2000 are listed either. That aside, I believe he does meet
WP:BASIC, as there is certainly coverage "in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Some of it does appear to be significant coverage, and "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Besides the sources currently in the article, I found other coverage too, including a review of his book [27], and other news coverage, such as [28]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an article on his book in a children's lit review journal, and his book is also cited in an article in University of Kent's Transmotion (I have added these references to the main article). While I don't think he would pass NAUTHOR on its own, I definitely think he meets BASIC. Gilded Snail (talk) 20:13, 17 January 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Saif Sporting Club season

2018–19 Saif Sporting Club 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:GNG. PROD was removed by a user who claimed that WP:NSEASONS does not require fully professional status, however there is clear consensus that this is not the case (see 1, 2, 3 (with links to several more), 4, 5). Kosack (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As I've noted before,
WP:GNG. I'd like to see this developed because I'm curious if enough sources exist, but a quick couple BEFORE searches brings up cricket articles, so I don't have a good keep argument. SportingFlyer talk 08:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: season article for a top tier club in a national league, thus meeting
~~WP:GNG. Cobyan02069 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)~~[reply
]
Draftify: after another look, the article lacks a lot of references meeting GNG, so it should be moved to draft space first until it is ready for a standalone article. Cobyan02069 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSEASONS is top professional leagues, not a fully professional league Hhkohh (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:GNG issue. Kosack (talk
) 07:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC
)Pinging Number 57, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the above, consensus is that with regards to football, WP:NSEASONS is only met if the league is fully-professional (see e.g. here). Number 5 7 09:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think the consensus is that strong, if it exists at all - having reviewed a number of these AfDs (primarily the ones linked at Leyton Orient), the professionalism was a requirement only you and Fenix Down really have discussed (also here:
WP:GNG is satisfied through non-routine reporting as opposed to any sort of arbitrary cutoff... SportingFlyer talk 06:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The consensus exists; if you want some non-English examples: Faroe Islands, Iran, Luxembourg, Scotland, Wales. Worth noting that Fenix down actually started a couple of them (the Faroese and Welsh ones) on the basis that clubs need to play in a fully-professional league, so their claim below that their interpretation that the consensus only covers English leagues doesn't appear to be correct. Number 5 7 10:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think we should be deleting articles based off an arbitrary rule without looking at
WP:GNG (which some of those articles clearly fail.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I disagree with the comments above that the consensus is that leagues must be fully professional. My interpretation of previous discussions was that those AfDs established a very specific consensus, namely that whilst there is a sufficient degree of professionalism within the National League in England, that it is too far down the pyramid to be considered a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. The AfDs noted above to my mind either deal with the English pyramid question or leagues which are deomnstrably semi-professional. Discussions both here and here show, that whilst there is not consensus that the league is fully professional, that there is a significant level of professionalism in this competition beyond that found in the AfDs above for those competitions. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a top-level football club in Bangladesh. This season has received significant coverage particularly in this piece. FOARP (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article is really about McKinstry and doesn't give much details on the club, let alone this individual season. Kosack (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:NSEASONS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another instance of system bias and discrimination. This is a top level club and they deserve to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.225.128 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was under the impression that to satisfy
WP:SIGCOV. Jay eyem (talk) 01:00, 21 January 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. This was not the easiest close I've done but overall I find the analysis of sources cited to support WP:N by DBigXray to be persuasive and the responses to their analysis, not so much. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

This is a non-notable political party, a splinter group of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (precursor of BJP). The lone source that has been cited for its existence has gone dead, and I can't find any other. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Fails
WP:NORG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We really shouldn't consider deletion of this article until we've had input from Hindi speakers because likely any sources that may exist will be in Hindi. Let's hit up the India project and ask them. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP India was already hit up with edits by User:Abelmoschus Esculentus above who added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India which is how I got notified. India has a lot of major English newspapers in every region, so if the subject is notable, coverage in english media exist mostly. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:INHERIT notability from Jan Sangh, which is a notable party but "Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh" is not notable. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. I am unable to find coverage of substance. Vanamonde (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, party is notable, in press we find a number of articles in which the party is the main subject: Times of India, Times of India, The Tribune, The Hindu, The Hindu, The Tribune, Jagran, etc. --Soman (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soman: All those sources are doing is reproducing press releases or statements by party officials. These bits of information do not constitute intellectually independent coverage, and as such do not count towards GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per the
WP:ORGCRIT.--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes

Times of India N N Y N N A single-para article based on the press statement issued by ABJS

Times of India N N Y N N A single-para article based on the press statement issued by ABJS

The Tribune N N Y N N statement of president of the national youth wing of the ABJS

The Hindu Y N Y N N article based on the statement of the ABJS after its meeting

The Hindu N Y Y Y N A single-sentence mention of ABJS in the article about municipal election results.

The Tribune N N Y N N Statement of chief general secretary of ABJS

Jagran N N Y N N Statement of regional general secretary of ABJS

Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
WP:ORGCRIT

--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that these are simply press-releases (which would be these newspapers re-printing something the party had written verbatim). They are coverage of party announcements in reliable sources, which is different as it shows those sources at least thought the party notable enough to report their announcements. I am not sure this makes for
WP:SIGCOV though, since they aren't coverage of the party per se. I also see some Google books coverage 1 2. Leaning towards a very week keep but still don't feel I know enough about this topic to really say either way. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
My main reason for nominating this article for deletion is that the party pretends to be the authentic
Jan Sangh. That is what its web site says, viz., that it was founded in 1951 by Shayama Prasad Mukherjee. There are no secondary sources that verify this claim, and the page has become an unsourced POV pit. If any of the Keep voters are willing to clean up the page and maintain it, there would be no harm in keeping it. They shouldn't be expecting the community to waste its meagre resources on this pointless page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
In what sense? "Akhil Bhartiya Jan Sangh (also known as ABJS) was originated from the roots of Bhartiya Jana Sangh. Bhartiya Jana Sangh or Jana Sangh was established in 1951 by Shri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee who died in 1953. Akhil Bhartiya Jan Sangh was established in 1979." Isn't that a correct statement, that ABJS originates in the original Jana Sangh? Clearly the article indicates that the 1951 BJS and the 1979 ABJS are distinct entities. --Soman (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soman AFAIK, Jan Sangh merged with other parties into Janta Party which further disintegrated into other parties. BJP is what Jana Sangh morphed into. As of now it is not even established which year did ABJS came into existence. The year 1979 without any ref, was in the infobox and it was me who copied it from infobox it into the article, I tagged it as ^{[citation needed]}. Remember Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and reliable third party source covering the subject according to the above criteria is what this article is severely lacking. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed 2 sources presented by FOARP, 1 wrongly mentions
WP:ORGCRIT--DBig Xrayᗙ 22:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete None of the sources shown here or in the article (which is a dead link to 2014 election results) pass
WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Absolutely a notable subject with large amount of coverage in independent reliable academic references.[29] (by
WP:LINKROT. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

You are confusing between "Bharatiya Jan Sangh" BJS and "Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh" ABJS. All the sources that you presented above are referring to
Bharatiya Jan Sangh, that was founded by Syama Prasad Mukherjee in 1951 (even though your source mentions ABJS as a synonym of BJS). Here is another reliable source that mentions the 1951 conventions correctly In 1951, he was the convener of the first convention of Bharatiya Jana Sangh and was appointed the national Secretary--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Wrong. All of these sources (which I cited) are significantly discussing "Akhil Bharatiya Jana Sangh" as anyone can read only by clicking on the links. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Jan Sangh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

First source has discussed the party which was founded after 1979. 39.53.191.74 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no independent coverage of note and India has a history of party schism, with people going off in a huff, shouting loudly to the media and then achieving nothing of note. Quite often, the splinter group seems to end up back inside the party from which it split. A single sentence in the main party article would do the job nicely here - this thing isn't even worthy of a redirect because it hasn't actually done anything. that I can see. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage to allow separate article. Article is about a party that was founded in 1970s by Balraj Madhok. Previous stable version mentioned Balraj Madhok as the founder,[34] but now the article is lacking any mention of him. Many relevant sources sufficiently discuss the party that was founded in 1970s by Balraj Madhok.[35](a whole chapter) [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] The article can be made larger with these sources. 39.53.191.74 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP,

secondary sources. to pass the criteria. I have analyzed these sources.--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 19:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Jansangh (Madhok) Manifesto, The Election Archives, Volumes 53-58 (a whole chapter)	?	N	N	N	N	The Manifesto of the party prepared for contesting an election is a primary and self published source
Communalisation Of Politics And 10th Lok Sabha Elections, Asghar Ali Engineer	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A single-line passing mention of Madhok saying that he revived Jansangh.
Assembly elections, 1980	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A single line mention That ABJS will be contesting in the 1980 election.
shodhganga	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This source discusses BJP in great detail but does not even mention the subject ABJS.
Political awakening in Kashmir	N	Y	Y	Y	N	The source does not mention ABJS even in passing.
Deccanherald	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article that reports suspicion that the posters in the city might be from ABJS, but only mentions it in 1 para. Fails significant criteria.
patrika	N	N	Y	Y	N	WP:NOTINHERITED
aajtak	N	N	Y	Y	N	WP:NOTINHERITED
theprint	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This source discusses BJP in great detail but only mention the subject ABJS in passing stating that ABJS remained a "sulking fiefdom of Madhok".
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements WP:ORGCRIT

--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources referred. Meets
Talk2Me|Contribs) 17:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Simply insisting that significant coverage exists is meaningless. Intellectually independent, substantive coverage of the organization that is actually the subject of this page needs to be demonstrated, and it simply hasn't been so far. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 22 January 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.

Rainmaster

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

Clear

FANCRUFT. Whole arbitrary distinction not judged to any official conditions. Not a suitable topic for an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. T v x1 18:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. clpo13_(talk) 19:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per
WP:NPOV. A sparsely used term in motorsport. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
WP:NOR Nigej (talk) 16:10, 23 January 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.

Venari Resources

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

does not meet the notability criteria Ekgoranson (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)— Ekgoranson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep it does, at least talk to the creator. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So the company wants it deleted because they don't have the time to use it for spamming and promotion? Not a valid reason. However, no evidence that they pass
WP:ORG, so delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It looks a little more respectable with the bare urls expanded. I've made a start. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per @Northernhenge:'s additions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. $1 billion funding and a couple of oil discoveries seem significant enough to me. The Forbes citation^[1] is convincing, as is this one^[2]. And I agree with Joseph that staffing changes at the company shouldn't determine whether or not we retain the article. Meticulo (talk) 12:32, 18 January 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. clpo13_(talk) 17:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mareva Arnaud Tchong

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

A non-notable subject that fails

WP:BASIC. The article is entirely reliant upon a primary source and an unreliable source, and source searches are providing no better. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the Community of Christ publication listed could be seen as a indepdent enough source, the fact we have not an article at all but an interview means that we have on the not even one source that could be seen as adding toward passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source I could find, besides the interview, were the two articles on the 'Tahiti Infos' site, one of which only mentions her name in a list of others. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete---Primary source is not in any way, shape, or form a reliable source and I can't seem much to justify inclusion in the google searches. --Church ^Talk 21:28, 17 January 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 MNL48. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Trinidad

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

This article is about a singer from an idol group,

notability independent of the group. Redirection to the group would be an option, but would very likely challenged. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheki Arzaga. Whpq (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Meticulo (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MNL48 as a member of a musical group. An article can be recreated if future coverage warrants one. feminist (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:NBAND, 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. The article can be recreated when she has achieved notability as an individual. Hzh (talk) 16:03, 23 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotronic Art

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

Notability of this article is dubious. Psychotronic art seems less a 'movement' than the practice of a single artist. A quick search of the internet was unable to find reliable sources independent of the subject, let alone significant coverage. Meticulo (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yet another made-up Russian "art movement". Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism associated with a single artist's work. The article uses a totally unrelated (1975) source in an effort to pad out claims about a term coined over twenty years later. There's nothing here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it might be a thing, but people will have to write about it extensively in RS before it's an article.
talk) 15:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - unable to find any independent reliable sources. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above as not sourceable, not notable, not a keeper. --Lockley (talk) 04:49, 23 January 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 MNL48. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sela Guia

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

This article is about a singer from an idol group,

notability independent of the group. Redirection to the group would be an option, but would very likely challenged. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheki Arzaga Whpq (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Redirect to
talk) 19:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MNL48 as a member of a musical group. An article can be recreated if future coverage warrants one. feminist (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:NBAND - 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. The article can be recreated when she has achieved individual notability. Hzh (talk) 15:53, 23 January 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.

Kuzhur Wilson

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

Contested prod. Article was draftified, then moved back without review. Non-notable poet, very poorly sourced. Has been created and deleted (or moved to draftspace) several times. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass

WP:AUTHOR. Lots of unsubstantiated claims, very promotional. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delte lacks adequate sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is questionable, and article is in poor condition. Includes unreliable sources such as Facebook and author's own web site, which is evidence of
Reference Bombing. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - clear failure of
WP:GNG. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Kevin Markarian

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

I do not believe this individual meets

WP:NBIO as I can find no substantial coverage of him in reliable independent sources. Kevin Markarian sells real estate in San Francisco and seems to think his biography should be in Wikipedia. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is excessively promotional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a
π, ν) 23:58, 22 January 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. clpo13_(talk) 17:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajneesh Kapoor

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

I do not believe this individual meets

WP:NBIO as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Dr Kapoor is a cardiologist at Medanta, a large medical institute in India. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and the article is excessively promotional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

The article Rajneesh Kapoor is to provide information on medical practitioner from India, is of great importance as the personality in article holds practice & office that deals with human life. All information provided is fact based and true to every bit , profound and linked with reliable sources. Article Rajneesh Kapoor informs people on various aspects of life of doctor in detail, which is deemed as extremely crucial to people seeking healthcare information. As a unbiased & community serving contributor , my appeal to all contributors is to encourage information on people having stakes in human life and not delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitabhilash (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Credithealth.com and linked-in are not reliable independent sources, and Medanta is his employer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional fluff. Does not meet general notability standards. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234 Respected Contributor , with due respect to your viewpoint, may i request a change in viewpoint . The profile holds important stakes in healthcare system of India. The profile is approached by many Indian political leaders & other high profile personalities for sensitive treatments. He hold a high value speaker position in educating other medical specialities through regular medical education programs. He specialises exclusively in many critical surgeries such as TVI , mitral valve clipping ( very few in India ) . He is extremely active in public awareness programs with ministers and other leaders of public value. Taking into consideration information on profile solicits notability. Amitabhilash (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Amit[reply]

Note Despite his claims to the contrary, I have convincing off-wiki evidence that User:Amitabhilash is an undisclosed paid editor employed by Medanta (Rajneesh Kapoor's employer) for PR work. I have consequently blocked his account. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:45, 24 January 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stachnikville, Illinois

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. I can't even find solid evidence that this place was real, let alone was in Tazewell County. Closeapple (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete per my own nomination. The couple of web sources are very, very vague and sometimes make contradictory statements: https://www.ghosttowns.com/states/il/stachnikville.html (which I only cited because sourcing is slim pickings for this topic) says "The town originated in 1856 reached it peak in 1873 and then began a steep decline. For some reason Morton Community Bank ("Hometown Community Banks") posted a Facebook message about a couple of ghost towns: "Another, somewhat more mysterious ghost town is Stachnikville in Tazewell County. Stachnikville was a large community with a population, said by some sources, to be in the many thousands. Not only is there no trace of it today, but nobody seems to know exactly where it was. We tried to investigate but had no luck. Best guess might be the Pekin/East Peoria area since the town was largely made up of coal miners. How about it?" There's where the suspicion starts:

If a town was "in the many thousands" and "reached its peak in 1873", it would have been one of the major settlements in Illinois: Even the county seat of Pekin was only 1,678 in 1850 and 5,696 by 1870. Yet somehow it's on no maps. No hits on the Google Search of Historic Map Works, which usually has at something. In the directory of subscribers to the 1872 Lyter & Co. atlas has nobody named Stachnik and nobody shown as being in Stachnikville. There appears to be no town/subdivision plat named Stachnikville either: https://tazewellil.devnetwedge.com/ shows no subdivision by that name (not that there had to be).
Facebook post says "nobody seems to know exactly where it was" and GhostTowns.com has no location yet claims "REMAINS: A large valley, an abandoned house". But this Wikipedia article (which has existed since creation in 2014 by User:Palletcarl) says "The only thing that still remains is the Hillman Street Barn", a claim which seems to appear nowhere else on the Internet. How does anyone know what elements still exist if nobody knows where it is? By the way: The only Hillman Street in Tazewell County is in sections 7 and 8 of northwestern Washington Township, northeast of East Peoria, not south by Pekin. That subdivision is Harvard Hills, which I'm pretty sure is a 20th-century subdivision, though it's possible that Harvard Hills overlays an earlier subdivision. I see two somewhat-barns at 311 and 314 Hillman St., and 2 buildings that could vaguely meet an inaccurate description of "Hillman Street Barn": Harvard Hills Southern Baptist Church, 109 Hillman St., at the southeast corner with Green Ave.; and the Harvard Hills Water Association, 101 S. Berhrens Ave., the first building from the the southeast corner with Hillman St. The 1872 Lyter & Co. atlas page of Washington Township shows no town, no Hillman Street, and no other streets (other than Spring Creek Road) in that area.

So this discussion page now has more information than everything else on the web. --Closeapple (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this rather odd document from something claiming to be the "General Post Office of the United States", but it appears to be based on Wiki. Nothing else showed up. Appears to be some kind of hoax or mistake. FOARP (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that site also. It's either fantasy, fraud, or both. They appear to have copy-pasted some Wikipedia page into one of their crazy documents, which makes it show up in search results. The whole site is very weird, and it also links to other sites that appear to be trying to sell "copyright registration" for profit without any government authority. --Closeapple (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seemingly the creation of a contributor to (non-RS) ghosttowns.com, which has taken on a life of its own. Appears in no reliable sources, including contemporary ones. Does not appear in any way in Illinois records of coal mining in Tazewell County. The cited article in the Peoria Journal Star does not support the claim it is being used to reference, and does not mention Stachnikville, or anything similar, whatsoever. As to the other thing discovered by FOARP, that's hot nonsense created by a fringe group in the tax denialist/sovereign citizen vein (the giveaway is the reference to the "Bar Treaty of 1947", which doesn't exist, and... let's just go ahead and firmly conclude that wouldn't be a reliable source even if it wasn't using Wikipedia for its town list!). It's plausible that we're missing an abandoned Tazewell County coal mining town, perhaps even near what is now Harvard Hills. But I'm pretty confident that such a town, if it existed, wasn't named Stachnikville. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not reliable sources showing this place ever existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 21 January 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 withdrawn. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lifepod (1981 film)

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

No significant coverage per

WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was really surprised by how few references there were of any kind that even mentioned this film. This was the only one that was even close and I don't think it meets
~~WP:GNG.~~ Very Weak Keep per Squeamish Ossifrage FOARP (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not a notable film, don't think it passes WP:FILM. Skirts89 (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Searches are complicated by the unrelated 1993 TV movie of the same name. As for the 1981 film (some sources say 1980)... maybe? The source FOARP found might be RS; the article is bylined, the site does have an editorial team, and they do actually pay its contributors. It also has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Despite the wiki-like appearance of that site, it's likely a reliable source; its articles are bylined (and many of the contributors are experts in the field), has legitimate editorial policies and editorial control, and is actually effectively published by Victor Gollancz Ltd. It is intended to be fairly comprehensive in its topic area, though, so I'm not sure inclusion directly speaks to notability. The Psychotronic Video Guide calls it a knockoff of 2001, but not much else. It has entries in a number of more-or-less indiscriminate video catalogs, including VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever and the voluminous Gale-published Video Source Book (which gave it a 1-star review). Sky Cinema gave it a half-hearted review as well. I very strongly suspect that there's more coverage in early 1980s print media, but haven't a clue where I'd start looking. The material I was able to find is... well, it's pretty thin gruel, and I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for advocating for deletion. Still, we've got a few reviews, and a little bit of commentary, and it's an early appearance of several legitimately notable actors. I feel we could do worse than retaining this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified above (at least three of them) such as reliable book sources so it just about passes
WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw: Per new sources. SL93 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 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) 22:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

Territoriya

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

A non-notable Sergey Zhukov's musical album.--RTY9099 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 06:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been speedy to me.Trillfendi (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Assuming in good faith that Sergey Zhukov is notable (and I really haven't tried to evaluate), his album titles are plausible search terms, and so should be redirected to the artist if they lack independent notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 05:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect (to Sergey Zhukov) per Squeamish' arguments. There isn't notability established but it's a feasible search term. If the artist turns out not to be notable himself, then this will obviously be deleted with it. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Invalid deletion rationale. No prejudice against a speedy renomination.

(non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 17:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply